Linguistics; political language; persuasion... Yesterday morning I posted a recommendation-with-reservations for Joe's article, "Thinking Points Discussion: How Conservatives REALLY Shift Public Opinion," online at
http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/08/03/thinking-points-discussion-shifting-political-discourse-part-3 , and asked for your reactions -- and the comments you sent me agreed with my reservations. They all said, roughly, that the article did a good job of explaining conservative rhetorical strategy and then turned into fluffdrivel when it switched to explaining progressive rhetorical strategy.
This worries me. The conservative think tanks have done a superb job; they've produced a body of persuasive political language, and whole platoons of reasonably effective proselytizers for their positions, in both spoken and written language (and for all I know, in signed language). It's a perennial complaint of journalists that they always have an array of articulate right-wing "spokespersons" to choose from for interviews, but they have a hard time finding equivalent representatives from the center or the left.
[Digression: I find most of those right-wing spokespersons incredibly irritating to listen to. Not just because I disagree with their views, but because their nonverbal communication behavior -- their body language, and especially their voices -- affects me like fingernails on a blackboard. But there's no question about their competence. They know their talking points, they can't be drawn away from those talking points, and they deliver them efficiently. They are well trained. And their written-language equivalents are equally well trained.]
The Rockridge Institute -- where Joe's article comes from -- was supposed to do the same job the conservative think tanks have been doing. It was supposed to be a source of well-trained and persuasive spokepersons for individuals (labeled as "progressives" by Rockridge) who are opposed to the ideas of the right wing. It was supposed to make it possible for progressives to win
new hearts and minds for the ideas of the center and the left. It has worked very hard, it has a website that's user-friendly, it has held efficient online conferences, it has been featured on Daily Kos, it has published books and handbooks, it has raised a lot of money --
it is really trying. No question about it. I applaud it for its hard work and its good intentions. But it seems to me that all it does, still, is preach to the choir: It's winning the hearts and minds of people who already agree with the ideas it's presenting, and who already speak and understand the language it's using.
Clearly, Rockridge -- and Joe -- understand how the conservatives did their persuading. Consider the section of Joe's article that talks about Ronald Reagan's communication strategy:
"His strategy can be seen by considering his position on welfare. He was strongly opposed to the welfare system. So much so that he viciously attacked it using the infamous stereotype of the 'welfare queen.' This lazy, good-for-nothing woman was a free-loading leech whose behavior bled hard-earned dollars away from working Americans. Reagan called upon the citizens of our country to cut her off. He asked us to end the immoral give-aways that discouraged undisciplined people from improving themselves."
That's crystal clear. I understand what Joe is saying. That tale of the Wicked Welfare Queen, with her Cadillac and her mink coat that our hard-working righteous taxpaying citizens were paying for, was -- and still is -- a wonderful story. It became an American folktale; people all over the country, people of every social class and ethnic heritage and political group, sat around and talked about it, and added their own examples, and got all worked up about it, and were
persuaded.
What I want from Rockridge (and other organizations like Rockridge) is stories that are equally persuasive and powerful. I want stories that present non-right views and principles and ideas with equal strength and effectiveness. Trust me: People are
not going to sit around and get all worked up over The Tale Of The Nurturant Parent, or The Tale Of The Framing Linguist.
Joe -- for whom I have great respect -- tells us how Reagan persuaded people, even people who didn't think much of him. And then when he proposes to tell progressives how to do what Reagan did, what does he do? He just gives us one platitude after another. He tells us to be nice. He tells us to be authentic. He tells us to be persistent, because "With enough repetition, people will start to see that you are talking about things that make sense."
Say things that are authentic, say them nicely, and say them over and over and over again.
Oh.
Where, I want to know, are our powerful stories that can become folktales?