August 26, 2009
Ted Kennedy passes away...
Tonight we mourn the loss of Ted Kennedy.
He stepped out of the shadow of his famous brothers and battled many personal demons to become one of our finest examples of an elected leader. Senator Kennedy dedicated his life to fighting for Health Care, Equal Rights, and fare wages. He fought for us when no one else cared.
Ted Kennedy fought for us for almost 40 years, and now it our turn.
In the early hours of the morning, we ask that you pledge to take up his cause for Health Care for All Americans, not just the priveleged few.
We ask that you to fight for Health Care even for the people who fight against us.
We ask that you fight for Health Care for Senator Kennedy and help realize his lifelong goal, Health Care for All Americans.
August 20, 2009
The PolicySpeak Disaster for Health Care
George Lakoff is a Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkely. Please read, learn, and start changing the dialogue!
by George Lakoff
Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 10:25:18 PM PDT
Barack Obama ran the best-organized and best-framed presidential campaign in history. How is it possible that the same people who did so well in the campaign have done so badly on health care?
And bad it is: The public option may well be gone. Neither Obama himself nor Senior Advisor David Axelrod even mentioned the public option in their pleas to the nation last Sunday (August 16, 2009). Secretary Sibelius even said it was “not essential.” Cass Sunstein’s co-author, Richard Thaler, in the Sunday NY Times (August 16, 2009, p. BU 4) called it “neither necessary nor sufficient.” There has been a major drop in support for the president throughout the country, with angry mobs disrupting town halls and the right wing airing its views with vehemence nonstop on radio and tv all day every day. As the NY Times reports, Organizing for America (the old Obama campaign network) can’t even get its own troops out to work for the President’s proposal.
What has been going wrong?
George Lakoff's diary
It’s not too late to turn things around, but we must first understand why the administration is getting beat at the moment.
The answer is simple and unfortunate: The president put both the conceptual framing and the messaging for his health care plan in the hands of policy wonks. This led to twin disasters.
The PolicyList Disaster
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Howard Dean was right when he said that you can’t get health care reform without a public alternative to the insurance companies. Institutions matter. The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms: coverage for the uninsured, cost control, no preconditions, no denial of care, keeping care when you change jobs or get sick, equal treatment for women, exorbitant deductibles, no lifetime caps, and on and on. It’s a long list. But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list:
An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans.
Simple. But not for policy wonks.
The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So Obama’s and Axelrod’s statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do policymakers think this way?
One: The reality of how Congress is lobbied. Legislators are lobbied to be against particular features, depending on their constituencies. Blue Dogs are pressured by the right’s communication system operating in their districts. Congressional leaders have a challenge: Keep the eye of centrists and Blue Dogs on the central idea, despite the pressures of right-wing communications and lobbyists’ contributions.
Two: In classical logic, Leibniz’ Law takes an entity as being just a collection of properties. As if you were no more than eyes, legs, arms, and so on, taken separately. Without a public institution turning a unifying idea into a powerful reality, health care becomes just a collection of reforms to be attacked, undermined, and gotten around year after year.
Three: Current budget-making assumptions. Health is actually systematic in character. Health is implicated in just about all aspects of our culture: agriculture, the food industry, advertising, education, business, the distribution of wealth, sports, and so on. Keeping it as a line item — what figure do you put down on the following lines — misses the systemic nature of health. The image of Budget Director Peter Orszag running constantly in and out of Senator Max Baucus’ office shows how the systemic nature of health has been turned into a list of items and costs. Without a sense of the whole, and an institution responsible for it, health will be line-itemed to death.
Obama had the right idea with the “recovery” package. The economy is not just about banking. It is about public works, education, health, energy, and a lot more. It is systemic. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
The PolicySpeak Disaster
PolicySpeak is the principle that: If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.
PolicySpeak is the principle behind the President’s new Reality Check Website. To my knowledge, the Reality Check Website, has not had a reality check. That is, the administration has not hired a first-class cognitive psychologist to take subjects who have been convinced by right-wing myths and lies, have them read the Reality Check website, and see if the Reality Check website has changed their minds a couple of days or a week later. I have my doubts, but do the test.
To many liberals, PolicySpeak sounds like the high road: a rational, public discussion in the best tradition of liberal democracy. Convince the populace rationally on the objective policy merits. Give the facts and figures. Assume self-interest as the motivator of rational choice. Convince people by the logic of the policymakers that the policy is in their interest
.
But to a cognitive scientist or neuroscientist, this sounds nuts. The view of human reason and language behind PolicySpeak is just false. Certainly reason should be used. It’s just that you should use real reason, the way people really think. Certainly the truth should be told. It’s just that it should be told so it makes sense to people, resonates with them, and inspires them to act. Certainly new media should be used. It’s just that a system of communications should be constructed and used effectively.
I believe that what went wrong is (a) the choice of PolicySpeak and (b) the decision to depend on the campaign apparatus (blogs, Town Hall meetings, presidential appearances, grassroots support) instead of setting up an adequate communications system.
What Now?
It is not too late. The statistic I’ve heard is that over 80% of citizens want a public plan, but the right wing’s framing has been overwhelming public debate, taking advantage of the right’s communication system and framing prowess.
The administration has dug itself (and the country) into a hole. At the very least, the old mistakes can be avoided, a clear and powerful narrative is still available and true, and some powerful, memorable, and accurate language should be substituted for PolicySpeak, or at least added and repeated by spokespeople nationwide.
The narrative is simple:
Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people. Read More
by George Lakoff
Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 10:25:18 PM PDT
Barack Obama ran the best-organized and best-framed presidential campaign in history. How is it possible that the same people who did so well in the campaign have done so badly on health care?
And bad it is: The public option may well be gone. Neither Obama himself nor Senior Advisor David Axelrod even mentioned the public option in their pleas to the nation last Sunday (August 16, 2009). Secretary Sibelius even said it was “not essential.” Cass Sunstein’s co-author, Richard Thaler, in the Sunday NY Times (August 16, 2009, p. BU 4) called it “neither necessary nor sufficient.” There has been a major drop in support for the president throughout the country, with angry mobs disrupting town halls and the right wing airing its views with vehemence nonstop on radio and tv all day every day. As the NY Times reports, Organizing for America (the old Obama campaign network) can’t even get its own troops out to work for the President’s proposal.
What has been going wrong?
George Lakoff's diary
It’s not too late to turn things around, but we must first understand why the administration is getting beat at the moment.
The answer is simple and unfortunate: The president put both the conceptual framing and the messaging for his health care plan in the hands of policy wonks. This led to twin disasters.
The PolicyList Disaster
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Howard Dean was right when he said that you can’t get health care reform without a public alternative to the insurance companies. Institutions matter. The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms: coverage for the uninsured, cost control, no preconditions, no denial of care, keeping care when you change jobs or get sick, equal treatment for women, exorbitant deductibles, no lifetime caps, and on and on. It’s a long list. But one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list:
An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans.
Simple. But not for policy wonks.
The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea. So Obama’s and Axelrod’s statements last Sunday were just the lists without the unifying institution. And without a powerful institution, the insurance companies will just whittle away at enforcement of any such list, and a future Republican administration will just get rid of the regulators, reassigning them or eliminating their jobs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do policymakers think this way?
One: The reality of how Congress is lobbied. Legislators are lobbied to be against particular features, depending on their constituencies. Blue Dogs are pressured by the right’s communication system operating in their districts. Congressional leaders have a challenge: Keep the eye of centrists and Blue Dogs on the central idea, despite the pressures of right-wing communications and lobbyists’ contributions.
Two: In classical logic, Leibniz’ Law takes an entity as being just a collection of properties. As if you were no more than eyes, legs, arms, and so on, taken separately. Without a public institution turning a unifying idea into a powerful reality, health care becomes just a collection of reforms to be attacked, undermined, and gotten around year after year.
Three: Current budget-making assumptions. Health is actually systematic in character. Health is implicated in just about all aspects of our culture: agriculture, the food industry, advertising, education, business, the distribution of wealth, sports, and so on. Keeping it as a line item — what figure do you put down on the following lines — misses the systemic nature of health. The image of Budget Director Peter Orszag running constantly in and out of Senator Max Baucus’ office shows how the systemic nature of health has been turned into a list of items and costs. Without a sense of the whole, and an institution responsible for it, health will be line-itemed to death.
Obama had the right idea with the “recovery” package. The economy is not just about banking. It is about public works, education, health, energy, and a lot more. It is systemic. The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
The PolicySpeak Disaster
PolicySpeak is the principle that: If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.
PolicySpeak is the principle behind the President’s new Reality Check Website. To my knowledge, the Reality Check Website, has not had a reality check. That is, the administration has not hired a first-class cognitive psychologist to take subjects who have been convinced by right-wing myths and lies, have them read the Reality Check website, and see if the Reality Check website has changed their minds a couple of days or a week later. I have my doubts, but do the test.
To many liberals, PolicySpeak sounds like the high road: a rational, public discussion in the best tradition of liberal democracy. Convince the populace rationally on the objective policy merits. Give the facts and figures. Assume self-interest as the motivator of rational choice. Convince people by the logic of the policymakers that the policy is in their interest
.
But to a cognitive scientist or neuroscientist, this sounds nuts. The view of human reason and language behind PolicySpeak is just false. Certainly reason should be used. It’s just that you should use real reason, the way people really think. Certainly the truth should be told. It’s just that it should be told so it makes sense to people, resonates with them, and inspires them to act. Certainly new media should be used. It’s just that a system of communications should be constructed and used effectively.
I believe that what went wrong is (a) the choice of PolicySpeak and (b) the decision to depend on the campaign apparatus (blogs, Town Hall meetings, presidential appearances, grassroots support) instead of setting up an adequate communications system.
What Now?
It is not too late. The statistic I’ve heard is that over 80% of citizens want a public plan, but the right wing’s framing has been overwhelming public debate, taking advantage of the right’s communication system and framing prowess.
The administration has dug itself (and the country) into a hole. At the very least, the old mistakes can be avoided, a clear and powerful narrative is still available and true, and some powerful, memorable, and accurate language should be substituted for PolicySpeak, or at least added and repeated by spokespeople nationwide.
The narrative is simple:
Insurance company plans have failed to care for our people. They profit from denying care. Americans care about one another. An American plan is both the moral and practical alternative to provide care for our people. Read More
August 14, 2009
Santa Barbara Organizers take to the Steets for Health Care Reform!
AWESOME Organizer Sherry Holland and her band of Uber Organizers took to the streets in Santa Barbara with a demand for Health Care Reform. Way to go SB Obama Team!
August 12, 2009
August 7, 2009
August 4, 2009
Older, Whiter, And Settled Down
From John Myers at KQED
This morning brings the latest in a series of studies that shows how different the people who actually vote in California are from the state's population as a whole. It also shows how different those voters are than the ones who cast ballots 30 years ago.
Those conclusions come courtesy of the nonpartisan Field Poll, whose data points should remind every observer of California politics that you can learn a lot about where we're headed by knowing who's at the wheel.
The most important finding continues to be that the vast majority of people who show up to vote in the state are white (non-Hispanic), at an ever growing disproportionate amount to their presence in the general population. Field estimates that in 1978, California's population was almost 69% Caucasian but its voters were 83% Caucasian. Now, that same group is only 43% of the overall population... but still 65% of the voters.
Not surprisingly, the greatest gains have been made by Hispanics and those of Asian ancestry. And also not surprisingly -- but telling -- is how much more integrated in 2009 is the California Democratic Party (55% Caucasian, 27% Hispanic, 9% African America, 9% Asian/others) than the California Republican Party (79/13/1/7, respectively).
The state's GOP is obviously aware of theier diversity issues. Are they trying to change it? Yes. Is it working? Yes (the party was 93% Caucasian in 1978, compared to 76% of Denmocrats), but apparently not fast enough.
Some of the other data points -- that the Central Valley now accounts for more voters than it did 30 years ago -- are what you'd expect (though worth pointing out that Field says that a slightly larger increase has been seen further south, in the Inland Empire). Voters now are also older and better educated. And a stat that I'm not sure what to make of (though some may try to link it to the bitter fight over marriage rights): 66% of voters are married or living together, up four ticks from 1978. Homebodies vote, it seems.
Then there are tidbits that may help explain both where we are, and where we're headed. Take Field's assessment that 74% of California voters are now homeowners, up eight points from 1978. You'll remember that 1978 just happened to be the year those homeowners shook the political world by ratifying the property tax limitation Proposition 13. One wonders how any new efforts to revise Prop 13 might play with all of these new homeowners. It's not that their own property taxes would necessarily be impacted; but you can bet the politicos assigned to fight any changes to Prop 13 would consider those with a mortgage to be a valuable constituency.
Field's new analysis matches up nicely with some of the findings almost three years ago from their friendly competitors at the Public Policy Institute of California. And this is only part one; tomorrow, Field director Mark DiCamillo promises to give us 'the rest of the story' -- voter attitudes in 1978 on a host of issues compared to voter attitudes in 2009.
This morning brings the latest in a series of studies that shows how different the people who actually vote in California are from the state's population as a whole. It also shows how different those voters are than the ones who cast ballots 30 years ago.
Those conclusions come courtesy of the nonpartisan Field Poll, whose data points should remind every observer of California politics that you can learn a lot about where we're headed by knowing who's at the wheel.
The most important finding continues to be that the vast majority of people who show up to vote in the state are white (non-Hispanic), at an ever growing disproportionate amount to their presence in the general population. Field estimates that in 1978, California's population was almost 69% Caucasian but its voters were 83% Caucasian. Now, that same group is only 43% of the overall population... but still 65% of the voters.
Not surprisingly, the greatest gains have been made by Hispanics and those of Asian ancestry. And also not surprisingly -- but telling -- is how much more integrated in 2009 is the California Democratic Party (55% Caucasian, 27% Hispanic, 9% African America, 9% Asian/others) than the California Republican Party (79/13/1/7, respectively).
The state's GOP is obviously aware of theier diversity issues. Are they trying to change it? Yes. Is it working? Yes (the party was 93% Caucasian in 1978, compared to 76% of Denmocrats), but apparently not fast enough.
Some of the other data points -- that the Central Valley now accounts for more voters than it did 30 years ago -- are what you'd expect (though worth pointing out that Field says that a slightly larger increase has been seen further south, in the Inland Empire). Voters now are also older and better educated. And a stat that I'm not sure what to make of (though some may try to link it to the bitter fight over marriage rights): 66% of voters are married or living together, up four ticks from 1978. Homebodies vote, it seems.
Then there are tidbits that may help explain both where we are, and where we're headed. Take Field's assessment that 74% of California voters are now homeowners, up eight points from 1978. You'll remember that 1978 just happened to be the year those homeowners shook the political world by ratifying the property tax limitation Proposition 13. One wonders how any new efforts to revise Prop 13 might play with all of these new homeowners. It's not that their own property taxes would necessarily be impacted; but you can bet the politicos assigned to fight any changes to Prop 13 would consider those with a mortgage to be a valuable constituency.
Field's new analysis matches up nicely with some of the findings almost three years ago from their friendly competitors at the Public Policy Institute of California. And this is only part one; tomorrow, Field director Mark DiCamillo promises to give us 'the rest of the story' -- voter attitudes in 1978 on a host of issues compared to voter attitudes in 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
