Does the Luntz Report show how little Republicans think of the public?

[beagledave]

@rjung

As I said before, if you’ve got an example of a Democratic equivalent to the Luntz report, I’d cheerfully tear into it.
Ahem.

No one gets a free ride from me based on political affiliation; it’s not my fault if Republicans are the fattest targets on the landscape…

Wow. You call a thread complaining about Hillary not being liberal enough comparable to this?

Heh.

Sorry…I don’t call taking a position that you may disagree with automatically sleazy or comparable to “peddling propaganda to the populace” (or illegally soliciting foreign nationals to contribute to national political campaigns.)

Bill Clinton supported the death penalty and lambasted Sister Souljah. Those may or not be worthwhile positions, but they are not necessarily unethical…misleading…shady…sleazy or illegal. They’re positions held by a fairly significant percentage of the population.

FTR…I’d say the same thing to a conservative who criticizes Dubya for positions he would disagree with (like Bush’s proposals concerning illegal immigrant workers, for example).

Nice try…but you know they’re not comparable criticisms.

[erislover]

Right now I’m on page 38 of the first document, and I have to say there has been very little said that seems controversial. So far it is a pretty smart document, assuming the relevant research has been done correctly to support it. I think the OP is reading too much into it by suggesting it somehow encapsulates the idea of sheeple. How we say what we think is important. I don’t even think this document counts as spin (so far). I would hope people looking for education degrees get documents like this, and I’d bet the best reporters and interviewers are aware of these kinds of things on an intuitive level if not explicitly. How a person frames an issue goes a long way towards how the discussion of the issue is received by listeners, readers, and so on. That’s obvious, frankly. That this is about pubbie ideology is besides the point. Its thrust applies to anyone wishing to promote a position that they believe in. The particular examples used even include some comments by democrats and why they’re good comments, within the context of the report which is pretty much about language. I’m no fan of republican ideology but this is pretty bland stuff so far.

But I’m going to keep reading. Maybe I’ll find some evil in there yet. There’s a ways to go.

[Zoe]

Mr. Moto: There’s so much else you can legitimately attack my party on than this, which doesn’t amount to a fart in a hurricane.

beagledave: Sorry…I don’t call taking a position that you may disagree with automatically sleazy or comparable to “peddling propaganda to the populace”

Mr. Moto, I agree with you that there is much else that I can legitimately attack some members of your party on, but I disagree that this playbook is of no consequence and I’m hoping to demonstrate why.

beagledave, thanks for the link. I really do find that the book is comparable to encouraging the peddling of exactly propaganda to the populace. Here’s why:

The Institute of Propaganda Analysis was founded in 1937 by Edward Filene and others to educate the American public about the nature of propaganda and how to recognize propaganda techniques. I can remember studying these techniques in high school and I taught my students how to recognize them when I taught English and communications.

Parts of Lutz’s book draws straight from these techniques. In other words, he is schooling Republicans on how to inundate the American public with propaganda – * and obscure truth*.

Just two examples:

One of the propaganda techniques described by Filene and colleagues is this.

Glittering Generalities:

Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason. They appeal to such notions as honor, glory, love of country, desire for peace, freedom, and family values. The words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people but the implication is always favorable. It cannot be proved true or false because it really says little or nothing at all…

From [url=http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001187.php#1187
Frank Luntz Republican Playbook:

Get back to the fundamentals of America: DEMOCRACY and JUSTICE. As important as American symbols are the core fundamental American principles – those components of the distinctively American creed we set forth in Philadelphia. They too must be harnessed for their own power. At the top of the list in the American mindset are Democracy (52%) and Justice (40%). These principles above all others should be essential components of the communications agenda. You must explain to voters precisely how your policies fit into American ideals of democracy and justice. Whether it is Social Security reform or outsourcing, tax simplification or energy, you must be prepared to incorporate them into these principles. If you can’t, you could lose the rhetorical fight before it has even begun.

Now I’m going to list some of the most fundamental principles of America. All of these are very important, but which is the SINGLE MOST important principle? (Combined First and Second Choices)
52% - DEMOCRACY
40% - JUSTICE
31% - EQUALITY
29% - OPPORTUNITY
22% - SECURITY
21% - FAIRNESS…

(He then also lists various words, sentences and phrases that have worked for various people.)

Another propaganda technique described by Filene and colleagues:

Transfer:
Transfer is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols (e.g., waving the flag) to stir our emotions and win our approval.

From Frank Luntz’s Republican Playbook:

Symbols of America are as important as words. From the Statue of Liberty to the Lincoln Memorial to the American Bald Eagle, what you show can be as important as what you say. Use symbols to help convey your agenda more powerfully.

<snip>

The Power of Symbols. As you are well aware, communication does not exist solely in our words, either written or spoken. Americans draw upon a shared well of symbols, images that evoke concepts fundamental to our country. As our policies are produced with these concepts in mind – freedom, liberty, opportunity – there are timeless American images that match them. Communicating policies within their context and harnessing these symbols to match their principles is perhaps the most powerful form of communication there is.

<snip>

First, you will never find any symbol as powerful as the American flag. The flag is in many ways an American Rorschach test - the inkblot upon which Americans project their ideals of America. It is both too easy and too vague at the same time.

Instead, you would do well to emphasize two other symbols of America that imply more specific ideals. The Statue of Liberty specifically symbolizes both freedom and opportunity – two inherent principles of the conservative party, while also appealing to our nation of immigrants. When asked, 64% of Americans chose the Statue of Liberty as one of the greatest symbol of America and American patriotism. That is why we chose Lady Liberty as the cover picture of this document.

<snip>

The American people cannot always be expected to directly grasp the connection between your policies and your principles. Symbols bridge this gap, so use them, and use them liberally.(bold type added)

I’m not going to say that Democrats aren’t manipulative and sometimes corrupt. And I’m not saying that all Republicans are sleaze bags. (I may support McCain in the next election myself.)

But this is blatant and horrible and indefensible. It is an insult to the citizens from a smug group of people who are not acting in our best interests.

Who is Frank Luntz and how did this get made public?

[erislover]

That’s a little over the top, Zoe. The stress on that part of the report is that facts alone are not sufficient to present a platform. One should link their facts and intentions to core principles. That is not using generalities as propaganda, it is elaborating a platform: a distinction that needs to be made lest everything be “propaganda” and the word lose its meaning. Using “vague” words and expounding upon why one’s platform represents those ideals eliminates the very vagueness that would make it propaganda. “Freedom” and “stars and bars” in a poster is a different thing than linking policies to the ideals that suggest them. Bumper stickers: propaganda; a speech clarifying a politician’s take on ideals: not propaganda.

As far as transfer goes, that’s at once a fair assessment and a misleading one. Such symbols are a part of politics and governance themselves; they adorn our currency, courthouses, and government offices, for example. It is hardly surprising that political candidates would use them. Their ubiquity speaks of their meaninglessness in the context at hand. I challenge anyone to find a candidate’s website that doesn’t have such images. Hell, find a government website home page that doesn’t have them (usually found in departmental insignias). I doubt the Bureau of Labor and Statistics is trying to whip me up into a jingoistic frenzy.

However, there are other examples of propaganda which are more realistic, and in line with the meaning of the word, like the need to create a villian (China is continually used as an example, which is funny because all sides seem to use China as a villian whenever some appropriate topic comes up), the help rhyming gives to slogans or statements, and so on. These tactics go beyond making an issue approachable for one’s intended audience and dive headlong into blatant appeals to emotion and memory.

Generally, the document seems to contain two separate threads: one, that how one expresses facts and goals is as important as having the facts on your side in the first place (an unremarkable observation, if you ask me); two, how to use certain propaganda techniques to appeal to emotion.

Let me give an example.

Don’t talk like economists. Words like “protectionist,” “capitalist,” and “isolationist” turn the average voter off. In this case, I am sorry to say that emotion beats intellect. All your facts must ring true, but they should be couched in terms that appeal to our hearts as well as our heads.

[emphasis original] While I suppose one could say this walks a line between propaganda and good speechwriting, I think the last sentence directs us that it is the latter and not the former. I should hardly expect anyone to use words that have been shown to have a negative impact just to avoid using ones that have a positive one out of fear of alarming some pundits. The phrase “All your facts must ring true” also indicates this is not meant to be propaganda, unless one severely distorts the meaning of “facts” or “ring true”. Indeed, as I suggest, having one’s facts ring true is one of the two major themes: it is not enough that they are facts. Hardly a point of contention, I’d think.

Let’s look at this:

I begin with the “fairness” argument because it is at the very core of the anti-trade argument. Like clockwork, opponents to trade always return to the same refrain that recent agrements are unfair to workers, unfair to certain American industries, and unfair to America.

In some ways they’re right. American products ARE charged higher taxes at foreign borders. Yes, that’s unfair. Acknowledge their premise, but then challenge their conclusion and solution. You will win the fairness argument by demonstrating that it is actually the lack of trade agreements that is the cause of unfair practices against American companies, products, and most importantly, American workers.

Propaganda or platform? Again, it seems easy to tell it is the latter (and not because I agree with the platform itself). If we’re keen on picking out words, “demonstrating” is a good one that shows it isn’t about disregarding facts (or even: not having them).

But, immediately following that is this gem:

And a villain always helps. Our polling indicates that 31% of Americans see China as the country that ignores agreements and breaks rules the most often. They are the number one response by a long shot, and if approached with some degree of sensitivity, could function as a stunningly effective foil when talking about fairness.

Propaganda? You betcha. Not a mention of facts surrounding the issue, only an appeal to a polling-derived appeal to emotion.

This is an interesting read.

[beagledave]

@Zoe

beagledave, thanks for the link. I really do find that the book is comparable to encouraging the peddling of exactly propaganda to the populace.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here…did you read my post?

I did not address the nature of what Luntz did (or argue rjung’s characterization of the same as “propaganda”) except to suggest (as others have), that sleazy political tactics from either side of the fence is not exactly news. As evidence to support that claim…I quickly googled up a little indiscretion involving the Hillary Clinton fundraising campaign recently. So needless to say…your little treatise on the nature of propaganda was a wasted effort.

This is not to suggest to say that what Luntz did is okey dokey…but that it seems a bit silly to single out one side (which is what rjung did) for partisan political hackery.

Hell every push poll conducted by either side falls into the category of propaganda designed to shape public opinion. And did I mention that BOTH camps do push polls? (among scores of other tactics)

rjung seems to be suggesting that only an exact duplication of the Luntz playbook by the Dems would be worth his ire…whatever.