Word Wars: The Koch is coming with its "wordsmiths"

[Cosmic Kitten]

The right-wing understands that WORDS MATTER.
The Kochtopus is spending million$$$ on wordsmithing
to persuade and capture the narrative this upcoming election.
This round its about: taxes, deregulation, energy, women and Latinos...

How Populists respond will/can make a difference.
Do we respond to their frames?
Do we create alternate frames?
Do we deconstruct their frames exposing the manipulation?

...the Koch network—and the GOP generally—capitalized on public dissatisfaction with President Obama, the "six-year itch" most two-term presidents face, and a bad electoral landscape for Democratic Senate candidates. But the Kochs and their allies also learned from their past mistakes. They've used the last two years to adapt, refine, and expand their operations with an eye to sharpening their anti-big-government messages to appeal to more voters. The Koch network, one donor told me, has been laser-focused on "trying to perfect their language." For help, they have turned to an A-list of conservative political consultants, including the man best known for selling the nation on Newt Gingrich's Contract With America: pollster and spinmeister Frank Luntz.

Luntz cut his teeth in the early 1990s as a pollster for Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, but he became a household name later in the decade, when he advised Republicans to "talk like Newt" by describing Democrats with terms like "corrupt," "devour," "greed," "hypocrisy," "liberal," "sick," and "traitors."

<snip>

After the 2012 drubbing, the network spent several months doing a postmortem analysis, even postponing its traditional winter policy and fundraising seminar until the following April. In an invitation to the spring gathering, Koch fundraising honcho Kevin Gentry stressed the need for a few fixes, two of which focused on messaging and marketing.

One top priority: crafting the right messages to woo major voting blocs, such as Latinos, women, and youth, who favored Obama by wide margins. The Koch network should zero in on how "to more effectively communicate to these growing demographics, all of which play a critical role in advancing free enterprise," Gentry wrote.

Mobilizing these and other major constituencies required "understanding key customer segments," Gentry wrote, "and more importantly the issues that matter to them." The Koch network had to do a better job of locating and training "principled and effective advocates for free enterprise"

<snip>

This year, Koch operatives repeatedly stressed the vital role of good messaging in selling their anti-tax, anti-regulatory agenda. An internal memo sent to donors to Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs political flagship, and obtained by Politico bemoaned that in 2012, "The Left had a superior messaging strategy."

The brothers' longtime senior adviser, Rich Fink, also sent an email to the donor network emphasizing the need for "developing the message and educating people," according to a donor familiar with it. And in a conference call with network donors, Fink stressed similar points. The network would ratchet up its message testing, while reassuring its high-dollar backers on conference calls by discussing focus groups and polls.

<snip>

Focus groups, he told National Review, showed that emotional appeals worked better than ideological ones, and that women were more effective anti-Obamacare spokespeople than men. "Women are more focused on quality of life and peace of mind," he said. Sure enough, in this past election cycle Americans for Prosperity spent at least $50 million on a big ad blitz attacking Democrats in tight races, often featuring women talking about problems they claim to have encountered with Obamacare.

<snip>

As one veteran operative put it: "The Koch network was very sensitive to make sure that the messages and the messengers resonated with women voters."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/frank-luntz-helped-the-koch-brothers

That's it Populists, it's Word Wars.
Facts don't persuade, ideology won't win...
EMOTIONS are what sway the public...
Hearts & Minds

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. And the framing of ALL conversations is done by righty...it is why nothing gets done

They dont just control the language, they control the topic.

How do you tell someone making $10 an hour at the local mini mart that handing more money to billionaires wont actually improve their life?

I mean, when they BELIEVE that it will, how do you reverse that?

[Cosmic Kitten]

2. I'm not sure premise is solid?

How do you tell someone making $10 an hour at the local mini mart that handing more money to billionaires wont actually improve their life?

Who is that "someone"?
Do you know any working poor who believe
that a billionaire will improve their life?
If so, YOU can help them!

As to:

They dont just control the language, they control the topic.

Yes, that is "framing" and the "narrative".
That's what Populists need to address, pronto.

Language is a description, not a reality...
it stands in for something else... ideas, feelings, etc
It only has power when "someone" accepts it as their reality.

Right-wingers who accept the frame that "democrats" are traitors
have bough into the narrative they THEY, "right-wingers",
are the patriots. See how that works?

Change the frame, capture the narrative.

[sabrina 1]

8. Well, let's take one issue and see how it can be framed to get people

to understand it.

Taxes! Republicans spout anti-tax rhetoric, people naturally agree, because no one wants to have money taken from their pay checks to go to the 'government'. That is where they think it goes. They think it is all going to pay for 'wellfare queens' another phrase from the right word spinners.

The fact is most of it goes to WARS overseas. Wars that do not benefit the American people, if anything they make them LESS safe.

So clearly Dems have done a terrible job of explaining this. IF we cut the Military budget in half, we would not have to raise taxes to pay the miserable amount that goes to Education, by comparison, and to HC and other social programs.

So how do you frame this?

I have to go back and look through the threads, but there is a chart that shows were the money goes.

I think putting that chart on t-shirts and posters, all over the place, would educate people as to where their tax dollars ACTUALLY go.

Once they understand that, and that they have been lied to regarding SS etc. in a very simply WORDLESS way, Graphically, then perhaps it would be possible to come up with some phrases that are catchy and appeal to the people.

Maybe focusing on one issue and figuring out how to beat the rhetoric from the right would be easier than making it so general.

THEN use the same method for other issues.

[Cosmic Kitten]

9. Framing issues is about VALUES

IF the issue to be framed is about taxation
it should be in the context of the overarching
VALUES of the Populist/Progressive narrative.

Simply creating "breakouts" of where taxes are spent
does little to reinforce the values expressed in said spending,
from the Populist/Progressive perspective.
.
For example, many citizens believe military spending IS
a worthwhile "value" and that spending supports the narrative
of being patriotic. In essence, saying there is too much military
spending may reinforce Left-leaning values, while reinforcing
the right-wing frames and narrative that Left-leaning people
are weak and unpatriotic. Make sense?

As to "taxes" and spending, the framing should carefully
reinforce a Populist value system while weaving a larger
"Public interest" narrative. It needs to cut across partisan
ideological lines to avoid reinforcing the current right-wing narratives.

[sabrina 1]

10. The only reason that is the case is because of the right wing lies

that are told.

Maybe if people looked at the chart they would at least begin to wonder why all that money is going to private contractors, security corps who spend more of their time spying on Americans than on the 'enemy'.

And polls show that Americans do not approve of its government spying on them.

And the lack of money spent on the troops who are the reason for any support for military spending.

Maybe showing them the facts about the troops themselves, one third of all homeless people ARE veterans eg.

I believe those right wing think tanks have concluded that they have far more success when they reach people on an 'emotional' level.

If it isn't already an emotional issue for these people who wave the flag and yell about 'supporting the troops', it should be.

So 'Why does the US Military Complex NOT support its own veterans'?

To be honest I've had right wingers stop to actually think about that and some even agree. Not the most rabid, who we don't need anyhow, but the more rational of them.

[Cosmic Kitten]

11. We agree on the importance of the issues

The simple reality is that people respond emotionally.
The who, what, how and why regarding "supporting the troops"
or how taxes are being spent is nearly irrelevant to changing
the minds and perceptions of the public.

Yes, the right-wing lies.
And there is no way to talk right-wingers
into or out of "beliefs" they hold.

The national conversation needs to change.
It needs to move away from partisan issues
and into larger, more inclusive issues that will
provide a surge and momentum to challenge
the status quo.

Populism can be that new conversation.
renew the New Deal, strengthen social safety net,
make connections where divisions exist.
End the destructive practice of "wedge politics".
Populism IS the 99%.

[Cosmic Kitten]

3. Know the opposition, Frank Luntz

Populists should get familiar with the players
and their playbooks if they hope to defend themselves
against the coming onslaught of propaganda in the next election.

Frank Luntz is a Kochtopus' hired gun/wordsmith.
He's been bashing Democrats for several election cycles
with various levels of success.

Read how he twists language to fit the right-wing Orwellian POV.

Use of language

Luntz frequently tests word and phrase choices using focus groups and interviews. His stated purpose in this is the goal of causing audiences to react based on emotion. "80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." "If I respond to you quietly, the viewer at home is going to have a different reaction than if I respond to you with emotion and with passion and I wave my arms around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody like this is a freak."

In an article in The New Yorker Luntz is quoted as saying, "The way my words are created is by taking the words of others.... I've moderated an average of a hundred plus focus groups a year over five years... I show them language that I've created. Then I leave a line for them to create language for me."

In a January 9, 2007, interview on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, Luntz redefined the term "Orwellian" in a positive sense, saying that if one reads Orwell's Essay On Language (presumably referring to Politics and the English Language), "To be 'Orwellian' is to speak with absolute clarity, to be succinct, to explain what the event is, to talk about what triggers something happening… and to do so without any pejorative whatsoever."

Luntz's description of "Orwellian" is considered to contradict both its popularly-defined meaning as well as that defined by George Orwell. Luntz believes that Orwell would not have approved of many of the uses to which his pseudonym is applied by quoting Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language", where Luntz focuses on how Orwell derides the use of cliché and dying metaphors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. Listen: Frank Luntz explain his word twisting

The "wordsmiths" WILL label you, malign Democrats,
and steal the next election if we can't recognize their propaganda.

Listen to this interview of Frank Luntz
from NPR, Fresh Air with Terry Gross.

If Luntz's word twisting doesn't raise your blood pressure you may not
have a pulse... and EXPECT him next election, working for the Kochtopus.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6761960

[onecaliberal]

5. How do we change the narrative

When 6 corporations own 80%+ of the media. And most of the ignorant people watch faux and are guided by hate and racism.

[Cosmic Kitten]

6. Good question. It's about values.

First things first,what are the values, the "narrative"?
Next, how to "frame" those values to support the "narrative".
Finally, communicate.

For instance; the right-wing narrative is "they" are the "real Americans"
They frame Democrats as "traitors", "unpatriotic", "weak".
This frame and narrative keep the right-wing "base" confident and assured
that no matter what the politicians do, to or for them, it's the "right thing" to do.
That specific framing keeps right-wing voters, voting against their own interests...
because, right-wing voters don't want to "feel" weak, unpatriotic or traitorous!

The MSM dominate traditional media, not social media
AND, MSM invites social media participation.

[onecaliberal]

7. All good points.

The fact that anyone believes the party that starves people, takes their pension after 30 years of work, denies healthcare and unemployment, pays people slave wages could have any values really defies logic to me.