George Lakoff vs. Sun Tzu

Steve Bucknum

At the recent meeting of the State Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Oregon in Pendleton, we learned that about 90% of the County Chairs and Congressional District Chairs had read Lakoff's book, 'Don't think of an elephant!' I'm beginning to wonder if we are reading the right book.

The Lakoff book informs us how messages are created, and how to frame values and debates. That is well and good, and very important. We have to have good messages to reach voters. We have to frame debates using common sense so that we can express our values. But is that enough?

Not hardly. In politics a framed message is like a weapon. It only works if it is used, used at the right time, and the right place. We are all talking about framing issues and creating good messages, but are we talking about the strategy of how to use these messages? Not collectively. In the two days of the Pendleton meeting, I cannot recall one single conversation on strategy. Okay, I was in the Platform committee, not the Campaign committee meeting -- so maybe it happened some and I missed it. But still, shouldn't strategy be a consuming interest of Democrats?

Which brings me to the reading list.

Determining points of intervention, places to act, and messages to frame is a strategic process. I recall that in the early days of the Rural Organizing Project (ROP) here in Oregon, when we were more nose to nose fighting the Oregon Citizen's Alliance (OCA) on their hateful measures against Gays and Lesbians, we made some strategic decisions. We decided on a strategy to interrupt the petition signing process for the OCA. (Take the battle to their backyard.) We did neighbor to neighbor postcards urging people, 'At your door or at the store, think before you sign.' That time around, the OCA didn't get enough signatures, and it was the beginning of the end for that part of the Hydra-headed right wing monster.

Underlying that action by the ROP was a study of strategy. We studied a text full of strategic concepts. Some in the 'peace' end of the progressive camp were upset, but really I think that Ghandi and MLK Jr. were very strategic in their pacifist actions. So, if you can get by the title, the 'Art of War' by Sun Tzu makes good reading for concepts in strategy. War is after all a very good metaphor for politics.

Study of the 'Nine Terrains' (a chapter in the 'Art of War') is a good metaphor for having political strength in one part of the State, but not others -- and how to maximize our strength and minimize the power of the other side. (If we attack their homelands, and cause them to defend their base, then they will not have enough strength left to attack our base. -- Makes you want to spend more time/effort/money in Eastern Oregon!) There is a lot of good advice for strategy in these works -- 'When you are committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When your objective is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby.' These works have stood the test of thousands of years, in fact that some of it has risen to the level of 'common sense' in that we have heard parts before.

So, if you've read Lakoff, but have not ever read Sun Tzu, I highly recommend it.

By Steve Bucknum
April 30, 2005
  • Jon (unverified)
    10:36 a.m.
    Apr 30, '05
    (Show?)

    For what it's worth, I've written a couple of pieces on Lakoff. The first ("Framed") is a mildly critical discussion, the second ("Team America") suggests an alternative model.

    Here are some excerpts from the two pieces:

  • From "Framed"
    • In the wake of November’s disaster for Democrats, liberals and progressives of all stripes have been seeking guidance and comfort in the work of cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff. All the rage among Democrats, his book Don’t Think of An Elephant has introduced the term “framing” into the daily lexicon of political animals. For devastated Democrats trying to plot their return from the wilderness, Lakoff has taken on almost mythic status. And that’s probably not a good thing. While a helpful diagnosis of the Democrats’ maladies, Dr. Lakoff’s prescription may well make the patient worse. Lakoff casually dismisses fundamental differences among liberal constituencies that cannot – and should not - be so easily bridged. He does not address the 21st century media environment, which by blurring politics, entertainment, news and opinion, naturally offers the conservatives’ “strict father” morality play a built-in advantage. Worst, Lakoff’s model for a progressive public philosophy and values messages leads to a misdirected liberalism and electoral defeat...
  • From "Team America"
    • I'm largely in agreement with Kevin Drum's assessment of Lakoff over at the Washington Monthly. In a nutshell, Lakoff's analysis of the GOP's success is valuable and his branding tools helpful, but his prescriptions for Democrats are a recipe for continued electoral defeat. Among the shortcomings of Lakoff's approach is his concept of the "nurturant parent" model for progressives, which leaves a fragmented Democratic Party divided and weakened against the conservatives' "strict father" morality play in the 21st century media messaging wars. Lakoff's framing exercise has value for progressives, but not with an "empathetic family" at it core. Since 2003, Perrspectives has labelled the GOP agenda "The Opt Out Society", offered approaches for branding it as such, and developed an alternative progressive public philosophy, the "New American Bargain." What’s needed to articulate that is a different frame. One that projects confidence, unity, aspiration – all the while working with, not running counter, to the trajectory of 21st century media. Forward looking, rewarding success, respecting personal autonomy, requiring shared responsibility, empowering each citizen to achieve their utmost and setting and achieving common national goals (a concept of “winning”, if you will), those are the values needed in a new Democratic “frame.” And the model for that is not a family, but a team...