George Lakoff Blog Index RSS
06.29.2005

Rove Rides Again -- With the Help of the Democrats (56 comments )

For a while last week, the Democrats were doing better at framing the issues. The poll numbers showed that Bush’s approval rating was down, that around 60% of the voters had turned against the Iraq War, that support for Bush on his handling of 911 and terrorism was lower, but still pretty high.

They correctly recognized in the numbers that the public had begun to separate Iraq from 911, and they recognized the relevance of the Downing Street memo in showing that Bush had betrayed the trust of the American people in sending troops into Iraq on false pretenses. They had begun to form an anti-Iraq-War caucus and to hammer home the consequences of these development. And even staunch Republicans were listening to their arguments and coming to Bush to suggest withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

In short, the Democrats had begun to use the basics of framing issues in terms of their own values and principles, the lessons arising from research at the Rockridge Institute. Had they continued to argue with unity on the difference between 911 and Iraq, and on the fact that George Bush betrayed our troops and is weakening our country, they might have made it impossible for Bush to once again link Iraq with 911.

Then they lost it. Karl Rove outsmarted the Democrats again. And he used the most basic trick in the book to do it.

The first lesson of framing is not to activate the other guy’s frame. Negating a frame activates it in the minds of hearers, as Richard Nixon found out when he said “I am not a crook” and everybody thought of him as a crook. The very title of my book, Don’t Think of an Elephant makes the point: if you negate a frame, it reinforces the frame.

Rove managed to link Iraq with 911 again, and to delegitimate the Democrats in the process. And he did it with the Democrats’ help.

Rove achieved this brilliantly – in one sentence!

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." [NY Times, 6/23/05]

When the Democrats took the bait, Rove reeled them in. Here’s what he achieved:
1.Rove changed the context of discourse, from Bush’s disaster in Iraq, to support for Bush in the wake of 911.
2.The Democrats had had the Republicans playing defense; Rove put them on offense and the Democrats on defense.
3.With the words “savagery” and “attack”, Rove evoked the frame in which war is the appropriate response. He thus made Bush the heroic Commander-in-Chief in the war frame, while making “liberals” wimps for wanting to deny Bush unlimited war powers.
4.Rove thus evoked the conservative branding of liberals as weak and conservatives as strong.
5.When the Democrats attacked Rove for his remarks and defended themselves, they wound up expressing support for Bush’s going to war after 911, and with it implicit support for Bush’s position in Iraq.
6.Rove made putative Democratic weakness the issue, and by negating the frame, the Democrats played right into his hands.
7.Moreover, using the word “liberal” and not “Democrat”, Rove made it look like any Democrat attacking his remarks was a lily-livered liberal, and that the party had been taken over by weak-kneed chickens – anyone against Bush’s use of the military.
8.This enabled the right-wing message machine to go to work, attacking the Democrats as being controlled by naïve unpatriotic weaklings – MoveOn,org, Howard Dean, George Soros, Michael Moore.
9.Rove, of course, stood tall and strong, sticking by his guns, with a loud chorus of supporters.
10.This enabled Scott McClellan, the administration mouthpiece, to call for a nation debate on conservative – liberal philosophy, beginning with the handling of 911.

What should liberals have learned from reading the Rockridge Institute website and Don’t Think of an Elephant?
1.Start with resisting Rove’s juicy bait.
2.Spell out the progressive philosophy of Total Security – keeping a strong military while also supporting job security, pension security, and security in the form of health and education. Attack Bush for giving up on homeland security, failing to protect cargo shipments, nuclear and chemical plants, and so on.
3.Point out Rove’s attempt to cover up Bush’s disaster in Iraq, and dwell on the public’s repudiation of the Bush policy for good reasons.
4.Keep pounding on the Downing Street memo, pointing out how Bush doctored intelligence and sent troops to war on false pretenses. Goad him about there being no WMD’s in Iraq, but plenty in North Korea.
5.Attack Bush for weakening our military and our economy, while strengthening al Qaeda, Point out that Bush is al Qaeda’s best friend, since he is their best recruiter.
6.Raise the stakes. Point out how the administration has been using 911 for their own political ends; of using the war in Iraq as a pretext to carry out a radical political agenda at home, and to get re-elected. Point out the immorality of using American and Iraqi lives for political ends.
7.Use the opportunity to brand the right wing as political fundamentalists, showing the intimate connections between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism.
8.Raise the question of whether the brutality arising from the US occupation of Iraq led to an anti-US reaction in Iran and the squelching of democratic forces there – exactly the opposite of Bush’s predicted result.
In short, be pro-active, not reactive.

But the Democrats helped Rove get Iraq identified with the war on terror again, characterizing the Democrats as unpatriotic naïve weaklings, and setting the stage for Bush’s address on June 28, 2005, in which he followed Rove’s lead and again framed the Iraq War in terms of 911 and the war on terror. This time John Kerry stepped in to help Bush, basically supporting the president’s position but offering policy-wonk modifications. The message: Bush is basically right, except for some minor twiddles.

The Democrats can learn from Bush and Rove: Stick to your guns and stay the course.

Comments for this post are now closed

Related News Stories

Related Blog Posts

Comments ( Page 1 of 3 > » ):

Damn, that's a great blueprint for success. I hope Rep. Conyers, Sen. Bayh, or one of the other Democratic congressmen get a chance to read this one and bring it back to their leadership.

Good show. Thanks.

By: Tony C on June 29, 2005 at 11:04pm
Flag: [abusive]

YES!

By: Priscilla on June 30, 2005 at 12:12am
Flag: [abusive]

Regarding the "disaster" in Iraq, I offer the Inigo Montoya retort: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. You're not much of a student of military history, are you?

Here's my favorite part of the post:

".Use the opportunity to brand the right wing as political fundamentalists, showing the intimate connections between Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism."

-- Wow, that's brilliant and so right! I, for one, am scared to death of all those Christian fundamentalists who've been sending their kids down to the local adult bookstores with bomb belts under their jackets. And to think they have the unmitigated fundamentalist gall to try to hijack our democracy by -- the horror! -- persuading people to vote their way.

By: Molly Bloom on June 30, 2005 at 01:32am
Flag: [abusive]

It seems so obvious to so many that the Democratic leadership is clueless -- why can't we get a hold of our own party and turn it around? I feel so helpless -- all the Democratic leadership ever wants from me is money, and all I want from them is victory. Only one of us is keeping our side of the deal.

The Repubs are charlatans -- such people will always exist to try to take wahtever advantage they can. It is up to us "good guys" to block their chicanery. We seem to have forgotten this and in so doing darn near lost our country -- let's hope not for good.

By: Jim Pharo on June 30, 2005 at 07:32am
Flag: [abusive]

I would like permission to email Rove Rides Again to a few Senators.
Thank you
Kathie

By: Kathie Tremmel on June 30, 2005 at 08:45am
Flag: [abusive]

What can we do with these Democrats? They don't seem to listen nor do they learn from mistakes. The only solution I can see is to replace the whole damn bunch. Unfortunately we seem to be pinning our 2008 hopes on Hilary and she's casting her lot with the DLC, the architects of our current situation.

By: Henk on June 30, 2005 at 09:20am
Flag: [abusive]

As always, Dr. Lakoff is right on the mark. Even though we blew it initially in the media, it's not too late to make sure we all use these reframed words -- not just our congress people, but all of us in our everyday conversations we have with others.

By: Marianne on June 30, 2005 at 09:30am
Flag: [abusive]

Lakoff is right and Kerry is wrong. Being from Massachusetts, I tried to tell people during the Democratic primaries that Kerry would never defeat BushCo. He didn't know how to fight them then and apparently has learned nothing since. He's still trying to make people believe he knew what he was doing when he voted for the war before he voted against it. Please, please dear Lord, free the Democratic Party from the egos of John Kerry and his ilk.

By: MichaelC on June 30, 2005 at 09:32am
Flag: [abusive]

That Rove comment was such an obvious set up. McClellan had his response very well rehearsed (As if he gets to define liberal philosophy. Well... I guess he does. No one's smacked over the head with true liberal ideals in response.)

When are the Dems going to realize that they need to huddle before responding? When are they going to form a rapid response team to target talking points? The Repubs have been doing so for years. That's why they're in power.

They definitely need a hotline to Mr. Lakoff, at least.

Cheers,
Clemsy

By: Clemsy on June 30, 2005 at 09:37am
Flag: [abusive]

Yep, Rove set the trap and the Dems stepped right into it. They consistently cede the initiative and allow Team Rove to set the terms and conditions of debate.

By: Jeff Huber on June 30, 2005 at 09:41am
Flag: [abusive]

Your zeitgeist meter is a bit off this time:

[quote] 1.Rove changed the context of discourse, from Bush’s disaster in Iraq, to support for Bush in the wake of 911.

No, he tried to, but didn't succeed. This was made clear by the reaction after the President's address, wich was (in many MSM quarters), "Isn't it offensive of him to try to use Sept. 11 as a cover for his disasterterous war?" The war itself is still the topic, and people are not letting go.

[quote] 2.The Democrats had had the Republicans playing defense; Rove put them on offense and the Democrats on defense.

Maybe, but it a bit different this time: the Democrats are not playing a prevent defense. They're riled, and they are wrestling for the ball -- counter attack is a form of offense. In other words, instead of defending themselves against the charge, they are attacking the person who leveled the charge. This change is the most significant shift in the political landscape in the past 4 years.

By: kenlac on June 30, 2005 at 10:01am
Flag: [abusive]

I got that sinking feeling when I read the Kerry comments and now I know why. http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/06/hunting-of-liberals.html... draws a picture that this latest fits into.

By: Mike on June 30, 2005 at 10:03am
Flag: [abusive]

Nicely put, but none of it works without the national discourse happening on a level playing field.

Rove, McLellan and Co. are right about the generalities. Liberal and conservative approaches to security issues are fundamentally at odds. But for the specifics, the difference between liberal and conservative philosophies amounts to the very difference between terror and security. The overarching difference between liberals and conservatives is an approach to society as "we're all in this together" and "every man for himself," respectively. We can frame our approach to perhaps any current issue as a choice between serving the public or private interest.

Unfortunately, our national conversation is dominated by the television medium where the conservative Republican triumph of deregulation and privatization of public airwaves in particular clearly illustrates the magnitude of the decay in American public sphere in general. The result is a national discourse whereby it is simply not in the best interest of those who dominate the means of communication to allow any integrity or public accountability into the national discourse as we now experience it. Without some change in this imbalance, Lakoff's prescriptions will languish in the reservoir of good intentions.

By: Zionista on June 30, 2005 at 10:07am
Flag: [abusive]

George is spot-on. Here's another framing idea. "Christians" believe in Jesus and his two rules for living - love God above all else and love thy neighbor as thyself. Biblicists, on the other hand, will use the Bible to support whatever agenda they're predisposed toward, reminding us that the "Christian Right" is neither christian nor right. They are biblicists.

By: Jim Prues on June 30, 2005 at 10:14am
Flag: [abusive]

I doubt you can contest the content of Rove's pronouncements on the war, he clearly understands and addresses the level of concious belief of his supporters; rewarding them like a parent giving a child a candy bar for their good behaviour. He's a master at being an unhealthy parent. The noticed change in support was probably due to some adverse news finally being displayed in the mainstream news, this same group's only source of news.

By: Oliver Olinger on June 30, 2005 at 10:19am
Flag: [abusive]

As I read this, every suggestion made for a Democrat response is one designed to undermine support for the war, energize our enemies, and weaken our nation's resolve. I don't think this is a blueprint for political success.

At some point the Democrats have to choose a party goal: The Mideast strategy succeeds, Iraq becomes a model of Democracy, the swamp is drained, Bush wins big. Or America withdraws in defeat, the Mideast collapses in chaos and terror, Bush loses, Democrats gain in midterm elections.

For what it's worth, I watched Biden on CNN after the Bush speech. He was eloquent, gave appropriate criticism and thoughtful suggestions. He supported the President yet framed valid criticism in a statesmanlike manner worthy of "loyal opposition." In short, he nailed it. I'm a Republican, but I was impressed, and I hope your party keeps an eye on him. Because sooner or later, you guys are going to win an election.

By: Kirk on June 30, 2005 at 10:26am
Flag: [abusive]

Two suggestions for solving the problem of Democrats failing their framing tasks:

First, Howard Dean should run ALL candidates (sitting and challengers) through an intensive framing course based on the Elephant.

Second, Dean should retain Lakoff on a permanent basis to provide RRF (Rapid Response Framing) on a daily basis to Dems, on major issues.

Only this way will the Democrats stand a chance of beating the Rovians.

By: CuriosityKilledTheCat on June 30, 2005 at 10:30am
Flag: [abusive]

I'm fine with the list of what liberals should have learned, but I think Lakoff contradicts himself in trying to put forth the argument that Democrats 'blew it'. He seems to be saying that we've reached a tipping point with the American public where support for Bush on Iraq has dropped to less than half, and so has Bush's credibility. I would agree. Polls were already showing that the majority believe that Bush lied to get us into war with Iraq. But, Lakoff seems to be concerned about the Democrats being painted as weak. I haven't seen any evidence of Rove's gambit being successful in that way. He didn't get a noticeable rise out of the conservative audience he was speaking to. The "therapy" line didn't even register a giggle.

Rove propped up the strawman, "liberals", and the Dems changed it to "Democrats". They were then able to do two things with that. They pointed to the events immediately following 9/11 and said "Show me one Democrat who didn't give full support to attacking Al Qaida where they live." Of course, nobody could . And they demanded an apology, which may have seemed weak and futile, but coming so soon after Durbin's apology, it made one thing clear to the public. The Right will never apologize no matter how conspicuously wrong they may be. It also pointed out how they typically respond to flagging poll numbers with divisive tactics. The polls are showing that the public is finally starting to catch on. The administration has lost most of its credibility. Rove didn't get any mileage out of his speech, nor did Bush get any out of his.

By: Jim B. on June 30, 2005 at 10:57am
Flag: [abusive]

Just yesterday on my blog I posted this: http://crankylittleblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/karl-and-joe-sittin-in...
So when Lakoff writes about Democrats he doesn't write about me. There are quite a few of us (including Howard Dean) who are developing our own instincts about dealing with Rove. I appreciate Lakoff but we need to be able to grasp his concept in our own terms otherwise Lakoff becomes our Rove and we become to him as Rove's supporters are, minions waiting for marching orders.

I like Dean's approach at the very least for his willingness to (well, like Bush, no?) talk straight from his heart, stumble in the path of a righteous cause and stick to the plan! When he's being attacked he doesn't apologize he just reiterates his point.

Essentially that's the core of Lakoff's message.

So, what's so hard about that? What's so hard is that you have to be uncaring about whether people like you (notice that I'm not using the word respect). Most politicians win seats through being liked, at worst tolerated. Those are the dems Lakoff refers to but they have the most to loose at election so I understand their difficult position.

As grassroots liberals disseminate the facts (note the DSM was championed online for a month before it got traction) politics will change at home and elections become easier for dems to win. If Dems in the house and senate have been able to discuss Iraq'a failures it's because constituencies have been on phones, writing editorials and letters and blogging--not because dems decided it was a good idea!

So don't think for a minute that dems don't get it because quite a few of us on the ground, from where elections are won, do!

By: CLB on June 30, 2005 at 11:11am
Flag: [abusive]

Joe Biden is a tool, or a fool, or both. Did anyone see his "Democratic" response to Bush's speech? He did all but switch parties right there on live television. AND THIS GUY IS RUNNING IN 2008 FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION?!? We already tried it your way, Joe, and if you'll notice, Senator Kerry is still just that, a Senator. You and your kind have neutered the Democratic party enough to require a lifetime of far left candidates. This is where the party is headed, and you better get on board, or get left behind.

By: Todd Mattson on June 30, 2005 at 11:20am
Flag: [abusive]

Didn't John Kerry's fatal silence in the face of the Swift Boat attacks prove once and for all that you have to hit back -- fast and hard -- when confronted with scurrilous charges?

It's not enough to stay principled and high minded when someone slanders you. You have to confront them directly and forcefully; otherwise, the smear will stick and people will see you as weak.

When Rove cast liberals as a bunch of cowards who would rather talk it out with Usama Bin Laden over a counseling session, you have to rebut that allegation in the strongest way. ("America knows that we were all united after 9/11 -- liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican alike. Everyone gave their full support to President Bush to hunt down and kill the terrorists who savagely attacked us. Karl Rove is engaging in disgusting, disgraceful smear tactics. He's lying to the American people for political gain. This is the worst insult to the memory of those 3,000 people who died on that horrific day. I cannot imagine anything more despicable than mudslinging and playing politics with 9/11."

After calling him on being the dirty, lying political operative he is, you can then bridge to your message: Bush has not made us safer; he hasn't leveled with the American people; this is our plan for Iraq and the War on Terror; etc.

But to let Rove cut liberals to their core without hitting back is a recipe for continued defeat.

Liberals must capture the flag back from the conservatives, who use it as both a sword and a shield.

America won't trust us until we can prove that we will go to war -- and decisively win wars -- when the time comes. Just look to FDR and Truman for the blue print.

By: wwend2005 on June 30, 2005 at 11:37am
Flag: [abusive]

This opinion piece is absolute junk. It comes off as an attack piece against Kerry because he isn't totaly anti-war and he has spoken out concerning the mess Bush has created. Your bias is obvious. Where are you actually going with this. You want us to remain silent about the war and not criticize and point out the mistakes and poor planning of the Bush team, then you are mad at Durbin because he apologized for his remarks over prisioner treatment. I also don't agree with your ending comments as to why Kerry lost. We lost, because for a very long time now, the Republicans have been able to frame us as weak on defense and themselves as hawks. In my opinion, that was the deciding factor in determining the out come of this election. They went with the war president.

By: Margie Vogel on June 30, 2005 at 11:54am
Flag: [abusive]

The democrats should simply state:

President Bush Hijacked Our Grief and Flew It Into Iraq

By: Megan Rosenberg on June 30, 2005 at 12:06pm
Flag: [abusive]

Dear Mr. Lakoff,

Why don't you stop congratulating these people and quit patting them on the back for their manipulative evil doings?!?

We don't need to hear you praise them for how wonderful their evil minds are. We're doing more than you think, if you would just focus on our side instead of wasting your time on their nonsensical sound bites.

You're feeding out of their hand, like they want you to when you write this garbage!!

By: Judy on June 30, 2005 at 12:15pm
Flag: [abusive]

It seems to me that 'framing' is politically
functional only when abetted by the media. Any
Barthian scrutiny of WHAT politicos say is
essentially redundant: rhetoric equals rhetoric.
And ultimately, all media can do is refer to
themselves, to their allegiances--and who subsidizes that allegiance.

By: Roy Frisvold on June 30, 2005 at 12:36pm
Flag: [abusive]

Page 1 of 3 > »
Top Posts Top News Sources