Nonsense. Look at how the GOP managed to frame the debate on the “Death Tax.” Simple turns of phrase or language are extensively researched by right-wing think-tanks. Phrases like “Death Tax” or “Pro-Life” are things that are focus-grouped, researched, and field-tested.

There is a *lot* more discipline and focus on maintaining a very tightly controlled message on the right than there is on the left. Is that a good thing? It’s good for the GOP – they’ve been very good at message management, where the Dems have almost utterly failed.

A lot of modern politics is about media manipulation and messaging, much more so than the *actual* content of the issues. Fooling the American public is *incredibly* trivial. Repeat a phrase three times at full volume with a dash of “terra” while speaking before an American Flag. Presto.

Very interesting post, but this one point is silly. The idea that one party is sitting in a lab, plotting how to manipulate people’s brains… I’ve skimmed through Lakoff’s book, but it seemed too highly partisan to be really worth much. Of course a Democrat will say that the Reps manipulate through culture and get people to vote against their economic interest, and the Reps will say that the Dems are demagogues who offer false solutions and promise money and help in return for votes. I think it is sad the point that some on the Democratic side have reached. Taking the argument to its logical conclusion, which you have the admirable frankness to do, results in an undermining in the faith in democracy. But there is an alternate conclusion. If you think of democratic politics as a game, then the loser must examine himself and alter his strategy to win. It does no good to cry and whine that the other side used some kind of sinister tactic to win, any reasonable person observing campaign season will see plenty of pandering to go around (although this year, because of the extended campaign, the Dems are engaged in an endurance pander-fest while McCain can sit back, sip on some Kool-Aid, and observe the festivities). Anyway, the point of this rambling post is that I think Lakoff’s conclusion which you hinted it is simply wrong. You can say “By controlling the language, we can put information into a form that will get past people’s filters. If it matches up to their mental hierarchies, it sneaks right on in and start subverting some of those hierarchies from the inside.” While I’m sure there is research to support this, forming basis for political strategy around it is doomed and unethical. Whatever one may say in a moment of cynicism, fooling the American people isn’t as easy as many pretend. The American people chose Clinton in 92 and 96 because a majority wanted him. They chose Bush (well at least in 04) because a majority wanted him. A losing side that reacts to defeat by trying to understand how the opposing side “tricked” the people, is doomed to defeat. Not only that, but the ensuing debate will not be very constructive. The proper conclusion to draw from the fact that many vote against their economic interest is that maybe their personal economic interest is not the most important issue to them. Maybe it violates their principles to seek economic assistance from the state. Who knows, there are plenty of reasons. Lots of people vote against their economic interests. Is George Soros being manipulated, his brain waves controlled by Democratic Party rhetoric? One could draw that conclusion, but the more reasonable and decent conclusion is that he cares more about other issues, the state of the world, the future of the country, whatever, than his own personal paycheck. Now why is a lower-class person any different? Are they not allowed to think about wider issues, to be republicans with a small r, concerned with the fate of the nation? Do you not think that they are concerned with such things?
I hope this long response focusing on the political aspect isn’t too out of place on the blog. I just checked it out for the first time to do, good stuff.