Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LAKOFF: Progressives lack a Limbaugh-like voice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:08 AM
Original message
LAKOFF: Progressives lack a Limbaugh-like voice
The comment section on the original proves Lakoff's point about the right wing noise machine, but he misses a couple of iconic talkers for the left like Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, and Randi Rhodes.

He also misses some crucial reasons why the left doesn't have the same media presence.

For one, the more extreme righties are, the more they are carrying water for their corporate patrons and sponsors. If lefties got as visceral in the other direction, they would scare off health insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, oil companies, Wall Street, banks, and big ag. I think that just leaves skateboards and computers as potential sponsors.

The other problem is that the Democratic Party is really two parties, one progressive and another trying to sell itself to Wall Street as the other white meat (without the sprinkling of religious nuts). This creates a problem for Democrats that Republicans mostly don't have.

The issues the GOP's true constituents, the very wealthy and corporations, care about, hardly ever overlap with what their base cares about. Republican voters don't care about the intricacies of Wall Street deregulation and the rich don't give a rat's ass about abortion since they can fly their daughter or girlfriend to wherever it's legal.

To the extent the Republican base cares about economics, they don't seem to notice that the GOP tax cuts go mostly to the rich, their jobs go overseas, and their pensions end up in some CEO's secret account in Aruba. The average dittohead endures all that because they are sure they are going to win the lottery and be given the keys to the country club any day now, and don't want to share their winnings with Uncle Sam.

Not so with the Democrats. Their progressive voting base cares about mostly the same issues as the corporate toadying wing (aka the DLC, blue dogs, or ''moderates''), but have nearly exact opposite positions.

The progressives want healthcare available to everyone at a reasonable cost and not attached to a job. The corporate wing wants healthcare reform that protects insurance companies & pharma profits or better yet, increases them.

Progressives want Wall Street punished, reregulated, and monitored, preferably with ankle bracelets like they use on paroled child molesters or those stun collars some people use to keep their dog in the yard. The corporate wing sees Wall Street as the injured party that must be nurtured back to health with massive transfusions of our blood, so they can get back on their feet and wring the remaining drops out of us.

Progressives see the GOP ideas for what they are: a catastrophic failure that has caused debt, death, and ill will toward the US as far as the eye can see. Corporate Democrats want to be bipartisan and salvage what they can of those ideas because after all, those are what Wall Street, banks, and corporations want.

Too many Democrats see themselves not as potential leaders of the free world but call girls of the free market.

So they probably know that a Democratic media presence as big as the right is not a good idea because it will either advance true progressive ideas and piss off their present and hoped for corporate patrons, or if it serves up the thin gruel DLC corporate toadying, no one will listen.



Progressives lack a Limbaugh-like voice

George Lakoff

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Where are the progressives? Largely absent. Or talking issue by issue, not about general themes. We have some icons: Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert. But they only talk to us. They are not omnipresent.

Can President Obama overcome all this? He is by far the best communicator in politics today. But what we get of him are sound bites, an occasional major address, and a five-minute talk Saturdays on You Tube. Meanwhile, the reporting in the media is about positions on issues, not about general principles that get repeated.

The president does, indeed, think and talk using general principles: empathy (caring about others), responsibility for both oneself and others, and the ethic of excellence - working to make yourself, your community, the nation and the world better. He sees these as the basis of American democracy: Empathy is why we have principles like freedom and fairness, not just for ourselves but for everybody.

In the absence of nationwide media cover, the president has to go barnstorming. His former campaign organization has chosen to reactivate its ground game to try to get ordinary people to go door-to-door, speaking in their own words from their own experiences, to gain support for his policies. The idea is for ordinary people to say what they sincerely believe to their neighbors.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/19/INUO170I8P.DTL&hw=by+george+Lakoff&sn=002&sc=519">FULL TEXT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. Because the people who speak for us are sane?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. So true.
"Conservatives" have had some past success shifting the mainstream to the right by themselves being so radical and extreme, and trying to set their radicals off as counterparts to radical "Liberals".

The reality is that our labels are abstractions. Very few people fall into such neat categories and extremes.

But the bottom line for me is that the right has gone completely mad, and any of these explorations into the whys and wherefores of what rightists do invariably makes me nauseous. I really wish they'd all go to Texas and secede already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
2. Thank God!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. Just what I want: A left wing blowhard who doesn't actually debate anyone.
Sorry. The moment we start lockstepping to shockjocks. I'm voting Green.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. That is NOT what he's saying - we have NO VOICE, and we want MANY SANE INTELLIGENT VOICES
TELLING THE TRUTH to be heard, not repuke LIARS...

BIG difference...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. I prefer to keep it that way: many sane intelligent voices.
That's what I am saying.

One single voice has only to make one mistake and it takes the rest of us down with it to slippery slope land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well, Rush Limbaugh only speaks to and for the insane 23-25%
Edited on Mon Apr-27-09 11:22 AM by Phoebe Loosinhouse
of his die-hard know-nothing listeners. He's only omnipresent because he has never REALLY been in an uncontrolled public marketplace of ideas (like a talk show, or a Sunday news show NOT on Fox) where he would deflate quicker than one of those plastic sumo wrestler suits with a leak.

On the other hand, Jonathan Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert, Amy Goodman, Laurence O'Donnell, Katrina Vandenhueval and many others can mix it up and leave their debate partners still standing due only to their exoskeletons. We actually have an embarrassment of riches, we're just not allowed to see them because they get nowhere near the airtime of the Hannitys, Buchanans, Wills, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. I noticed something online in 2004 election that will give us permanent edge...
Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and others had message boards on their sites, and Bush didn't. The couldn't take someone asking questions or being off-message.

The top down nature of the GOP will make it tough for them to survive the social web era, and online astroturf is as obvious as a lime green leisure suit, so they can't fake it.

It is also going to make it increasingly hard for corporate Democrats to survive as Jane Harman is discovering.

If we can keep the internet relatively free of censorship, we could get a lot closer to having a functioning democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
7. It's the nature of the beast/audience that makes Limbaugh what he is
"Not all conservatives are stupid people, but all stupid people are conservative."
Limbaugh, hannity, oreally and the rest are essentially propagandists for fascism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. who let george out of the asylum?

"we don`t need no stink`n badgers"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. We don't need our own version of The Bloviator: we need effective grassroots organizing
on issues that really matter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. to get that, you need people to be aware of your issues, otherwise, it's a long, slow slog
If someone on talk radio has primed your audience, they are more likely to be ready to act when you get in touch with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BirminghamExaminer Donating Member (943 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
11. Progressives/liberals wouldn't listen to a Limbaugh like lefty because we
recognize lies and hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Bingo !
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. For Which I am Profoundly Grateful
Edited on Mon Apr-27-09 03:01 PM by Demeter
I'm happy with Olberman, Colbert, Maddows, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. You missed the point
Lakoff's point is that the right has its mouthpieces the spout its message 24/7 in a manner that reaches its targeted audience AND that spreads its message even to the casual listener.

His point is NOT that the left needs idiot blowhards who scream lies and hate.

What the left needs is an entire army of its own style of 24/7 media message-deliverers. People who will be out there all the time, one after another, countering the limbaugh lies with the truth.

But just as Keith Olbermann's "Special Comments" reach us with their anger and outrage, we should be looking to find a voice that regularly, on a daily basis, taps into that outrage and channels it, exactly the way the RW noise does. Only we would channel it constructively, rather than destructively.

Instead of, say, hypothetically, a RW smear of public education and a push for vouchers (so good white christians can send their kids to good white christian schools and keep them from being polluted in classrooms shared with brown and black kids. . .. ), there would be a public education advocacy theme that's repeated throughout the constituency.

We need outrage. And we need to stoke it the way the RW stokes its outrage. Not misdirected fear and loathing and hate, but constructive outrage that effects change. Real change.


Tansy Gold

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I Think That's What Obama Plans To Do Most
He seems to be a rather passive person, interested in educating, and goading the throng into action with his oratorical skills and polished delivery. He's not Teddy Roosevelt leading the charge.

And he does it well.

If we want front line leadership, we should have gone with Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich. Although Howard has also gone into "spokesperson" role of late, which he also does very well.

This is a marked improvement to Reid and Pelosi, who couldn't be bothered to do either form of leadership. Paper shufflers, at best--King Log or Kingfishers at worst.

We have lots of spokes people coming out of the crowd: experts, military, ordinary grassroots. Now that they don't get shot down by the Rabid Right who took their cues form BushCo and the GOP, they feel inclined to add to the public discourse.

The worst thing that BushCo did, after the physical damage, the legal damage, the international image damage, and the economic damage, was to shut down the public forum.

Or perhaps by shutting down dissent, he did the first step towards successful execution of all those other crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
14. horseshit
I get sick of this Rushpublican meme. If Schultz or Hartmann or Steph were placed in 600 stations coast-to-coast, they would make just as big an impact as any of the professional haters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. Hartmann and Goodman...
...cannot be compared to the likes of Limbaugh. They are serious about their approach. Rhodes and Malloy are the closest thing we have to the blowhard coward, the difference being that, between frothing and ranting, they know what they are talking about 98% of the time and are not out to deceive anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. ironically, the woman they have replacing Randi in LA is more polite but less informed
she ran against Obama in Illinois and I was shocked at some blind spots in her knowledge, most notably calling "Who Killed the Electric Car" some kind of conspiracy theory when in fact it carefully documented the California regulation that forced GM to make an electric car, GM's efforts to get the reg repealed, and their recall and destruction of the cars after they were successful. They even showed the crushed cars.

I went to an alternative energy car show and they had and EV-1 there. I asked the guy how they kept it from the crusher. He laughed and said GM gutted it--I was just looking at the body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
21. I don't want a "Limbaugh-like" voice anymore than I want a Bush-like President. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC