The Power of Language

Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |

Language shapes peoples' perception of the world and politicians know this. Since the 1990s and the Republicans have turned repeatedly to Dr. Frank Luntz to help craft their message. According to his bio on the Herbert Walker Agency Site (a speakers group), Luntz is:

- "one of the most honored political and communication professionals in America today." ... - "USA Today labeled him one of the nine most influential minds in the GOP, Newsweek called him one of the three primary "engineers" of the 1994 Republican landslide,";

- "has been on Nightline more than any other pollster in the past three years."; Dr. Luntz, famous among campaign pros for his research on language and politics, is one of the most innovative marketers of political ideas. He has served as an adviser to New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and numerous candidates in this country and abroad."

- "He was one of the strategic architects of the Republican landslide in 1994 that gave Republicans control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years and made Newt Gingrich speaker. Dr. Luntz had a key role in creating Gingrich's Contract with America."

In short, Luntz is the premier word smith and propaganda shaper of the GOP - and of the Bush Administration.

When Gingrich was in office he founded a group called GOPAC. GOPAC issued a memo - Language: A Key Mechanism of Control - to Republicans. Since then, the power of language manipulation and the power of Luntz have only grown.

In September 2003 Deborah Tannen had an excellent article at The American Prospect - Let Them Eat Words: Linguistic lessons from Republican master strategist Frank Luntz:

"Exploiting the power of language to persuade, despite the absence of policies to back up the words, is the openly stated goal of Republican strategy as articulated by Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster and tactician who was one of the primary drafters of the GOP's "Contract with America." Luntz tests phrases in focus groups and advises Republicans on how to win votes by changing what they say, not what they do." ... The welter of words that stir emotions -- and in particular the word hope repeated as an incantation -- can also be heard as echoes of Luntz's advice. "Politics remains an emotional arena," he writes, "and television has made fear a very salable commodity. But fear alone is not enough. The commodity Americans most desire -- and the one in shortest supply -- is hope."

...

Luntz promised that changing words, not works, would be successful "if executed effectively and with discipline." This caveat was not casually tossed out. He cautioned Republicans that "good communication is more than just words, phrases and messages." I'll pause here for a moment to give you a chance to predict how you expect Luntz's next sentence to read. OK, here it is: "As a party and as a movement, we will fail if we continue to go it alone or change messages daily. We can only succeed when we work together and talk together and stick together as a team. Only through a movement-wide effort and constant repetition can our voices unite in perfect harmony."

This linguistic harmony is clear in Luntz memo "Straight Talk on the Environment (pdf) (backup copy at Luntz Research Companies - Straight Talk on the Environment (pdf)).

Excerpts from the 16 page section

The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general- and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable. A caricature has taken hold in the public imagination: Republicans seemingly in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle manically as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit. And only the Democrats and their good-hearted friends from Washington can save America from these sinister companies drooling at the prospect of strip mining every picturesque mountain range, drilling for oil on every white sand beach,
and clear cutting every green forest.

The fundamental problem for Republicans when it comes to the environment is that whatever you say is viewed through the prism of suspicion. As with education, Social Security and so many other issues, the Democrats have been expert at constructing a narrative in which Republicans and conservatives are the bad guys. And if Americans swallow that story, then whatever comes later is mere detail.

Indeed, it can be helpful to think of environmental (and other) issues in terms of “story.” A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth. The popular movie Erin Bruckovich presented a courageous woman fighting against an impersonal corporation that poisoned the public with cancerous chemicals with impunity. The Wall Street Journal and investigative journalist Michael Fumento later conclusively demonstrated that the real-life E M Brockovich’s legal case was full of holes and contradictions, but no matter: the public had it’s emotional story, and no number of exposes will ever come close to matching the power of that story.

...

"Facts only become relevant when the public is receptive and willing to listen to them"

...

"That is why you must explain how it is possible to pursue a common sense or reasonable environmental policy that preserves all the gains of the past two decades” without going to extremes, and allows for new science and technologies to carry us even further. Give citizens the idea that progress is being frustruted by over-reaching government, and YOU will hit a very strong strain in the American psyche."

...

Global Warming debate strategies:
- "The scientific debate remains open"
- "Acting with all the facts in hand" ... "Making the right decision, not the quick decision"
- "international fairness" in environmental aggrements

....

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming’’ and ending with "environmentalism,’’ It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation ” instead of preservation.

1. “Climate change’’ is less frightening than “global warming; ” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

2. We shuuld be “conservationists. ” not “preservationists or “environmentalists." The term “conservationist” has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. It conveys a moderate, reasoned, common sense position between replenishing the earth’s natural resources and the human need to make use of those resources.

“Environmentalist” can have the connotation of extremism to many Americans, particularly t h s e outside the Northeast. c‘PreservatioIiis”’ suggests someone who believes nature should remain untouched - preserving exactly what we have. By comparison, Americans see a replenish what we can when we can.

Luntz' message is clear and the text of the document even offers sample speeches onad excerpts for press releases. He offers examples of how to rephrase things such as using "update" or "modernize" existing legislation on the environment rather than "rolling back legislation"; and "open space conservation" rather than "urban sprawl."

I and many others have commented on the 1984ish flavor of Bush political-speak. Luntz is a major crafter of "new-speak" in the United States. For those who think about what they are hearing -- and comparing it to the the reality of events -- much of what is said sounds like pure nonsense. It is pure nonsense. A rhetoric is crafted and evolving whose sole purpose is to "quiet" the critical thinking process; to portray an image that has no substance. In other words, the language of propaganda.

This is a campaign year and there will be an acceleration of the use of this thought shaping garbage. Certainly Bush will use it, and most likely the Dems will use something similar. It becomes critical in this coming year to look beyond the rhetoric and to assist others in doing so. Luntz argue that the truth is not important. In fact, that the intent is to distract from the truth to change what people think. That makes facts a critical tool for regime change.

Wolf's Guide for Countering Prevailing Rhetoric
1. Be informed
2. Get the facts and share the facts
3. Compare the facts to the rhetoric.
4. Learn the code words and phrases.
5. Listen for the repeated phrases ("unity of message") and point them out. If a bunch of folks are using the same phrases then you can be darned sure that somebody said "those words work," and that propaganda not communication is the key.

The corporate media is not going to do this and the people's media doesn't have the scope to inform the populace. Only we can do this in our conversations with friends and family, co-workers and neighbors, strangers in the grocery line or at the bus stop. Yep, it is a lot of work, but the threat is the morphing of perception to the point of mind control. Then there will be no "informed public" to check the power of those who would rule.

Sources and Resources
Luntz Research Companies - Straight Talk on the Environment (pdf)

Luntz memo at Uncommon Thought

Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) Letter to US Chamber of Commerce

Representative Blumenauer's Floor Statement (4/8/03) Concentrated Assault on Environmental Protections

Rebuilding the Green Old Party? Tibetts, Coastal Heritage, Fall 2003

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control GOPAC Memo to Republican Candidates - 1990
Propaganda - How Newt Gingrich Uses These Techniques

Dr. Frank Luntz - Harry Walker Agency Bio

Using Language to Sell Your Product at Pacific Views, 8/31/03.

Let Them Eat Words: Linguistic lessons from Republican master strategist Frank Luntz Deborah Tannen, TAP, 9/1/03

LuntzSpeak (Web Site)

Posted by rowan at December 31, 2003 07:55 AM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |