But this is small because Lakoff’s advice isn’t just about going on O’Reilly’s show– most of us will never have that opportunity. His advice is about the general style of discourse “we” are taking on our blogs, in our conversations, in our small press essays, etc. And while you keep hinting at some better way to engage the conservatives (which I think you’ll agree must be done), you aren’t giving up much except your dislike of Lakoff. And I still suspect that comes from something other than this article… that if this had been written by someone anonymous to you that you would not have disagreed.

And finally, if you can beat up the bully, that’s still good medicine. How do you think bully’s get taken down anyway? By waiting for some fairyland vision of “each getting their own” to come to life? I know how my dad taught me the first time I came home crying because I’d been pushed around: he sent me back out and told me not to come back until I’d given as good as I’d got. And you know what? I did– and not only were we ALL better off for it, but the bully’s career came to an end.

I still believe Lakoff’s advice– to attack the philosophy and the flawed outcomes– is sound, and am awaiting anything persuasive to convince me otherwise…

Your advice sounds like you’ve never vanquished a bully. But people have. Often. Thankfully…

Lakoff isn’t making a political engagement here, he’s giving advice to those who do.

s/giving advice/giving BAD advice/

What the hypothetcial O’Reilly guest should do is not go on the show unless s/he wants to advance O’Reilly’s cause. Pretending that his or any such show is a neutral forum for a fair and balanced discussion of issues on their merits is naive in monumental proportions. Lakoff, however, seems to be willing to encourage folks to continue engaging thugs on their own terms, as if “framing” can make the difference at the hands of someone who has only one goal—to increase their ratings (or book sales or whatever) by making liberals look like losers.

Maybe after I finish diddling my comments set up I’ll try my hand at really explaining where I’m coming from—I know there are parts of my thoughts that aren’t getting explicated here. For now let it stand that anyone who thinks they can get the better of a bully deserves the headaches they get.

re: Lakoff. I’m not going to try to pick your argument apart, but I get the distinct feeling that you are interpreting Lakoff through a previous engagement and your interpretation of his position given a lot of other knowledge about him that I don’t have. All I have to go on is the article I linked to and despite re-reading your paragraphs multiple times I just don’t see the connection.

Lakoff isn’t making a political engagement here, he’s giving advice to those who do. That advice is, as I read it, to take on O’Reilly and Coulter and their ilk not by picking apart the decisions of the President, but by taking apart these results of the successful application of the Conservative agenda. That seems like pretty sound advice to me, though for much simpler reasons to my mind!

If that’s not what you think the hypothetical O’Reilly guest should do, then what is? I don’t get your whole “it’s now about power” thing unless you are arguing that all political discourse is moot in the face of other power, which seems unreasonably cynical and gives pretty short shrift to the power of words…

…and…

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Yeah, F911 was just a flick; could’ve been better, could’ve been worse, and I’m glad it was made.

Lakoff, that’s another issue, and one I’m not really sure fits in a comments box. Generally, Lakoff’s discussions of framing presuppose a meta-frame (if you will allow me such) of legitimate discourse. But when conversing with a Coulter or O’Reilly or Limbaugh there is no such meta-frame; the meta-frame those folks play by is power. What’s fascinating, from a strict game-theory analysis POV is that the same set of complimentary acts will allow both players to “win” according to their criteria; a Lakoff gets to walk away from a hypothetical O’Reilly taping feeling smug and superior about what an intellectual thug O’Reilly is, meanwhile Bill gets to show the Fox viewers what a terrorist-sympathinzing pantywaist Lakoff is.

The fascinating theoretical aspects of one set of acts allowing both players to “win” because each is playing on a different payoff grid notwithstanding, Lakoff is ostensibly trying to make the move from purely academic concerns into effective political life, which is to say, he may be winning by his old standards, but he’s getting creamed again and again in the new ring into which he has stepped.

But don’t spend too much time picking apart the above; it’s nothing like the wellformed essay I’ve been meaning to write since getting active with ACLU earlier this year. In a nutshell I’d say Elgin’s “Gentle Art…” books are more important for liberals confronting neocons than Lakoff’s book; the essay to support this conclusion is only hinted at in the above.

Hmm, maybe I should take a stab at it Monday…but then when will I get time to read the 185 page Hamdan decision (in which, so far as I’ve previewed it, SCOTUS hands W his ass in a paper bag)? (I was also gonna take another stab at re-enabling comments Monday.)

All for now.

But then you seem to think that Moore’s film wasn’t sophisticated enough because it lacked nuance. If it *had* nuance, who would have appreciated it?

I guess that’s the essential crux of my position regarding the movie– I think (I KNOW from experience) that many people were swayed agsinst Bush by the film, shallow or not. I KNOW that a lot of people lack the will or ability to think very much on these issues so they are easily swayed by rhetoric. That’s why I don’t see the harm in the movie. It’s not as if anyone who really thinks about the issues is going to be changed by the film– and those who would be aren’t likely to read or care about more sophisticated conversation…

As for painting GWB as a fool. I think it is more than fair game for a movie. It’s very different when one is talking about real politics. I don’t think the two are the same (you give movies way too much credit). So I don’t have any problem with Moore’s movie… it ultimately doesn’t have any real power.

I do have a problem with Bush, though. I don’t get your problem with Lakoff. You act as if this being a “power struggle” is something new or as if, for most of us, it comes down to anything but language. And in that context, I think Lakoff is spot on.