…this time, GOP style…
Unfortunately, in an age of soundbite politics, this seems, on the surface, like a necessary evil, this march toward pre-digestion for all the baby birds living outside the Beltway. After all, we need to win over that “moderate middle” — the ones who want government to control healthcare, employing unelected bureaucrats and giving them the power to make decisions about life and death. We have to teach them they are wrong. Only moderately. Pragmatically.
Of course, such spoon feeding of bite-sized memes is only justified even as a necessary evil unless and until you recall who controls the media filter that those soundbites need to make it through — which bias will become even more pronounced once the progressives own GM and, if Kerry gets his way, major newspapers, as well.
I have no problem with crafting the message for mass consumption. But why not just stick to what we all know: “reform” is not what people think it is. And if they aren’t careful, they might just get what they wish for.
(h/t Dan)
I suggest everyone write their congresscritter and explain that we just don’t trust them at all. Not at all.
Advanced medicine + proportionally skyrocketing costs + public greed + government = fail. This is, of course, a great mystery, while the notion that man can manipulate natural systems endlessly is a common truth.
And we know it’s a truth because we’ve packed our central power with its advocates.
If this keeps up, maybe the GOP can request a bailout. They haven’t gotten any of my money for years now.
I think you’re missing Luntz’ point. The Politico headline writer fooled you into thinking Luntz was calling for the GOP to adopt socialized medicine. All he was saying was all he ever says, which is to choose your words. Tell the people you want “reform”, not just the status quo. Then ask whether the people would like reform so that a bureaucrat decides everything (the Obama plan) or reform that keeps Washington out of your business.
No, Lauren. He’s saying that there’s going to be reform, and that, just as with the Bush prescription benefits, it’s going to be just a matter of time till we have the single-payer system that they want, but that’s the best we can expect to do.
Frank Luntz is the foremost expert on the best way to present yourself to people. Makes his hair all the more odd.
“Must is a word not used to Princes.”
– Elizabeth Regina
And “Luntz”. C’mon Frank! No one is going to listen to a chump named “Luntz”. Read your book. Words matter.
Then change your name to Flavio de Ortagnonaise or something.
In the Great Unwasted Crisis.
Dr. Luntz is to language as Dr. Kevorkian is to medicine. Let’s hope we don’t need him just yet.
REFORM? Wait, so CHANGE is no longer good enough? Has it already lost its unconditionally positive connotation, or is that connotation only available to Democrats?
Policy by buzzword. Lovely.
The pushback may be starting:
http://usmcshop.grunt.com/Products/Marines/PID-STS146.aspx
Chaform.
From Kaus, on Chrysler:
Sounds like an echo. Especially, “Let’s not give it a name”. Which begs the question, what’s the proper pragmatist shushing and tut-tutting when a liberal is now saying this? Is Kaus hard right and self-marginalizing?
I don’t understand the problem. Everyone knows that under a monopoly system the product quality gets better and the price gets lower.
Besides, Indian and Chinese doctors need a way to afford Dijon for their assorted meat products.
I’m not missing his point. The Politico headline writer didn’t fool me.
I don’t need help reading and understanding.
That’s my point.
Infantalization.
It’s a sad reality, I think. Code words. Gotta use code words.
You know, it’s like “Progressive” not really meaning a certain progress.
I think “our” main problem is that we allow the media (the left) to frame our argument for us. And, too many (on our side) fall for it.
Like really, who gives a shit about gay marriage? I mean, I have an opinion, but it’s not the hill I want to die on.
Hey, look – HATERS!
http://townhall.com/Columnists/AshleyHerzog/2009/05/04/socialism,_college_style?page=full
REFORM. I’ve seen that word somewhere. Ahhhhhhh! Yes!!! It’s right there!!!!!
ACORN.
I ran down the the market and GASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSP!!! The parking lot was full of HYBRIDS with Opie stickers and War is NOT the ANSWER stickers. To my horror the DIJON was sold out and so was the ARUGULA! But I do have good news!! Oprahs magazine was available. Some of the pages we unfortunately stuck together at the Michelle photo spread. Should I be concerned?
Luntz can be wrong (as we all know), but I don’t discount what Luntz is doing on language and emotions. That is something anyone who writes or communicates for a living needs to be aware of. And of course health care is something everyone cares about. I would not shoot the messanger for telling us the obvious, the GOP needs competing ideas on health care. Rather than opposing Obama on health care (you would have to be a monster–aka a Fox watching, Limbaugh listening, conservative cretin–to oppose health care) the GOP needs its own positive reform agenda on health care.
But you do that in a conservative way. Conservativism was at its best when it was about ideas. People want to have FREEDOM to choose their own doctors. People want PRIVACY from Government snoops. People would be receptive to conservative ideas, such a medical accounts, which allow you to sock away pre tax money for medical needs and keeps the market place COMPETITIVE, becuase that is AMERICAN. People do not want a health care system like the UK or Canada that makes being a doctor not so great and thus discourages qualified people from entering the profession (no BAD DOCTORS).
[…] perhaps. But I don’t think we need to run around using the “f”-word, […]
I am driving a hybrid as a rental. A Toyota Prius. My SUV is in the shop. I feel like Eddie Murphy in that SNL skit when he pretends to be white and finds an amazing hidden world. Liberal hippie women smile at me but I am married and they also have that Patchouli smell that turns me off.
I’m completely open for someone to explain to me why doing the above doesn’t make one a … Democrat. The Dems have been appealing to the least common denominator for years now. Trot out Albee Moaningbird, tell his tragic story and then propose sweeping “reform” so that Albee will not have to suffer.
Policy by Anecdote. Misery Pimpage. Face time simpering disguised as caring advocacy.
Is this what we’ve come to, the willful subordination of principles, values and common sense working solutions (which, by the way, may actually include not turning the entire system up on its ass so that Mr. Moaningbird doesn’t suffer) to a dog and pony show dedicated to huckstering voters into a weepy morass of “NOT ONE MORE!”(?)
This isn’t so much infantilization as it is a con game, designed to enrich the politicians who wield seniority power while offering a big dinner platter of mediocre, paid for by ever higher taxes and fees.
Offer them Hope and change from individualized misery; give ’em Teh Suck. Dr. Luntz might want to take a minute and ponder the idea that a significant number of conservatives in this country don’t give a rat’s ass about whether or not Republicans win elections.
God, am I depressed and terrified for my country.
Yes Obama is so full of shit his skin is brown.
How do you hear that in your auditory imagination, how do you guess Kaus would vocally stress these words (or not stress them), were he speaking to you out loud?
[hoping not to bias you, but sensing a need to commit myself, I’m hearing “Let’s not give it a name…”]
As to whether Kaus is hard right, of course he isn’t, he’s just not down with the program outlined for him. He’s got another program of his very own devising going on. So self marginalizing sounds about right. Almost trustworthy, except for that other thing…
spoon feeding of bite-sized memes reminds me of this Lifehouse cd what was playing in NG’s car on the way to lunch one day
At one of the Tea Parties, ‘Zo said it best.
We don’t need “reform”. We need “revival” of the founding principles that made this the greatest nation on earth. Nationalized health care isn’t part of those principles; it’s in opposition to them.
Thus perfectly suited to Il Douche‘s plans.
sdferr, based on the rest of the post, the mocking of “dangerous precedent” as an understatement, the following text on the basic economic inefficacy of the strategy, his tongue in cheek definition of fascism, and his background as a DLC neo-lib type constantly at war with the uber-progressive juicebox mafia… I hear it spoken with a understated, flat sarcasm.
In a way, I think Kaus finds himself in the same boat as many of us here. He doesn’t view politics as a simple team sport. He thinks policies matter, he thinks the effectiveness of proposed solutions matter, he has a functioning bullshit meter and he doesn’t like the taste of kool-aid.
Sadly Jeff, you are a minority. Luntz is advising the GOP on how to communicate to an electorate half of whose members possess a below-average IQ. Arguing an abstract concept to them gets you nowhere (I’ve tried – doesn’t work), but explaining the exact same thing using a human scale analogy they can understand (“A bureaucrat in Washington D.C. will decide if you really need that operation.”) isn’t deceitful or infantilizing. It’s spelling out the results of a given public policy for people who don’t immediately equate “government run” with Britons dying of untreated conditions (even if the informed among us do so). I don’t see anything wrong in what Luntz is doing (as portrayed in this article; I’m hardly familiar with his whole body of work).
Framing an argument is different than changing the definitions of words or the intent of the speaker. The first illuminates, the latter two deceive.
Does anyone here honestly have any confidence that the GOP, in trying to come up with this alternative to O!care, won’t just screw it up?
I know I can’t picture this with a straight face.
If I am not opposing Obama’s health plan then I am not opposing socialized medicine. I am not opposing to nationalizing health care. This is not that fucking hard to figure out.
If you support the rights of Americans to choose and provide for themselves then you must oppose Obama.
Albee Moaningbird is looking at you, BMoe, with sad, sad eyes.
As far as I’m concerned, maybe 2% of the things enacted in the name of “reform,” since the beginning of human society, has been good.
The other 98% has been just more of history repeating itself, with charlatans gaining power by defrauding people. The Democrats are charlatans, but these days so are Republicans. The difference is the Democrats know how.
You mean GOP members that can make it through the primary & general election? No.
If the alternative is to look like O!care in any respect, I can’t think that there is anyone, regardless of party, who can make such a thing. It isn’t make-able, designable, create-able, etc.
If, on the other hand, someone would propose that the mirage of a designed “system” be abandoned as the fantasy it is, and in its place the polity were to pursue a solution which: allows the myriad of peoples and purposes they have, allows the freedom of those couple hundred millions to seek their interests and rewards in need, allows the freedom to exchange with one-another freely in a competitive market, in principle to “simplify in order to complexicate”, so to speak, would allow the order that will arise spontaneously, organically, undesignedly, I can imagine a person, even a politician, describing such a path, and that in the face of the presumed uncertainty by which it is necessarily circumscribed. It would take a load of work though, wouldn’t it?
Change. Reform. Different code words pointing to the same thing, more government.
How about these code words, “health care”, “health plan” meaning someone else pays for my “medical care”, for my doctor to treat me.
Start talking about medical care, about doctors, about my having my doctor treat my problems when I decide that I want treatment that I can afford and pay for.
“Health care” is one of those terms like “violence” that is used to obscure and mix together things that should be considered separate.
What you need is a diesel pickup. The clatter interferes with their cell phone calls, and as a last resort you can always put a big puff of black smoke through their window. Makes me cackle with glee, it does.
I don’t know if I agree completely with Luntz. I think “freedom” might be a more resonant word than “crisis.” This is America, after all, Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
What they’re really doing is a sales job, and sales is all about overcoming objections.
“Luntz, the author of the bestselling book “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear,†”
Big lolz right? Give the guy a break, he came up with the idea of calling the taxes on the top few inheritors the “death tax.”
Meya’s right, it’s not even descriptive. You have to pay the estate/death tax whether you die or not. Right?
Regarding Luntz, he just seems a bit bullshitty for my taste. You know when he runs those test groups and interacts with a dozen or so people? I have a feeling that might not be entirely scientific. It’s like how Allah extrapolates wildly from each poll he comes across that supports his position. I can always predict what either of them will say, regardless of the outside event (be it a random poll, quote, or little focus group). That leads me to believe that there’s more than a little confirmation bias at work.
Luntz is very likely not the future. Not Luntz not Jindal not Palin not Mitt not Meghan’s coward daddy not Huckabee not Gingrich not the dopey looking guy Stacy McCain thinks is so dreamy maybe Rick Perry I guess. I can see Perry/Jindal but Perry/Palin sounds like something you find in Housewares.
It depends on how you do it, BJ. For example:
“Fuck you. That’s a lie and you’re a liar.”
I would love to see health care reformed. I would start by filing an anti-trust suit against the AMA.
Heh.
[…] While the anemic “can’t we all get along” wing of the GOP is fumbling when they should be aggressively telling the truth […]