Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

7 Reasons Why Obama's Speeches Are So Powerful

By George Lakoff, AlterNet. Posted February 24, 2009.


The president is using his enormous skills as a communicator to express a moral framework.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Hard to Believe: 73 U.S. Kids Sentenced to Life Without Parole at 14 or Younger, and All Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by George Lakoff

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following has been updated since Obama delivered his speech to Congress.

What did we hear when President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress?

The pundits will stress the nuts-and-bolts policy issues: the banking system, education, energy, health care. But beyond policy, there will be a vision of America -- a moral vision and a view of unity that the pundits often miss. What they miss is the Obama Code. For the sake of unity, the president tends to express his moral vision indirectly.

Like other self-aware and highly articulate speakers, he connects with his audience using what cognitive scientists call the "cognitive unconscious." Speaking naturally, he lets his deepest ideas simply structure what he is saying. If you follow him, the deep ideas are communicated unconsciously and automatically. The Obama Code is his most effective way to bring the country together around fundamental American values.

For supporters of the president, it is crucial to understand the Code in order to talk overtly about the old values our new president is communicating. It is necessary because tens of millions of Americans -- conservatives and progressives -- don't yet perceive the vital sea change that Obama is bringing about.

The word "code" can refer to a system of either communication or morality. Obama has integrated the two. The Obama Code is moral and linguistic at once. The president is using his enormous skills as a communicator to express a moral system. As he has said, budgets are moral documents. His economic program is tied to his moral system and is discussed in the Code, as are just about all of his other policies.

Behind the Obama Code are seven crucial intellectual moves that I believe are historically, practically and cognitively appropriate, as well as politically astute. They are not all obvious, and jointly they may seem mysterious. That is why it is worth sorting them out, one by one.

1. Values Over Programs

The first move is to distinguish programs from the value systems they represent. Every policy has a material aspect -- the nuts and bolts of how it works -- plus a typically implicit cognitive aspect that represents the values and ideas behind the nuts and bolts. The president knows the difference. He understands that those who see themselves as "progressive" or "conservative" all too often define those words in terms of programs rather than values. Even the programs championed by progressives may not fit what the president sees as the fundamental values of the country. He is seeking to align the programs of his administration with those values.

The potential pushback will come not just from conservatives who do not share his values, but just as much from progressives who make the mistake of thinking that programs are values and that progressivism is defined by a list of programs. When some of those programs are cut as economically secondary or as unessential, their defenders will inevitably see this as a conservative move rather than a move within an overall moral vision they share with the president.

This separation between values and programs lies behind the president's pledge to cut programs that don't serve those values and support those that do -- no matter whether they are proposed by Republicans or Democrats. The president's idealistic question is, what policies serve what values, not what political interests?

2. Progressive Values Are American Values

Obama's second intellectual move concerns what the fundamental American values are. In Moral Politics, I described what I found to be the implicit, often unconscious, value systems behind progressive and conservative thought.

Progressive thought rests, first, on the value of empathy -- putting oneself in other people's shoes, seeing the world through their eyes, and therefore caring about them. The second principle is acting on that care, taking responsibility both for oneself and others, social as well as individual responsibility. The third is acting to make oneself, the country and the world better -- what Obama has called an "ethic of excellence" toward creating "a more perfect union," politically.

Historian Lynn Hunt, in Inventing Human Rights, has shown that those values, beginning with empathy, lie historically behind the human rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Obama, in various interviews and speeches, has provided the logical link. Empathy is not mere sympathy. Putting oneself in the shoes of others brings with it the responsibility to act on that empathy -- to be "our brother's keeper and our sister's keeper" -- and to act to improve ourselves, our country and the world.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: politics, obama, language, framing, george lakoff, linguistics

George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (Chelsea Green). He is professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley and a senior fellow of the Rockridge Institute.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Obama is a great speech-giver!
Posted by: AJR Journal on Feb 24, 2009 11:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All energizing, captivating, charismatic speakers, across the political spectrum, use these points.
But, at some point, words give way to policy and reality.
It remains to be seen if Pres. Obama can materialize his speeches into effective policies.
The proof of the pudding is, after all, in the tasting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

W/out substance, eloquence
Posted by: weathered on Feb 24, 2009 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is nothing more than a distraction.

Walk the talk Mr. President or suffer the compromise of a lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The progressive machine needs to be built from local to state to federal levels first.
Posted by: jwverez on Feb 24, 2009 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Otherwise, Obama will still feel that he must play "conservative". George Lakoff is correct for the most part but he forgot to mention that conservatives started their war in 1960 from local elections and finally made it to the federal level by 1968 and have continued to pervade all levels without hesitation. Until we the people start taking our local and state level elections seriously and raise our own voter turnouts on those levels, all you're gonna get is the kind of Democrats in Washington you're seeing. Remember, Obama was a strong liberal and progressive when he was state Senator of IL but thanks to conservative Democrats in Washington, he found himself in a totally different realm in 2005 when he took office. We the people need to cooperate in more states and prefer all 50. Looking at the representation from even the bluest of states, you have to ask yourself why CA and NY would be stuck with Blue Dogs such as Gillibrand and neocons/Wall$treet sellouts such as Feinstein and Schumer. I was relunctant to vote for Obama last year and I don't trust Congress to be of much help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» AIPAC will be Obama's undoing Posted by: weathered
O-blah-blah can certainly blah-blah with the best of them, no doubts about that
Posted by: DCostello2 on Feb 24, 2009 1:06 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one is or can argue that when he reads a prepared speech, the man can blah-blah-blah with the best of them. When he's answering questions or not reading a prepared text, he stumbles and bumbles with the best of them.

None of this really matters, however. What matters is when the rubber hits the road and words are turned into actions. In the case of O-blah-blah, his words and his actions are often times in direct opposition. For example:

- during the campaign he blah-blahed about illegal wire tapping but voted in full support of it and for the telcos who violated our Constitutional Rights

- during the primary he blah-blahed about taking public funding for the election but we all know what happened with that - to the tune of $750,000,000

- he blah-blahed about the war in Iraq but never met a funding or war bill he didn't support nor has he put a single cabinet member in place who was against the war - mongers every one!!

The other thing to think about while you listen is what would you think if W said the same things, or some other Republican? Obama has made some statements in his inaugural address and in his recent speeches that would be cause for open outrage if they were made by W or a Republican.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is getting fooled into the republican "bipartisan" trap
Posted by: antiapathy on Feb 24, 2009 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really really hope that Obama is the stealth progressive that Lakoff thinks he is. Maybe he can fool people who identify with conservative values into supporting his "American values". But how much is Obama willing to concede in the name of bipartisanship? That stimulus bill had far too many concessions, and it got virtually no support from Republicans.

The Democrats, and now Obama, must not let conservatives continue to drag this country to the right. Even when Democrats are in control, they give ground and allow conservatives to move the line of "bipartisanship" to the right. The Democratic leadership continues to cave in and give concessions, and the Republicans vote against their bills and cry that the watered-down, right of center legislation is just too liberal. In doing so they redefine where the center is. And the Dems fall for it EVERY TIME! They would get the exact same vote on a left-of-center bill! When will they realize that they are being played for suckers? It's like Charlie Brown and that damn football!

I believe Obama is a great leader, and he will inspire a lot of people to wake up and realize that American values truly are progressive values. But in the meantime, Obama must realize that the conservatives will keep pulling the ball out from under him as long as he falls for their "bipartisan" games.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To Achieve Progressive Change, We Must Lead Obama
Posted by: DrBrian on Feb 24, 2009 4:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is an intelligent, articulate, and probably fundamentally decent man. However, I don't share major parts of his moral vision. Slaugtering Afghan and Palestinian civilians is deontologically wrong, strategically stupid, and empirically counterproductive. Fostering radicalism and destabilizing a nuclear-armed Pakistan is inhumane, stupid and especially dangerous to India, our natural ally in South Asia. Increasing an already bloated military budget at a time of pressing humanitarian needs domestically and internationally isn't moral, when we consider the opportunity costs.

Of course Obama is preferable to Bush, or even to McCain. But he's a transactional leader, not a transformational one, a pragmatist and not a progressive. Hagiographic articles such as this lead inevitably to disillusionment.

If we are to get the sort of change we need, we have to lead Obama, and not the converse. We have to keep the pressure on him, and on Congress, to counteract the immense influence of the elites who have laid us so low.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The blank screen
Posted by: MFiorillo on Feb 24, 2009 6:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article strikes me as a bit like the effect Obama has on well-meaning people: bringing about a soft haze of good feeling and credulity.

Look at Obama's response to the financial catastrophe that is engulfing us all, and ask yourself if his choices have been fundamentally progressive, or whatever term you want to use to "frame" them. He appointed Summers, who, after Greenspan and Rubin, shares an immense responsibility for the financial situation we're in. The only reason he appointed yes-man and weakling Geithner over Summers is that he is so personally detested and has so much political baggage.

Look at how the bailouts themselves have functioned: as a continuation of the wholesale looting of public wealth by finance capital, with no end in sight. Yes, Obama's chastising of Wall Streeet bonuses was of some mild symbolic importance, but it pales before the immense transferral of wealth to those who gained their unimaginable wealth by extracting it from the productive capacity of the nation, lost it, and now want us to replace it, so that in their self-delusions they can go on as before.

As a public school teacher I am appalled, but not surprised, that Obama named a hack non-educator who has closed public schools and replaced them with private charters, for-profit contract schools and military academies, and who is using federal stimulus money to further the testing mania initiated by his predecessor. Duncan's vision of education is of the narrowest kind, whereby school is to provide training, not true education, for a future of overwork, stress and remote surveillance. You'll notice that Obama, who has praised the union-busting head of the DC public schools, is sending his own daughters to private schools, as he did in Chicago, where he supported the continuing efforts to dismantle public education.

As an individual, Mr. Obama has many positive qualities. I voted for him, although solely on the basis that I felt he'd make superior judicial appointments than those of McCain. But this article is a perfect example of the self-deception that so many political liberals and progressives have about him. As he himself has said, he is a blank screen that people project their own point of view onto. However, the hedge fund and private equity parasites, who have been his most generous contributors, are not nearly so sentimental. They made a cold-eyed appraisal of the candidates and decided that Obama would provide the best return on investment. So far, he is coming through for them, albeit under the limitations of a crisis .

What we need now are not gauzy interpretations of a skilled politician's rhetoric, but mass, democratic mobilization on many fronts to force the powers-that-be to make tangible concessions, and to restore democracy in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jindals Response like an Jr High 'Hygiene' film
Posted by: Purple Girl on Feb 24, 2009 7:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are the Repugs joking or are they so heartless to throw out their own young to be devoured?
Jindal was as antiseptic and boring as those chewed up 50's filmed we suffered through in Jr High health class. About as uninformative and Irrelvant to boot.
Does he have any aspiration to have a national Political Career? after that speech he should talk to Obama about his continued Education opportunity proposals - he's gonna need a new vocation.
So Repugs This is the Best you Got? Then I'm really feeling more hopeful and confident.Pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So, if I squint my eyes and turn my head just right...
Posted by: -matti on Feb 24, 2009 9:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...then Obama will look like a Progressive to me, just as he does to Lakoff?

Cool trick, man.

But does it work for policy as well as words?

Let's see huh?

Okay...Escalation in Afghanistan...*squint*...*head turn*...

Crud. Didn't work.

If only I could have Lakoff's faith in words, then it wouldn't matter.

Oh well.

-matti.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About 80 % of talking heads on TV are conservatives.
Posted by: violawall on Feb 24, 2009 9:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on man are you serious! Rush is on the radio and Fox News is one network. Besides, what happen to getting objective news? I get most of my news online and try to weed out the BS. Gee, I hope my response doesn't sound to conservative and my comment gets reported!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

read the article carefully
Posted by: setterwoman on Feb 25, 2009 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THe responses so far seem to miss what Lakoff is saying. The one thing we need to do is to get heard on the media most people still listen to. Yes, hardcore conservatives would still just listen to Fox and Limbaugh, but many many more could still be reached. Values translate into policy. Obama cannot do what he would like to do without support. He cannot do what we want him to do (even if it's not in his vision) without pushing him into it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: read the article carefully Posted by: weathered
moral arguments? progressive?
Posted by: anna banana on Feb 25, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hoody hoo hoo hoo -- no one finds it repugnant that President Putz, nee Mr. Hope, has been busy stretching his sphincter muscles to accommodate 'the other side'? Goodness, what does it take for the densities that leap to his praises to realize that in his position his actions are already laid out for him? Okay, okay, REFORM! I guarantee that you'll come to regret that word....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To socialize or not to socialize is the question.
Posted by: 2thepoint on Feb 25, 2009 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some Progressive values AREN'T Americans values.. Americans DONT want to pay for someone elses house who was irresponsible, they dont want to pay for their car. We arent a socialist country. We can and do take care of others less fortunate as evidenced by the fact that we are one of the most generous countries when it comes to aid.

But, if Obama's vision is to destroy what made this country great and brought millions of immigrants here (the possibility to have a better life, not have someone take care of you) then he will hopefully be a one term president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks. I needed that.
Posted by: sawdust on Feb 25, 2009 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an extraordinarily wonderful piece of writing from Mr. Lakoff, as one might expect. It is a most welcome relief from sound bites and the usual media attempts at instant gratification, when one searches for useable information and fresh outlooks.

All too sadly, many of the comments that follow it belie, reveal and expose the very stultified and corrosive attitudes of poorly grounded progressives and recalcitrant conservatives that Mr. Lakoff identifies in the article.

If the Obama ship sinks, or remains senselessly moored up at the dockside, because too many Ameicans are determined to adhere to old and rigid mindsets, rather than explore the thinking displayed in this essay, then we will have no one to blame for the hole in our foot(or the bottom of the boat) than ourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks. I needed that. Posted by: setterwoman
» RE: Thanks. I needed that. Posted by: ldyradr
Who are the rethugs' base, anyway?
Posted by: willymack on Feb 25, 2009 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aside from the neocon scumbags who finance them and rule them, the bumpkins who mourn the passing of Ozzie & Harriet and Amos and Andy, who miss their eight track tape players, and who are unaware of FM radios, that's who. They're as firmly stuck in a fictional "good ol' days" as a hundred million year old insect encased in amber. Their willful ignorance is so deeply ingrained, and their inflexible minds are so ossified that, for all intents and purposes they're non-functional. That's why they persist in listening to and BELIEVING the rants of clowns like limberger and o'liely. It's familiar territory to them and as comfortable as an old pair of jeans. They simply don't want to listen to or read anything new or unfamiliar; it might just make them THINK, and that wouldn't do, oh no, not a'tall.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Naysayers
Posted by: SEDGFLD on Feb 26, 2009 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most important thing is that, after the lies, illegalities and deceptive practices of the past eight years that we've had to endure, more and more people are coming out of the fog they were brainwashed into and just want some straight talk, even if the politics are different.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement