Luntz replied, "I'm not a policy person. I'm a language person."

No Frank, "language person" is not a synonym for liar. And Luntz is nothing more than a Master of Dissembling.

Same liars, different issue. Has Luntz apologized for all the other lies he's helped the Republicans tell yet? Then why the hell should anyone listen to him now?

A lie isn't a side of the story. It's a just a lie.

I was only following orders.

I don't really understand the reluctance to use "polite" language in ads countering this stuff. I'm for running ads that say, roughly, "They're LYING to you, here's why:" and then a list of Republican statements about healthcare---each one stamped "LIE" across it, with a calm statement of the Democrats' actual position beneath.

"Socialism" Lie!
"Take away your choice of doctors" Lie!
"Treatment approved by bureaucrats" Lie!
"Waiting for months for treatment" Lie!

BAM!

It's the only way to counter this crap.

Oops, I meant the reluctance to use impolite language.

Yes, the dems need to call them out as liars, but they should also memorize all of the talking points. Then everytime they are asked about one, should merely reply, in the tone one would use with a dull and obnoxious child, "Oh, that's just another Frank Luntz lie" and proceed to talk about whatever is actually important to talk about.

Somehow, though, I doubt they will pull it off.

No need to worry -- instead of proposing something relatively simple like single-payer universal health care, the Democrats are sure to propose some complicated and confusing plan that Luntz and company will be able to easily deflect through obfuscation.

"Luntz's job is to help kill important legislation through rhetorical manipulation"

Sure, but isn't that pretty much SOP with that party? And qwerty- "no need to worry" sums up the 'opposition' fairly well...

With apologies to Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and GOP talking points.

Many years ago, during my explicitly political days, I learned that if you can set the terms of the debate, you've almost definitely won it.

That's what Luntz is doing. That's his job, via language, and/or bumperstickers, and/or talking points on the Sunday-morning gas-bag shows. He just made it transcendentally clear. I'm almost shocked at how explicit he was. Bragging at bit, are we?

In short, don't allow him or his set the terms. On that day, he and his Sith Lord employers win.

Luntz's language is already starting to be used by the "moderators" on the Sunday talking shows as the standard health care reform language. If Luntz's language becomes the standard usage of the entire MSM, then kiss health care reform goodbye and Obama's entire domestic agenda, and perhaps reelection, will vanish. Ask Hillary and Bill. Have the Democrats learned anything?

If the Republicans develop scary music to go with these talking points, then health care has no chance. Even Senator Reid will believe the silliest of talking points if the music is menacing.

No need to worry because Barack Obman said we will end it by telling the truth--forcefully, repeatedly, confidently--and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change.

Luntz is the past, and it is sad he works so hard to be Orwellian, after 8 years
of a George Orwell novel known as the Bush/Cheney Administration.

We'll point out the tactics of the diabolically twisted language of a Luntz.

Use objective logic. This is our time.

I would propose this response to Frank Luntz:
Bring the products of the current "health care system" to the microphone, one after the other. Tell their stories clearly, factually and with just enough emotion to plant the seed of doubt in the minds of listeners. Invite the employees of those insurance companies to tell their stories, anonymously, if necessary, of what they were instructed to say and do. Present former employees who are no longer in jeopardy for their jobs with their stories. I imagine there are a few who have actual documentation to support their stories. Then, invite, by company, name and position, the executives and policymakers of those companies to present their "facts". Invite those congresspeople who support the current system to testify to their support of the current system and who is making donations to their campaigns. Have them explain their healthcare benefits and why theirs should not be the standard for all Americans.

Invite medical professionals, including physicians, nurses and administrative personnel to tell their stories.

We don't need to play rhetorical games with "language." Present the facts and supporting stories, without hyperbolic language, and keep the message going. Ask for others whose stories demonstrate the brokenness of this system. Invite those who like the system to share their stories and draw the contrast between how it works for them and why not for others. There are over 40 million stories of non-covered or under-covered Americans to tell. When put up against other nations with single-payer systems, I doubt that their worst cases would be as bad as our worst cases. I am willing to bet that the U.S. Healthcare system could not stand up to this scrutiny. And, I doubt that the MSM would air this campaign, so it will have to be distributed via alternative media and word of mouth. I think with enough clarity, this will defang the arguments of the Frank Luntz of this country.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

I have never understood the Frank Luntz mystique. I'm an actual rhetorician, and I've always found his sloganeering sort of banal.

But there's a bigger problem here, and it's not policy versus language. Politics is not a science, it's an art. It is the art of collectively dealing with the contingent. And that takes place either through persuasion or force--there is not an alternative. And there is certainly no language without a rhetoric.

What Luntz means is that he's the person who sells the argument. He parses the syntax by weaving ideologically loaded concepts into the debate. It is neither magic nor rocket science, but nor is it some sort of scandal, and it's foolish to treat a rhetorician as something that is prima facia ethically suspect. If you want to take the position that rhetorical savvy is somehow disgraceful, get used to losing debates. I promise that self-righteousness doesn't take the sting out of failure.

I'm sorry if this sounds shrill, but you can't go off half-cocked about the "dangers of rhetoric" as though there were an alternative language stripped of the power to move, inspire, convince and create. We've tried, and the result has failed, sucked and been massively ethically suspect. For an alternative look at political rhetoric, take a look at my blog.

[find cate's blog at http://www.doxophiliac.com/ -- mod.]

Luntz was the same word whore who used similar "words" and "definitions" to trip up folks on global climate change in the early 90s as a word whore for Big Oil. So it's not a surprise to me that he would start another fight over healthcare as a word whore for Big Insurance/Pharma.

I was at the recent BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization) meeting in Atlanta and saw a panel with Tom Daschle, John Dean, Bill Frist and Karl Rove debating health care. I'd like to say that Daschle and Dean wupped Frist and Rove's a**es, but they really didn't, though they traded points.

It's clear from watching Frist and Rove, that the strategy they are going to use is an old one: fear and confusion. In particular, it looks like they are going to not only use the "Do you want some faceless bureaucrat decided what doctor you can see?" but also "Who's going to pay for it?" as part of the approach (as in "It's going to cost $2 Trillion dollars, how are we going to pay for it?") Frist's job was to confuse the issue by saying "Something has to change but is this the right bill? We need something that's more gradual and won't destroy our existing plans by driving everyone into the government plan."

Dean proposed a $0.05 gas tax to pay for health care. Daschle proposed a carbon tax. I think these are the wrong approaches as it focuses on the cost a if we aren't paying for health care in emergency rooms. Rove kind of carved them up by saying "Gas taxes pay for highways, carbon tax is a bad idea period but they are both regressive taxes."

While personally I wouldn't mind paying for universal health care through either of these methods (though I think we're going to need the revenue from carbon tax for more energy related matters), I don't think we want to handle the debate this way.

I also doubt we can "pay for" health care by adding better software (another idea that Daschle floated). As a professional software engineer who works in the biotech industry, creating electronic records for all medical transactions is a mammoth problem that will be extremely difficult to achieve at all, let alone in a way that realizes any immediate real dollar savings. It is instead going to cost a lot in the near term even though I think it is necessary, valuable and, in the long run, will save money.

All told, it was clear to me from watching this debate that the watchwords for the Repugs are still fear and confusion. However, they still have a lack of real ideas on how to address this issue. Moreover, they have one real problem they can't solve: It's hard to scare people who have to deal with our current healthcare system.

I don't know why the Dems don't just get up and say, "Look, the Republicans derailed your chance at affordable, quality healthcare over 15 years ago, the same way they're trying to today. And did things get better for anyone but the insurance companies? Don't let them take away your chance this time."

Sorry, long day in the garden, of course I meant "Howard Dean" not "John Dean."

http://buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com/2009/03/reforming-health-care-its-time-to-cut.html

REFORMING HEALTH CARE: IT'S TIME TO CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT

The way to deal with lies and exaggerations is to use their own words against them. I didn't notice anyone mention the bogeyman "Socialism!" which is the "Frau Blucher" of the right wing (for you Young Frankenstein fans). I counter that argument by asking them if they would like to be disqualified from receiving "Social" Security and Medicare and rely on their private funds when they reach 65? One of the best arguments in the past is the one where Congressmen and Senators are confronted with the government paid health care available to them: Just say "I want the American people to have the same health plan available to members of Congress." Hard to argue against that.

And when they come back and say it will cost too much, then ask them how much the Iraq War cost and where the money came from to pay for it. Ask them if they'd be willing to pay a sales tax of two cents on the dollar (yes, I know this sounds like the "Fair Tax" but it won't replace the income tax) to pay for catastrophic health insurance.

And don't forget: people are far more concerned about catastrophic expenses than being reimbursed for $20 office visits. That's where the focus should be in reforming health care.

The Repugs have as much chance of disuading Americans about a govt health care option as Bush did in trying to convince them that Social Security should go private. The timing for the Dems is perfect to sell their plan: health care costs are increasing rapidly while more Americans are losing their jobs and their health insurance plans.

The Dems simply need to pound home the following statistic: roughly 5 million Americans went bankrupt between the years 2000 and 2006 as a result of medical care expenses.

http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/the-hidden-link.pdf

If a single person in Canada, Britain, France, Japan, Germany etc went bankrupt due to medical costs, it would be a national disgrace.

I'm sorry if this sounds shrill, but you can't go off half-cocked about the "dangers of rhetoric" as though there were an alternative language stripped of the power to move, inspire, convince and create.

cate, I just spent some time reading your blog and it is excellent. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in thoughtful contemplations on language in the service of argument.

Your point that rhetoric is not, in and of it itself, disgraceful, is well taken. As you note in your blog, however, the "unease" within certain portions of the population has been capitalized on by certain interests for the past eight years through the use of inflammatory rhetoric:

"Vote for us or there will be another terrorist attack on American soil."

"Vote for us or you will be doing just what terrorists want."

"By questioning the decisions of past leaders you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and helping them recruit new members to kill us."

"Allowing marriage or civil unions for members of the LGBT communities will destroy marriage forever and bring down society."

"Addressing environmental concerns without absolute scientific certainty of what's happening will bankrupt our country completely." [I know you've spent some time considering this one]

Using rhetoric as a tool to "move, inspire, convince, [and] create" is one thing. Speaking of every political or economic issue as an absolute existential crisis -- one in which you and your loved ones may not only die but be violated and/or tortured by the worst sort of villains in some insidious dystopia beforehand -- is quite another, and an abuse of language more suited to Goebbels than Gingrich.

History shows us that an ideologically bankrupt party that has largely become the province of reactionaries in the service of the avaricious interests of a few conscienceless men has only worse and worse inflammatory rhetoric to turn to: "taking back the country," "secession," "usurper," traitor," et al. Nothing good can come of this, which is why I think there us such pushback from the progressive community against any hyperbolic use of language from the right.

When the Secret Service has to step in because a candidate for vice president is inciting death threats against her opponent, we definitely need a very public discussion of the state of public discourse in our country.

start chanting "Won't Get Fooled Again"

Last week I wrote this about that fool Glenn Beck, "He thinks his microphone is a license to lie."

That works for Luntz, too, except with him, it's his academic credential gives him license to lie. Someone should sue the university for malpractice, what an abuse of an education.

We study rhetoric to arm ourselves against the purveyors of weasel words, the clever liars and misleaders.

the Democrats are sure to propose some complicated and confusing plan that Luntz and company will be able to easily deflect through obfuscation.

Posted by: qwerty on May 24, 2009

I don't know what they're coming up with, but let me ask you a few questions.

Would you like for more people to get healthcare insurance through their employers?

If you could use the Internet to choose from many health care plans would that be helpful?

Would it bother you if the government provided some subsidization, so everyone in America, regardless of income, could have healthcare coverage? Sort of an expansion of Medicaid.

Would you like standards for medical practice and procedures to be established, so you are more likely to get the best state-of-the-art care?

Would you be happy if your doctor no longer has to ask the insurance company doctors what they can do?

These are a few of the reforms I think they're planning. None sound socialistic to me. How about you?

The GOP is scared shitless of the public option. They know if the Dems pass a real public option, the GOP is doomed to minority status, or worse, for the next 40 years. They will do ANYTHING to stop it. This is just a prelude.

Whatever you might say about Luntz, he created the very concept of using language as a political weapon. And he's really good at it. When Bush was faltering, Luntz was ready to go with the democrats, and I was saying we should take him. Nobody listened of course, and now we have to go against him and lose. This guy is a mercenary, and a damn good one. Why we would decide that we want him on the other side is beyond me. We Democrats need to learn that suicide is not an effective fighting strategy. We don't need him to win, but we need to make sure he isn't on the other side. We could have taken him, and now you can kiss health care reform goodbye. If he were on our side, it would pass. It's too late to get him now, but maybe we should have someone like him on our side. Ideas don't sell themselves, you need real marketing. And deception and the manipulation of language is how you do it. Luntz knows that, and we don't. Ideas are cool, but they mean nothing if they aren't implemented. If we had Luntz, they would be implemented. But we don't, so they won't. The fundamental problem with liberals is that they don't want to win. Until that changes, they won't win.

Apparently the person to watch is a Ms Ignagni, who is said to be the most powerful lobbyist for the Health Insurance companies, who has been working on an agenda for years to stop universal health care. This woman evidently has known that the system stinks and is going to fight to the death to keep it that way!!!!

To paraphrase:

There are lies,
Damned Lies
and
Republicans

Um, the public option will crowd out the private options and become single-payer. "Takeover", then, is entirely appropriate, dumasses. Single-payer, properly implemented might be a good thing, but farting around with half-assed measures that will lead to it is going to make implementation sloppy and haphazard.

I can't decide whether or not Benen and the commentators here are brain-dead or disingenuous.