the 14 things Republicans aren't supposed to say

[Nova Land]

I'm not sure just how I stumbled across the site, but WatchingTheWatchers.org has a very interesting item about a 160-page briefing book that GOP pollster Frank Luntz put together advising Republicans what to say and what not to say when speaking in public. One of the appendices to this briefing book is entitled "The Fourteen Words Never To Use”. (I am assuming this is genuine and not a hoax, since the advice Luntz offers here is clever and well-thought out rather than over-the-top humorous the way a parody would probably be.)

Some of the Never say... Instead say... items are easily understood simply from hearing the contrasting terms, but others need explanation, so I've excerpted a few of Luntz's reasonings.

While the advice Luntz offers is probably highly effective in the political arena as it now exists, this is the kind of rhetorical manipulation which I hope skeptics can resist using and which a skeptical movement might eventually be able to help educate the public at large to see through. Our aim should be to use the most accurate way of describing things, not the most emotionally appealing.

I don't mean this as an attack on Republicans. This is the kind of manipulation that both parties attempt to do. I think the Republicans tend to be more skilled at it than the Democrats, but the Democrats are certainly trying to catch up. What is sad to me is that, increasingly, people feel no shame at using tactics such as this, and even take pride in their skill at manipulating people in this way.

I am reminded of the classic science fiction satire The Space Merchants, by Frederick Pohl and CM Kornbluth. It was a lot funnier as fiction, though.

1. NEVER SAY Government
INSTEAD SAY: Washington

The fact is, most Americans appreciate their local government that picks up their trash, cleans their streets, and provides police and transportation services. Washington is the problem. Remind voters again and again about Washington spending, Washington waste, Washington taxation, Washington bureaucracy, Washington rules and Washington regulations...
...

2. NEVER SAY Privatization/Private Accounts
INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts
...

3. NEVER SAY Tax Reform
INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification
...

4. NEVER SAY Inheritance/Estate Tax
INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax
...

5. NEVER SAY A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism
INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy
...

6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing
INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation Innovation, Education

When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we should talk about the “root cause” why any company would not want to hire “the best workers in the world.” And the answer: “over-taxation, over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality education.” Because it rhymes, it will be remembered...
...

7. NEVER SAY Undocumented Workers
INSTEAD SAY: Illegal Aliens
...

8. NEVER SAY Foreign Trade
INSTEAD SAY: International Trade
...

9. NEVER SAY Drilling for oil
INSTEAD SAY: Exploring for energy
...

10. NEVER SAY Tort Reform
INSTEAD SAY: Lawsuit Abuse Reform
...

11. NEVER SAY Trial Lawyer
INSTEAD SAY: Personal Injury Lawyer
...

12. NEVER SAY Corporate Transparency
INSTEAD SAY: Corporate Accountability
...

13. NEVER SAY School Choice
INSTEAD SAY: Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education

Americans are still evenly split over whether they support “school choice” in America’s schools. But they are heavily in favor of “giving parents the right to choose the schools that are right for their children,” an there is almost universal support for “equal opportunity in education.” So frame the issue right and you get the support you need...
...

14. NEVER SAY Health care “Choice”
INSTEAD SAY: “The Right to Choose”

This is an important nuance so often lost on political officials. Almost all Americans want “the right to choose the health care plan, hospital, doctor and prescription drug plan that is best for them,” but far fewer Americans actually want to make that choice. In fact, the older you get, the less eager you are to have a wide range of choices...

 

[RandFan]

What is sad to me is that, increasingly, people feel no shame at using tactics such as this, and even take pride in their skill at manipulating people in this way.

We get what we deserve. Perception is greater than reality. As I said in a similar thread, as long as commercials with young, attractive men and women playing volley ball sells beer then there will be politicians pulling this crap.

As long as people believe that jerks like John Edwards and Sylvia Brown can communicate to the dead, but only get small talk, your mom says she is fine. She doesn't remember where she head the savings bonds. Then politicians will pull this crap.

We have to learn to think critically. Just like advertisers, politicians do what works. It's as simple as that.

 

[Darat]

Fascinating but frightening (if real).

I have no objection to someone trying to communicate in the most effective way possible and since communication is as much in the ear of the receiver I think it is justifiable and perhaps even necessary at times to ensure the words you are using don’t prevent communication by initiating a reflexive response.

However when it is used to mislead then it becomes Orwellian in its insidiousness.

In the above I can see some “substitutions” that can be justified to ensure communication but many that seem to be attempts to obfuscate the true meaning or are duplicitous and smack of “newspeak”.

For example:

6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing
INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation Innovation, Education

When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we should talk about the “root cause” why any company would not want to hire “the best workers in the world.” And the answer: “over-taxation, over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality education.” Because it rhymes, it will be remembered...

I can’t think of an interpretation for this one as being anything else but a call for a politician to attempt to deceive the people they are meant to be communicating their policies to.

Newspeak indeed…

(Have a look at this site for some more examples of newspeak: http://www.scn.org/news/newspeak/ )

 

[CFLarsen]

[derail]

Oldspeak: "People who know that faith healers, psychics and dowsers are fake, yet continue to endorse them".

Newspeak: "Victims".

[/derail]

 

[hgc]

I am always amazed at the inability of liberal pundits on TV to forcefully show how the other side shapes the debate in dishonest ways. From this moment forward, I expect that whenever any Conservative or Republican shill uses these phrases, that his DemLib counterpart will point to the Luntz memo and do a backwards translation for the audience. Sadly, it won't happen.

 

[Darat]

I am always amazed at the inability of liberal pundits on TV to forcefully show how the other side shapes the debate in dishonest ways. From this moment forward, I expect that whenever any Conservative or Republican shill uses these phrases, that his DemLib counterpart will point to the Luntz memo and do a backwards translation for the audience. Sadly, it won't happen.

I suspect that it is not just one side that engages in this type of newspeak. It may just be that the Republicans are (at this moment) slightly more organised about it.

 

[DaChew]

I suspect that it is not just one side that engages in this type of newspeak. It may just be that the Republicans are (at this moment) slightly more organised about it.

I doubt they are MORE organized about it. Of course, we all remember the Democrat campaign manual from Colorado that suggested that party officials allege voter disenfranchisement or voter fraud whether they had evidence of it or not.

 

[hgc]

I suspect that it is not just one side that engages in this type of newspeak. It may just be that the Republicans are (at this moment) slightly more organised about it.

True that. And they're not just marginally better; they're taking the Dems to school, and Dems aren't learning the lesson. If it were common for the media to use truthful language and to point out where pols use obfuscation and other forms of doublespeak, then we would hear a more honest type of dialog. Unfortunately, the media all either have an axe to grind or their bottom line doesn't support real reporting.

 

[Ladewig]

I doubt they are MORE organized about it. Of course, we all remember the Democrat campaign manual from Colorado that suggested that party officials allege voter disenfranchisement or voter fraud whether they had evidence of it or not.

Are you implying that both books are accurate or that both books are more fiction than truth?

News searches on Google do not turn up either story. Regular Google searches turn up lots of hits for Colorado "Election Day Manual" but most of them are bloggers or Newsmax. Regular Google searches turn up hits for Frank Luntz briefing book but most of them are for bloggers.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I do think we should debate the credibility of this briefing book before we debate the content.

 

[corplinx]

It sounds legit enough, take the undocumented workers/illegal aliens one. In this case they are being told not to use spin but call these people what they are. Or perhaps entries like this are supposed to make the document look legitimate.

To be honest, there isn't much manipulation in this. There is just an awful lot of sugar coating. There isn't even much negativity (like other partisan mantras like "trickle down economics").

 

[RandFan]

I suspect that it is not just one side that engages in this type of newspeak. It may just be that the Republicans are (at this moment) slightly more organised about it.

Ever hear the term "revenue enhancement"? That means taxes.

If congress plans to increase benifits by 10% and the Republicans want to increase benifits by only 5% then that is a "cut" in benifits.

Anyone under the age of 18 is a child. So a 17 year old gang member who dies from a gun shot translates to "child killed by gun shot".

Orwell's 1984 comes to mind as we discuss this BTW.

For a an interesting read on the subject: The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone's Saying Anymore.

 

[hgc]

It sounds legit enough, take the undocumented workers/illegal aliens one. In this case they are being told not to use spin but call these people what they are. Or perhaps entries like this are supposed to make the document look legitimate.

To be honest, there isn't much manipulation in this. There is just an awful lot of sugar coating. There isn't even much negativity (like other partisan mantras like "trickle down economics").

Another typical tactic on display: Take your own terminology, and once it has polled as unpopular, change to new terminology. Then state that your opponents' use of your old terminology is "negativity."

Bush is doing it with SS "privatization," and corplinx just did it with "trickle-down." Was it "negative" when Reagan said it?

 

[corplinx]

Bush is doing it with SS "privatization," and corplinx just did it with "trickle-down." Was it "negative" when Reagan said it?

Did Reagan say it? I always associated trickle-down with flash-in-the-pan Ross Perot.

 

[hgc]

Did Reagan say it? I always associated trickle-down with flash-in-the-pan Ross Perot.

Here's the first citation I can find

"'Trickle down' is exactly right. It's not a disparaging term and people were trying to disparage it. Others were running from it, and it just offended me because I know it to be true and I believe it."

This from rushlimbaugh.com.

I don't have a date for that, but I can find more, eventually, if you're not convinced. I believe the term was introduced by OMB Director David Stockman (when he still worked for Reagan).

edited to add: Oops, that's not from Reagan, but from coverage of his funeral. I will search for direct quote and post it when I can.

The term didn't fall out of favor until much later in Reagan's presidency.

 

[RandFan]

How about calling SDI Star Wars?

 

[hgc]

How about calling SDI Star Wars?

Neither term is very satisfying, from a truthful-communications perspective. I prefer "weapons in space" or "orbiting missile defense."

 

[RandFan]

Neither term is very satisfying, from a truthful-communications perspective. I prefer "weapons in space" or "orbiting missile defense."

I agree.

 

[DaChew]

I do think we should debate the credibility of this briefing book before we debate the content.

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm

 

[Meadmaker]

"Trickle down economics" was a perjorative term applied by Democrats to Reagan economic policies. If the memo were written back then, it would say

Never say "Trickle down economics"
Instead say "Supply side economics"

If Reagan or anyone in his administration ever used the term, it would be in the context of defending their policies against that charge.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Never say "Trickle down economics"
Instead say "Supply side economics"

...snip...

And both would mean absolutely nothing to me!