Luntz of the Left?

In a preview of a piece set to appear in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday, we see that Democrats have recognized the value of language and its ability to favorably frame political debate. George Lakoff, the subject of the article, is compared with Frank Luntz, whose methodology, impact, and results we have read about and discussed in class.

Luntz' value to Republicans has been demonstrated time and again. The rhetorical upper hand can make a huge difference in how Americans respond to issues. Despite Luntz' success, the Democrats have not to-date countered with a language guru of their own. As a result, they frequently find themselves pinned in by the words that frame the debate.

As one example, look at the hot button issue of abortion. The act of aborting a fetus is an act nearly impossible to advocate, no matter ones position on the issue. Despite polls showing that a majority of Americans support a woman's ability to choose this course, Democrats lose on the issue because they cannot help but be on the defensive. Pro-choice candidates are characterized as favoring "abortion on demand" or worse. Anti-abortion candidates, meanwhile, run under the mantel of "pro-life", a vastly superior rhetorical position. If you follow DNC Chairman Howard Dean's statements, he has made a concerted effort to re-cast the language of the abortion debate. Hillary Clinton is attempting to position herself similarly.

In the end, language can't trump the actual positions being staked out, but it is a crucial feature in effectively communicating with voters. Beyond simple words, the work of Luntz and Lakoff is geared toward the context or framing of debate. This is their real impact on political messaging, as it defines how voters perceive issues. If Lakoff can match the work of Luntz, the subsequent rhetorical posturing of both sides will be dizzying. The risk is that such activity will ultimately put the public in a spot where reality is shielded by the nuance of language and metaphor.