[aberdeenwriter]

No books, and ONLY TWO articles/essays allowed, please.

These are my top two articles.

Analysis of the Neo-Con role in our foreign policy. If you explore the website you'll know more about the Bush Administration's plans and the players behind the scenes, than most Americans.
This I feel is CRUCIAL INFO for every American.

"This is the second in a series of investigative reports on the influence of a web of right-wing organizations and individuals--chiefly associated with the Project for the New American Century--in setting radical new directions in U.S. foreign and military policy."

"ONE YEAR AFTER THE INVASION: BAGHDAD AND BEYOND"
By Tom Barry
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analy.../0403anniv.php

************************************************

"AL QAEDA'S FANTASY IDEOLOGY" by Lee Harris
http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

Completely changed my understanding of the causes of Islamic terrorism. No matter what your belief, this will make you re-examine it. BRILLIANT!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review and comments on Lee Harris' book, "Civilization and Its Enemies : The Next Stage of History"
http://www.anybook4less.com/author/Lee+Harris.html

[SimeyTheLimey]

Since you like this stuff, have you read Robert Kagan's Of Power and Weakness. It's a very perceptive (if slightly overdrawn) description of the divergent perceptions of Europe and the US toward international affairs. It has since been expanded into his short book Of Paradise and Power, though to be honest, I don't think the book-length version adds much to the basic thesis. Note: regulars here will know that I first posted this article a couple of years ago when it came out.

Kagan's description has been compared to the famous 1947 article in Foreign Affairs by George Kennan that gave shape to the emerging Cold War: The Sources of Soviet Conduct. Kennan was unbelievably prescient.

[voodoo]

Sure here are more crappo articles.

To use them read them and dismiss every word in them. Then you'll be closer to the actual truth of the matter

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/f...9fd0d26bb1667c

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pub...w&id=15807

Have fun!

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Since you like this stuff, have you read Robert Kagan's Of Power and Weakness.

On Simey's recommendation, I read the book. Well, I tried to read the book. I wound up skimming the second half because it was a bit repetitive. What you have to realise before you read it, is who Bob Kagan is.

Robert Kagan is a neo-conservative. He is cofounder, with William Kristol, of the Project for a New American Century. Since you've read up on the PNAC, you have an idea of where he is coming from. He also used to be the principal speechwriter to the secretary of state so he's not short on rhetoric.

I find it interesting to read Kagan and Kristol because it gives you insight into the machine that controls US Foreign Policy at the moment. But I must tell you that I find a lot of the basic assumptions they make not only completely flawed but completely unexplored. I mean in Of Power and Weakness there are so many unchecked basic assumptions being made, like USA is powerful, EU is weak, UN is bad, USA is good. It's reflective of the flaw in neoconservative thinking generally. They tend to leap to conclusions without substantiating them. The whole problem with Iraq is that they leaped to the conclusion that Iraq would be happy to be liberated and the invasion would inspire democracy to break out in the ME. That said, the essay is worth a read as long as you realise you're being fed neocon propaganda by experts in propaganda.

Interesting that Kristol and Kagan are now criticising the Bush Administration for mismanaging Iraq. Evidently the necocons are already pointing fingers at others for the failure of their ideas.

I suppose I should post some of my own links to essays. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

[Logic]

A useful thread in the pol lounge? WTF!?


I'll get back to you with my recommendations later......


edit nr. 1: Here's one very good essay about Palestine/Israel. Hmm too long url.

Try copy pasting this: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561...2561150071fdb0

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Sure here are more crappo articles.

To use them read them and dismiss every word in them. Then you'll be closer to the actual truth of the matter

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/f...9fd0d26bb1667c

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pub...w&id=15807

Have fun!

Interesting that both articles have a conservative, or pro-Bush stance.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I already indicated that Kagan's article is slightly overdrawn and that the book length version doesn't add much to the shorter essay version, so I am not quite sure what Troll's post is designed to accomplish. The main purpose seems to be to flag it with a sign: Warning! Dangerous ideas ahead!.

That's exactly why he is worth reading.


BTW, here is Kagan's biography.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Interesting that both articles have a conservative, or pro-Bush stance.

Both are super biased and super ignorant. They are opinion pieces. I posted them as an example where you should not look for advice.

The articles are pro Bush but I can't see anything conservative about them. I'm a big conservative myself.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

That's exactly why he is worth reading.


BTW, here is Kagan's biography.

Kagan is worth reading if you are a nationalist and sensationalist. He isn't really 'down to earth'.

Alternatively you might be interested in readin Kagan once in a while to realize what is *not* true today.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Fareed Zakaria, the former editor of Foreign Affairs is "super ignorant."

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Fareed Zakaria, the former editor of Foreign Affairs is "super ignorant."

Is he? Never read him.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Is he? Never read him.

That shows.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That shows.

Couldn't stay away from the personal attacks

Could you?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Couldn't stay away from the personal attacks

Could you?

Well, voodoo, how stupid is it to post a link by a famous scholar, then dismiss him as "super ignorant" when you weren't aware of his scholarly background and then admit that you haven't read him. The thread asked for interesting articles. Why not just post according to the spirit of the thread instead of launching unguided political bombs?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The main purpose seems to be to flag it with a sign: Warning! Dangerous ideas ahead!.

That's exactly why he is worth reading.


BTW, here is Kagan's biography.

I don't see Kagan's ideas as dangerous. I find them simplistic. I find that he and his brethern make leaps of logic; that I think their arguments only appeal if you proceed from a neoconservative base of how things are.

The purpose of my post was just to highlight the fact that you shouldn't expect to get an intellectually honest or neutral opinion from Kagan. He is going to be defending the idea that the United States should be pursuing an Empire. As I said, I think the value in reading Kagan is to understand where contemporary US foreign policy makers are coming from. You should read his work in the same way as you should read any of the policy documents on the PNAC website. Because they tell you what the current government policy makers think.

I notice the link to the biography you posted doesn't mention the fact that he is a founding member of the Project for a New American Century or that he and Kristol are bosom buddies.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I don't see Kagan's ideas as dangerous. I find them simplistic. I find that he and his brethern make leaps of logic; that I think their arguments only appeal if you proceed from a neoconservative base of how things are.

The purpose of my post was just to highlight the fact that you shouldn't expect to get an intellectually honest or neutral opinion from Kagan. He is going to be defending the idea that the United States should be pursuing an Empire. As I said, I think the value in reading Kagan is to understand where contemporary US foreign policy makers are coming from. You should read his work in the same way as you should read any of the policy documents on the PNAC website. Because they tell you what the current government policy makers think.

I notice the link to the biography you posted doesn't mention the fact that he is a founding member of the Project for a New American Century or that he and Kristol are bosom buddies.

Of Paradise and Power (and the original essay posted above) is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't really matter what his policy preferences are because they don't form a part of the study. In addition, whether or not Kagan is "bosom buddies" with the editor of the Weekly Standard is pretty irrelevant to the substance of his essay. You are just launching personal attacks against the author. What that tells me is that he hit home.

Of course Kagan isn't "neutral." Who is? Certainly not you.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, voodoo, how stupid is it to post a link by a famous scholar, then dismiss him as "super ignorant" when you weren't aware of his scholarly background and then admit that you haven't read him. The thread asked for interesting articles. Why not just post according to the spirit of the thread instead of launching unguided political bombs?

Nothing I posted explicitly broke the forum rules.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course Kagan isn't "neutral." Who is? Certainly not you.

In this sense, 'neutral' would be referring to someone who is not a member of the neo-conservative club. Kagan is the friggin' founder of PNAC! There are plenty of writers out there who have analysed neoconservative ideas, citing works of it's members in a more objective manner. The thing to be aware of when you're reading texts about ideologies, written by people that share/founded that ideology, is that you're only going to read about how it's essentially an ideology to die for.

And why do you have to be so friggin' condescending all the time? Was that part of your Law course? Sometimes you sound like the stereotypical, head up your ass, kinda lawyer.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
In this sense, 'neutral' would be referring to someone who is not a member of the neo-conservative club. Kagan is the friggin' founder of PNAC!

The book has nothing, zero, to do with "neoconservative ideas." That's why it is irrelevant. It isn't a critique of "neoconservative ideas" it is a critique of European ideas from the perspective of an American scholar of international relations who lives and works in Brussels. That why it sets you guys off. That's why you have to attack and smear.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Fareed Zakaria, the former editor of Foreign Affairs is "super ignorant."

actually you must have missed my sarcasm.

I think he is super ignorant and that I base on what he writes so I bloody well have. I don't know the man personally so obviously I'm not basing my opinion of him that way.


What the heck did you think?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
actually you must have missed my sarcasm.

I think he is super ignorant and that I base on what he writes so I bloody well have. I don't know the man personally so obviously I'm not basing my opinion of him that way.


What the heck did you think?

You might disagree with him. I often do. But he isn't "super ignorant."

[SimeyTheLimey]

I give up. Aberdeenwriter, you have to understand that there are some seriously closed minds here. They won't listen to the most interesting voices out there, but if you give them some Chomsky or Robert Fisk to read, they will cream themselves with adulation.

However, you seem to be open to some other points of view, which is why I posted Kagan's article for you. From my perspective as an American who grew up in Europe, his analysis of the different worldview that is driving Europe and the US apart is very sharp. I think that is exactly why people who represent the point of view he critiques get so defensive. However, the article is there and you can make up your own mind.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The book has nothing, zero, to do with "neoconservative ideas." That's why it is irrelevant. It isn't a critique of "neoconservative ideas" it is a critique of European ideas from the perspective of an American scholar...

...who is a neo-conservative commenting on European ideas which more or less have no neo-conservative tendencies.

And it was the re-occuring, annoying tone in your post that brought me to post. I have no problem with people reading Kagan but agree with Troll that people should be aware of the context in which he is writing.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They won't listen to the most interesting voices out there, but if you give them some Chomsky or Robert Fisk to read, they will cream themselves with adulation.

Oh BS. The best thing any politically minded person can do is read material from all sides of the spectrum. You should also read such material with an awareness of their bias, be it Chomsky or Kagan.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
...who is a neo-conservative commenting on European ideas which more or less have no neo-conservative tendencies.

Most of Kagan's commentary in his essay deals with the divergence between Europe and the US in the 1990s when Clinton was in office. His book updated this a little with some grafted-on references to the War on Terror. But for the most part, it is still grounded in differences between Europe and the US since the end of the Cold War.

Unless you are going to dismiss Clinton's foreign policy as "neo-conservative" then there is something deeper going on here. That is what Kagan looks at in his description.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Unless you are going to dismiss Clinton's foreign policy as "neo-conservative" then there is something deeper going on here. That is what Kagan looks at in his description.

His decription? You see there's the problem right there. Accepting propaganda at face value because it's presented as academic argument.

If you read a "description" by Karl Marx of the capitalist system, would it not be relevant to know Marx's background as a founder of communism? Would you not question his "description" if you knew that he believed that things should be organised differently in future. Would you turn around and say, "Unless you are going to dismiss capitalism as communism, then there is something deeper going on here?" That would be absurd, because you'd be confusing issues. Kagan's "description" comes from a particular neocon background. The way he interprets events is governed by his ideas. He has certain ideas about what role Europe will play in the New American Century and he describes events in a way that backs up his view of how things are and his vision of how they should be.

Being aware of the fact that Kagan thinks that the US should be creating an Empire is important when you're reading Kagan's work in the same way that knowing that Marx is one of the fathers of communism is important knowledge to have when reading his work.

What intrigues me is why you go to such lengths to avoid a connection between people you admire and the neocons. You even deny the neocons exist sometimes. You post a biography for Kagan that doesn't even mention the PNAC and you claim it isn't relevant. Why not just admit that you're attracted to neocon ideas?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
If you read a "description" by Karl Marx of the capitalist system, would it not be relevant to know Marx's background as a founder of communism?

Actually, I happen to think that Marx's analysis is pretty useful. I disagree with his prescription, naturally, but I see no problem to paying attention to his description. I certainly don't use his biography as a way to dodge his analysis. It's really not that relevant until you get into his prescription.

Anyway, you seem to have admitted what I suggested. The point of your post is to label anything Kagan writes Warning! Dangerous Ideas Here!

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, I happen to think that Marx's analysis is pretty useful. I disagree with his prescription, naturally, but I see no problem to paying attention to his description. I certainly don't use his biography as a way to dodge his analysis. [/B]

If you ask Marx to give a description of industrial revolution England and you ask Henry Ford to give a similar description, they will be very different descriptions even though what actually happened at the time is constant. Kagan is not some neutral academic. He is one of the founders of a movement that believes in the creation of an American Empire through the consolidation of American power right now.

I have said numerous times in this thread that Kagan's work is worth reading. Just as you say Karl Marx is worth reading. All I'm pointing out is that when you read Kagan's "descriptions", you should to be aware that he is going to leave certain bits out and include certain things that fit with his world view. The essay you refer to looks at the relationship between the US and Europe in the context of an all powerful America cruising towards an Empire and puny Europe puffing itself up in disgust.

There are academics in international relations out there that have never been government speech writers, that have never joined political thinktanks like the PNAC. They probably aren't as interesting to read but they will normally synthesise the extreme poles of the argument and relate them to a more honest description of the facts. They observe rather than make or affect policy. I don't think many of us still have access to those kinds of journals but they do exist. Still, I find it more interesting to read the guys that are making the policy. Just be aware that for every Kagan you read, you need to balance the views presented with a Chomsky-style counterview.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
There are academics in international relations out there that have never been government speech writers, that have never joined political thinktanks like the PNAC. They probably aren't as interesting to read but they will normally synthesise the extreme poles of the argument and relate them to a more honest description of the facts. They observe rather than make or affect policy. I don't think many of us still have access to those kinds of journals but they do exist. Still, I find it more interesting to read the guys that are making the policy. Just be aware that for every Kagan you read, you need to balance the views presented with a Chomsky-style counterview.

Kagan's description has been favorably compared to George Kennan for providing a serious explanation for forces that otherwise are too tritely explained as merely the operation of personality. Prior to Kennan, Roosevelt thought he could get along with Stalin on the basis of personality, and that equally, any disagreements were because of misunderstanding one another. Kennan's thesis was much broader than that. His thesis was that there were structural reasons within the Soviet Government that lead to its clash with the West. Kennan's analyis gained immediate traction because it offered something more than trite references to personality.

Kagan is doing something similar. Since the Cold War, Europe and the US have diverged significantly on their approaches to the use of force and the place of force and sovereignty in the world. What Kagan describes is not an American point of view that is isolated in some "neo-conservative" wing of American foreign policy, but much broader. The US was having basic policy disagreements with Europe going back right through the Clinton years to the end of the Cold War. Your obsession with "Neo-Conservatives" is misplaced. The disagreements between the US and Europe are not caused by any single group of thinkers, nor by the personalities in government. Kagan postulates -- I think convincingly -- that the underlying dispute is much deeper.

Dismissing him because he was in government in the 1980s is just ridiculous. George Kennan was in government too. Does that make his views less cogent than someone who was never in government? You are obviously pretty unfamiliar with how the academic community works in the US. It is common for the best and brightest academics to go into government and then back out again. It even has a name -- the revolving door. The revolving door brought in people like Madeline Albright, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Justices Douglas or Harlan, etc. etc. It's not a badge of shame for an academic to have served in government. Quite the opposite.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The disagreements between the US and Europe are not caused by any single group of thinkers ...

Are you purposefully trying to misunderstand here? Because how you get to that statement from what I posted is unfathomable. When you observe facts and you have a preconceived idea about how things should be you necessarily interpret the facts in a specific way.

I am not saying that the neocons CAUSED the problems between Europe and the US. I'm saying that when Kagan DESCRIBES those problems and their causes, he does so from a certain perspective. Neocons have a particular interpretation of what happened in the Cold War, what role Europe played and how the American Empire is going to survive another hundred years. There are any number of other perspectives out there. I'm just pointing out that you're seeing Euro-American relations through a particular set of lenses when you read Kagan and given that his opinions on a lot of things are rather extreme, you shouldn't expect him to be the most neutral observer. Personally I don't think Kagan's work is prescient, cogent or particularly influential at all despite the praise heaped on it.

I think Kagan concentrates on the Kantian dilemma of how law might come to power but ignores the question how power might become lawful. Precisely because it doens't fit his world view of the US as the Supreme Power. I think Kagan is wrong on everything except for his analysis that the United States and Europe have parted ways. I think most of his thoughtful insights are spoiled by his exaggerated view of the role American military power is playing in Europe and the world in general and his idea of what Europe's response is. What's wrong with his work is precisely the fact that it's based on a neoconservative view of where America sits in the world order.

But I concede that I have a particular aversion to people who think the US should be going around the world building an American Empire through military conquest so that the US can make it sure it stays top dog for a few more years. Maybe that's just me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
There are any number of other perspectives out there.

Then post them.

But I concede that I have a particular aversion to people who think the US should be going around the world building an American Empire through military conquest so that the US can make it sure it stays top dog for a few more years. Maybe that's just me.

Yup. Playing nicely to Kagan's view of the European sterotyped view of Americans.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Then post them.

Yup. Playing nicely to Kagan's view of the European sterotyped view of Americans.

Ding, ding, ding. I'm not European! Every time a coconut.

Besides mine is not a stereotype of Americans, it's a stereotype of NEOCONS. I'm just repeating what the PNAC says and Kagan is a founder member so really it's not a stereotype at all. It's what Kagan himself believes in.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Troll:
Ding, ding, ding. I'm not European! Every time a coconut.

Besides mine is not a stereotype of Americans, it's a stereotype of NEOCONS. I'm just repeating what the PNAC says and Kagan is a founder member so really it's not a stereotype at all. It's what Kagan himself believes in.

***SMACKDOWN***

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Ding, ding, ding. I'm not European!

Only geographically. These perspectives go a little deeper than mere citizenship. When you speak, your voice and point of view is decidedly European elite. However, let's not make this personal. You react to Kagan (by your own admission) because his analysis directly skewers your recieved point of view. It's the same point of view widely held among the European elites in their foreign policy community. I do wish instead of attacking Kagan you would simply post alternative points of view. That was supposed to be the point of the thread.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I give up. Aberdeenwriter, you have to understand that there are some seriously closed minds here. They won't listen to the most interesting voices out there, but if you give them some Chomsky or Robert Fisk to read, they will cream themselves with adulation.

However, you seem to be open to some other points of view, which is why I posted Kagan's article for you. From my perspective as an American who grew up in Europe, his analysis of the different worldview that is driving Europe and the US apart is very sharp. I think that is exactly why people who represent the point of view he critiques get so defensive. However, the article is there and you can make up your own mind.

lol

Simey, this thread reminds me of a Rorschach test rather than an opportunity to share with each other information via articles and essays which; represent, define or help shape our respective points of view.

However, it's a lively thread so it's ok with me.

Although I HAVE wished there was a way to have a split screen on this thread which lists nothing but all of the recommended essays and alongside that, another thread for discussion. But this format is certainly adequate.

Some random thoughts:

I am impressed with the level of thought represented by all the selections listed so far.

Since your (Simey) first post listing Kagan I've felt a bit overwhelmed at the wealth of info. I saw the length of the Kagan article and figured I'd do better to wait to read it when I wasn't sleep weary. So I went through voodoo's then started in on Logic's 1990 analysis of the Palestinian situation and passed out. (NOT from anything but sleep deprivation.) So I still haven't been able to settle in to explore the Kagan mind.

I find it's necessary to get a BIG 'cuppa joe' and turn off the jazz to absorb long, serious, and/or detailed articles. But, I'm GLAD to do so. I love to learn this stuff! I don't want to just hurry through a piece without understanding what I'm reading, so I'll be patient with myself.

This is the only forum I've ever been involved with and I am very impressed with this community.

It's interesting to get to know people better by knowing what they read.

One of the things I find MOST frustrating is when someone makes a post commenting on an article and it seems as though they haven't done more than skim (at best) the cited work.

Looking out my window onto this Pacific Northwest morning, I'm reminded of Thanksgiving Day. Just that look and feel. Makes me hungry.

Thanks all of you. I'll be reading from your listed selections throughout the day.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Oh BS. The best thing any politically minded person can do is read material from all sides of the spectrum. You should also read such material with an awareness of their bias, be it Chomsky or Kagan.

[voodoo]

I'm really glad you desire to learn. We are alike in that way.

I am always willing to learn and see things from different viewpoints. Sometimes the discussions here are just frustrating but I have often felt enlightened by the information posted here. I also discuss a lot of politics with my friends in 'real life' and they all think I'm a US sympathizer because I always defend the US when it is being unfairly bashed - while here some people can't help calling me anti-US or whatever. Heh heh heh.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I give up. Aberdeenwriter, you have to understand that there are some seriously closed minds here. They won't listen to the most interesting voices out there, but if you give them some Chomsky or Robert Fisk to read, they will cream themselves with adulation.

However, you seem to be open to some other points of view, which is why I posted Kagan's article for you. From my perspective as an American who grew up in Europe, his analysis of the different worldview that is driving Europe and the US apart is very sharp. I think that is exactly why people who represent the point of view he critiques get so defensive. However, the article is there and you can make up your own mind.

I thank you and note that what little I've read of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is fascinating.

I think it's ok to have favorite writers or enjoy reading from one school of thought rather than another, but I feel I'm missing out if I don't hear both sides.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I'm really glad you desire to learn. We are alike in that way.

I am always willing to learn and see things from different viewpoints. Sometimes the discussions here are just frustrating but I have often felt enlightened by the information posted here. I also discuss a lot of politics with my friends in 'real life' and they all think I'm a US sympathizer because I always defend the US when it is being unfairly bashed - while here some people can't help calling me anti-US or whatever. Heh heh heh.

Cool!
Got anything on the Basques and how their movement may or may not tie in to the global WOT?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I thank you and note that what little I've read of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is fascinating.

I think it's ok to have favorite writers or enjoy reading from one school of thought rather than another, but I feel I'm missing out if I don't hear both sides.

Sure. I just hope you aren't trying to read them online. I couldn't do that. I would have to print such long articles out and then curl up with that cuppa joe you mentioned.

[BlackGriffen]

You might enjoy this interview with a man by the name of George Lakoff. He's the liberal equivalent (soon to be, really) of Frank Luntz. Basically, the job these guys have is designing the linguistic playbook of politicians in order to "frame" (sell) an issue in a certain light.

Without further ado, the interview:

BRANCACCIO: [...]And in the war of words, can the Democrats gathering in Boston deliver?

LAKOFF: The facts are irrelevant unless the Democrats can learn to re-frame the issues from their point of view.

BRANCACCIO: Talking about talk, with George Lakoff.
[...]
BRANCACCIO: There's more to come on NOW…

What to do about Republicans who twist the English language.

LAKOFF: When they say Healthy Forest for a bill that's going to, you know, clean cut forests and destroy forests, what do you do if you're on the other side? Well, you rename it.

BRANCACCIO: Using language to win the debate.
[...]
BRANCACCIO: With the Democrats gathering in Boston for next week's convention, we thought we'd give you a field guide to some of the rhetoric you'll be hearing from the podium.

A couple of weeks back, we examined "Republican speak" with pollster Frank Luntz, an opinion researcher who comes up with resonant phrases and slogans for politicians, usually conservative ones. Tonight you're going to meet a fellow who has a hand in the ways that some Democrats put their ideas.

His name is George Lakoff. Four years ago, he and colleagues at the University of California Berkeley and UC Davis decided to start a think tank called the Rockridge Institute. They felt Republicans were awfully good at winning the battle of words and they wanted to come up with new rhetorical weapons for the other side.

Lakoff is a noted linguist and the author of eight books including MORAL POLITICS: HOW LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES THINK. We began our conversation with ways that language builds the frame in which we view political issues.

BRANCACCIO: Now you say "frame," that's a key to understanding this. What kind of frame?

LAKOFF: Well, frames are everywhere. Think of what happened on the very first day that George Bush took office. A press release came out using the words "tax relief." Now a linguist who looks at the word "relief" would say, "Ah-hah, there's a frame in which there is an affliction, an afflicted party who's harmed by this, a reliever, who takes away this affliction. And if anybody tries to stop them, they're a bad guy.

You add "tax" to that, and you get taxation is an affliction. And if the Democrats oppose the President's tax relief plan, they're bad guys.

BUSH: We need tax relief now…in fact we need tax relief yesterday. And I will work with Congress to provide it.

LAKOFF: So the word "tax relief" goes out to every radio station, every TV station, every newspaper, day after day after day. Soon, everybody's thinking tax relief with the idea that taxation is an affliction unconsciously, automatically.

BUSH: We're going to talk about some of that tax relief right quick.

What was in the tax relief package…

If you pay taxes you're going to get relief…

Tax relief…

Tax relief…

Because of the tax relief we passed.

LAKOFF: And then the words become part of normal everyday language, and the conservative frame becomes part of the way you think about it.

If you're a Democrat, you want to really change the frame. The problem is that there is no existing frame out there. You have to create it.

How do you think about taxes? Taxes are what you pay to be an American, like paying your dues to have democracy and freedom and opportunity, and all the infrastructure that America provides.

BRANCACCIO: At what point do we, as voters, notice that being used on us? Whether or not we're conservative, whether or not we're liberal?

LAKOFF: Only when it's framed in the right way.

A lot of liberals believe that the facts will set you free. It's in our inheritance from the enlightenment. Where, in the enlightenment that everybody is a rational person, all you have to do is just tell them the facts, they'll reason to the right conclusion. It's false.

And the Republicans have learned that it's false. They've set up a frame, they set up a narrative, and they set it up in terms of their values. And they get it as part of normal, everyday language and normal everyday thought.

Once they've done that, the facts are irrelevant unless the Democrats can learn to re-frame the issues from their point of view, and then make the facts fit other frames.

BRANCACCIO: Well, controversial issue that perhaps frames would help: trial lawyer. John Edwards is one. How do you use that as a political weapon or an asset?

LAKOFF: Well, you use it as a weapon because it's been made into a weapon with terms like "frivolous lawsuits," and so on.

LAKOFF: That is a frame that has been constructed by conservatives to attack trial lawyers, because trial lawyers, you know, support the Democratic Party in many parts of the country. So they're trying to de-fund the Democrats by attacking trial lawyers.

Now instead of trial lawyers, you should say what folks really are doing. These are public protection attorneys. They're doing public protection law. These are…

BRANCACCIO: Protecting the public.

LAKOFF: Protecting the public from corporations and professionals who are either negligent or unscrupulous. And they're the last line of defense we have.

That's what, you know, public protection law is really about. And the Democrats need to come back and talk about public protection law and public protection.

BRANCACCIO: It's interesting how these phrases get inserted into the synapse. You say through repetition is one good way. Want you to take a look at this. We have President Bush couple years ago talking about his Healthy Forest Initiative. And he doesn't, as you'll see, talk about cutting down trees.

BUSH: Forest policy can be common sense policy.

A policy that is based upon common sense.

We need to make our forests healthy by using some common sense.

Common sense.

Common sense.

Common sense forest policy.

BRANCACCIO: If I were covering that speech, I'd say that the lead might have something to do with common sense.

LAKOFF: Yes. And what does that mean? It means experts are not needed. And who are the experts? They're ecologists, environmentalists. This says, "Don't listen to the experts. Just think about it yourself. And we're going to tell you how to think about it."

Now when they say Healthy Forest for a bill that's going to, you know, clear cut forests and destroy forests, what do you do if you're on the other side? Well, what you have to do is rename it.

Now, I mean, if it had been renamed something like Leave No Tree Behind, that would have been, you know, perfect. Or, you know, The Forest Destruction Act. You know?

Then what that does is allow you to bring it up as an issue, and allow you to ask the experts in as the arbiters. That's the way you deal with the attempt of common sense to say, "This isn't an expert issue. We don't listen to the experts."

Now the person who I think taught me most about this is one of your former guests, Frank Luntz.

BRANCACCIO: Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster and opinion researcher.

LAKOFF: That's right.

Luntz puts out a little workbook every year or so. And last year in his section on the environment, he said something very interesting.

He said that on global warming, the Democrats have the science on their side, but we can win with language. What we need to do is use words environmentalists like, like "healthy," "clean," and "safe."

Now what that does is each word like that evokes a frame. But what they do is they evoke frames that are the opposite of what they know they mean. These are sort of Orwellian frames. These are ways to manipulate the public.

So whenever you hear an Orwellian term like "Clear Skies Act" or "Compassionate Conservative," means they know they're weak on something. And what you have to do is rename it. Rename it to fit the truth.

It is the Dirty Air Act. It is the Forest Destruction Act.

BRANCACCIO: A lot of the hot button political issues of the moment really can be framed and re-framed. Big debate this summer over gay marriage. You might re-frame it, I don't know, you could call it "right to marry the one you love." That's a different kind of frame.

LAKOFF: Exactly right.

You have to change the terms and change the words to make them your words all the time. As soon as you say, "gay marriage," the image of gay sex is going to come up.

Most people, you know, if you say, "Are you in favor of gay sex," will say, "Who me? No." But if they say, "Do you think the state should tell people who they should marry?" Different question. Different frame.

BRANCACCIO: So what do you do, say it over and over?

LAKOFF: Over and over and over, just as they say it over and over. That's how they get people to think the way they want them to think.

And it's not an unfair, people think it's an unfair tactic. It's an effective tactic. It's true. It works that way. That's how people do think.

BRANCACCIO: Republicans tend to talk about being moral, family values. But I don't know if you've seen some of Kerry's speeches this summer.

KERRY: For values that make America strong.

The values that matter most.

Values that you live by.

The values that unite us, the values that define us.

Values, values.

Narrow values.

Shared values.

Now I'll tell you what values mean.

BRANCACCIO: Spot the key word there. I think it has something to do with values. About a 40 minute speech, we counted 28 usages of the word "values." What's he trying to do there?

LAKOFF: Well, he's bringing up the issue of values, and he's right. You have to say it over and over. But now here's the next step, you can't just repeat the word "values." You have to say what they are. You have to start talking about things like fairness, safety, freedom, community, trust, honesty. I mean these are values. Integrity.

Then he has to say why he has them, why progressives have them, why the Democratic Party has them, in detail. And then every time he mentions a program or an idea, he has to say why they follow from these values, and what they have to do with values. That's the sort of things that conservatives have been doing for many, many years.

BRANCACCIO: When you see that, though, where's that values word going? Who does John Kerry hope this word will resonate with?

LAKOFF: Everybody. Because everybody is looking for a candidate who shares their values.

BRANCACCIO: And that applied to George W. Bush as well? In other words, people who voted for him saw something in him that they could identify with?

LAKOFF: Absolutely. They saw it not only in the words, but in his body. They saw it in his gestures, they saw it in his dialect, in his choice of a particular, this kind of bubba dialect.

This is a guy who grew up in Kennebunkport, Maine around his father. His father didn't use that dialect. He went to Andover. He went to Yale. He went to Harvard Business School. He heard people not using the bubba dialect all the time.

But he also grew up in Texas, and he learned the other dialect, too. And he's used that very effectively to get people in the red states to identify with him and to say, "Hey, that guy is like me."

BRANCACCIO: You sometimes see that when you see a conservative critique of John Kerry. They say, "Well, that guy went to Yale." Now of course the President of the United States also went to Yale.

LAKOFF: Exactly. They both went to Yale. You know? President United States went to Andover. I mean these are, you know, elite institutions.

BRANCACCIO: A couple of times you've used the word "progressive" interchangeably with I think the other word is liberal.

LAKOFF: Yes.

BRANCACCIO: We moving away from liberal? Is liberal finally… even you admitting it's a dirty word?

LAKOFF: Well, it's been branded by the other side. For the last 20, 30 years they've been putting other adjectives with liberal, like limousine liberal, latte liberal, you know, Chardonnay and brie liberal, even though more Republicans eat brie than Democrats do. Very important, you know…

BRANCACCIO: There's research about this?

LAKOFF: There's research about this. Everything has market research. But the fact is that the identity has been given to the word "liberal." And people talk about the liberal elite when, in fact, it's the conservatives who have the real money in the country and the elitism. The Democrats should use that. The Democrats have to call the people who get those big tax cuts, not just the rich, but the elite. "Rich" is a good word in America. You know, remember, you have rich experiences. You want a rich life. You know? "Rich" is a good word. But "elite" isn't a good word.

BRANCACCIO: If you ever watch the Comedy Central program THE DAILY SHOW, they have a mock newscast. But they seem to have caught the conservatives trying to use this word "liberal" as a weapon. Take a look.

[CLIP FROM DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART]
CNN CLIP: "two of the foremost liberal senators"
CNN CLIP: "two of the foremost liberal US senators"
MSNBC CLIP: "the most liberal member of the United States Senate"
CNN CLIP: "the most liberal member of the United States Senate"
FOX CLIP: "who was the number one rated liberal in the United States Senate"
FOX CLIP: "the number one most liberal senator in the United States Senate"

STEWART: Wow! Those guys are liberal! In fact if I didn't know better I'd say they were the first and fourth most liberal senators in the whole Senate. And while we don't have any idea what that means or where those rankings come from or how they were arrived at or whether it's even true, I don't like the sounds of it.
[END CLIP]

BRANCACCIO: Liberals have lost the battle to hold onto the word "liberal," wouldn't you say?

LAKOFF: They've lost it at least temporarily. There's no way they can get it back before November. They could take the word back over a period of years.

Now remember that the word "conservative" used to be a dirty word. Back in 1964, when Goldwater lost, nobody wanted to be called a conservative. But the conservatives took the word back over many, many years of working at it.

BRANCACCIO: Let's take a look at the President of the United States this summer. And he's making a speech, and he has a refrain which you're about to see.

BUSH: And the American people are safer.

The American people are safer.

And the American people are safer.

BRANCACCIO: Post-Iraq, presumably, the American people are safer.

LAKOFF: He has to say the American people are safer, whether they are or not. Now notice what would happen if you went out and said the opposite. The American people are not safer. That's why…

BRANCACCIO: Say you were a Democrat…

LAKOFF: You're…

BRANCACCIO: You said, "The American people are not safer."

LAKOFF: Yeah. It's like Richard Nixon getting up there and saying, "I am not a crook," and people think of him as a crook. Right?

They think of the American are safer… not. Right? You have to say why they're not safer. You don't just say they're not safer. They say you have to say, "More terrorists have been created by the war in Iraq than were eradicated in, you know, in Afghanistan."

You have to say that things are more dangerous now.

BRANCACCIO: Are you going to hear that from Kerry-Edwards, all that their opponents will say is, "Well, you voted for the war, too?"

LAKOFF: I don't know. So far a lot of Democrats are used to simply negating what the other side said. You know, like "Not safer." They have to learn to re-frame and put it in their terms.

Take, for example, the war on terror. You should never use the word "war on terror." Why? First of all, "war" gives the President war powers. And secondly, "terror" talks about everything that could possibly make anyone afraid. It's like it's a pervading thing in the world.

Whereas if you talk about terrorists, there are only a handful, several thousand terrorists. They're dangerous. But if you're a nation of 250 million people, you can deal with the several thousand terrorists if you really go at it.

The issue is fighting terrorists. You know, as opposed to this general thing on terror. If you use "war" then you have the President having war powers. He's Commander-In-Chief. And, you know, you go on a wartime basis where people can't criticize the government.

BRANCACCIO: But Democrats don't want to understate the threat. There's more than a couple of hundred or a couple thousand terrorists.

LAKOFF: Whatever the estimate is, it's not millions. It's not hundreds of millions of al-Qaeda. The point is there is a threat, and there's a threat having to do with groups of individuals, not nations.

BRANCACCIO: Among George Lakoff's latest books IS MORAL POLITICS: HOW LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES THINK. George Lakoff, thank you so much for having come by NOW.

LAKOFF: Okay. My pleasure.
[...]

The Orwellian turn that Conservatives, courtesy Luntz, have taken politics down is kind of sick.

What's worse - the only way to counter it seems to be to go equally Orwellian.

BlackGriffen

[voodoo]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Cool!
Got anything on the Basques and how their movement may or may not tie in to the global WOT?

Claro, there is a comprehensive overview of ETA by El Mundo that covers the organization very well if one is interested.

http://www.el-mundo.es/eta/historia.html

I'll try and find some info in English too if you like, this was something I had bookmarked.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sure. I just hope you aren't trying to read them online. I couldn't do that. I would have to print such long articles out and then curl up with that cuppa joe you mentioned.

I'm working on getting my printer working.

For now, I'm chained to the desk.

[BlackGriffen]

Here is a Boston Globe Op-ed by Lakoff.

What he's saying makes sense. The art of winning elections is the art of building consensus. Literally, changing peoples' minds to support you. If anyone has a good idea of how that's done, a cognitive scientist does.

His conservative counterpart, Dr. Frank Luntz (bio sketches: here, here, here and a biased one here).

From the looks of it, Luntz has political degrees, but he was probably shaped by exposure to friends who are in the practical cognitive shaping business (read: sales) in Wharton and elsewhere.

It'll be interesting to see who wins over the next decade or so: Luntz or Lakoff.

BlackGriffen

Edit: Oops, Lakoff is a linguist, not a cog-sci, though he has published at least one book on the topic, and linguistics does overlap with cog-sci.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
"AL QAEDA'S FANTASY IDEOLOGY" by Lee Harris
http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

This essay was very interesting. The "fantasy protester" used as an explanatory lens in the first section is very recognizable. I saw quite a few at the RNC protests. That makes a great deal of sense, and helps explain some of my alienation from that kind of protester.

[Troll]

I read so many different things from a broad range of sources on current affairs that I don't have any specific essays that I could say particularly shaped my thinking about the current hot topics. But here's a speech that inspires me still today. It's Nelson Mandela's statement from the dock at the Rivonia Trial.

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/rivonia.html

That's a must read for anyone hoping to understand that desperation that often contributes to people turning to violence as a solution.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Only geographically. These perspectives go a little deeper than mere citizenship. When you speak, your voice and point of view is decidedly European elite. However, let's not make this personal. You react to Kagan (by your own admission) because his analysis directly skewers your recieved point of view. It's the same point of view widely held among the European elites in their foreign policy community. I do wish instead of attacking Kagan you would simply post alternative points of view. That was supposed to be the point of the thread.

Do you know what the African view is, or what the Asian or South American viewpoints are? It seems to me that you class anything that is not your view as "a decidely European elite point of view". Maybe, just maybe a lot more people share the "European view" than you like to admit.

[BRussell]

Fareed Zakaria was mentioned above. I like his writings about democracy - his skeptical writings about democracy. He basically argues that democracies are not necessarily liberal democracies, and in many cases democracies are worse than dictatorships. It's an eye-opener if you believe, as I used to, that democracy is the solution to all problems. Here's a good example:

The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.

Uh we're supposed to come up with two?