Brief Analysis: "How Republicans Are Being Taught to Talk about Occupy"

[wolven7]

Via erynn999: "How Republicans are being taught to talk about Occupy Wall Street".

Go ahead and read it. I'll wait.

...

Good? Okay. Now, what I want to say here is that I am hopeful but still very cautious. While I think that the fact that republicans and corporate leaders are being coached by political strategists-- especially one as prominent and skilled as Luntz-- is a sign that the Occupy movement is gaining serious conceptual real estate, I think that there is still a very real possibility that people won't see the manipulation inherent in Luntz's tactics, once they're put into practice.

There is still a segment of the population who feel aligned with Occupy only because it's the closest thing they have to an outlet, and will bolt if something more attuned to their interests ("left" or "right") comes along.

That being said, what I would love to see is a deconstruction and analysis of the full transcript of Luntz's advice, with each component being shown for precisely the kind of manipulation it is. Show the mechanisms of the trap and teach people to guard against it.

Comments

Rhetoric

[lillash.livejournal.com]

I love seeing such a meta discussion as Frank Luntz puts out there. I mean, he's right. And it's all rhetorical. (Even calling it manipulation is a rhetorical move, placing it in a more negative light than, say, calling it something like "constructed speech.") Job creators = rich. It's the same damn thing, but one has negative connotation (think "filthy rich") and the other (rather awkwardly) has more positive connotations (jobs = good).

That being said, the only way to really get around it is to think about it critically: what structures are being built up verbally? Where is the power play?

Re: Rhetoric

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Precisely correct. All we can do is point these things out, whenever we encounter them.