Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

George Lakoff's Freedom Frame

By Glenn W. Smith, AlterNet. Posted July 18, 2006.


The author of 'Moral Politics' says the battle to define freedom is being fought by warriors with radically different world views.
Advertisement

George Lakoff is a cognitive scientist whose theories have deepened our understanding of the brain and how we think, act, talk and feel. He works in the domain of mirror neurons and cognitive systems, which may be the stuff beneath our poetry but not necessarily the stuff of poetry. Still, readers who follow him in his new meditation on the fate of freedom in America might find themselves calling up their own images from our historic struggle for freedom:

  • An escaped slave lifts his eyes to the night sky, looking for the constellation of stars that will guide him north to freedom. "Follow the Drinking Gourd," he's been told in coded song;
  • A woman in a high-collared dress endures the contemptuous slanders (and the spit, and the thrown rocks, and the beatings, and the jailings) from those who violently oppose a woman's right to vote;
  • A sharecropper's daughter learns to read by candlelight, determined to escape the cruel, enforced poverty that threatens her family and her future.

These are pictures in the American Grain. They are part of our historical consciousness. They might even appear in public school history books, illustrating the progressive tradition of freedom that promises to all the opportunity to choose and pursue our goals, that teaches interdependence, empathy and an understanding that one's freedom is inextricably tied to the freedom of everyone else.

But it is a tradition under sustained assault from those who view freedom another way. To a conservative tradition that has never trusted the will of the people -- the unprivileged masses -- "freedom" is achieved by following strict rules, by accepting the discipline of those in authority. The "battle over the America's most important idea" is not new.

We see the two ideas of freedom -- the authoritarian and the egalitarian -- struggling with one another in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. In his new book, "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea" (Farrar, Straus & Giroux) George Lakoff holds these competing traditions up to the light.

Lakoff's central premise is that warriors with radically different worldviews fight the war over freedom. To conservatives, their authoritarian freedom seems the only natural road to human fulfillment. People are born bad, and will remain bad and "unfree" without discipline, punishment, hierarchy, and authority. To progressives, justifying authority in the name of freedom seems little more than a transparently hypocritical justification of elite privilege and control.

As described by Lakoff, progressives believe freedom means the opportunity for individuals to set and achieve their own goals, and the recognition that freedom is impossible unless we accept responsibility for ourselves and for others. Conservatives recoil at the progressive notion of liberty and argue that the prattlings about freedom and responsibility from the left are nothing but weak pleas for leniency from the debauched and the libertine, the unworthy and the unreconstructed.

Framing the political battle in America (and across the globe, really) around the idea of freedom, Lakoff focuses attention on what really is at stake in the trench-bound war of attrition we call contemporary politics: continued expansion of human freedom or a retreat to an elite-run distopia, a kind of knaves' old world in brave new world clothing.

Lakoff became a celebrity in 2004 as the world caught up to his 1996 groundbreaker, "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think" and made "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate" a sensational bestseller.

But his ideas are fruitful in ways not understood by some of his fans and nearly all of his critics. Kevin Drum, in his review of "Whose Freedom?" in Mother Jones magazine, complains about "the political class that has uncritically lionized Lakoff." He has a grudging admiration for Lakoff's insight that the language of family life is mapped onto the political domain, that conservatives can be understood as embodying a "strict father" morality while liberals operate in a nurturant, empathetic family moral model. Drum also sees the value in the discoveries of cognitive linguists, that the brain uses conceptual systems, structural contexts hard-wired into the developing brain, which determine the meaning of words.

Still, Drum complains that this "genuinely useful concept" has not produced world-shaking results. This is like attacking James Watson and Francis Crick for not immediately eradicating all human disease once they had discovered DNA. Wishful thinking makes for bad critique.

I think Drum's resentment is misplaced. Rather than direct it toward Lakoff, it might constructively be directed at some consumers who fetishized Lakoff's work and thought themselves experts in framing because they'd bought a book by the famous Berkeley professor. This is a legitimate problem in an era of celebrity and consumer politics, but it is not a problem created by Lakoff.

Democratic officeholders embraced Lakoff's new ideas. The consultant class, however, was less enthusiastic, in part because he had become a celebrity, which made him potentially dangerous to their bottom lines.

Lakoff, founder of the Rockridge Institute, recognizes the serious research that must be done to fully uncover and employ the practical benefits of his insights into conceptual frames. But like many of us, he's also aware of the urgent need for profound change. The policy consequences of extremist conservative rule are -- literally -- killing people, not just in war, but in the de facto euthanasia we call a health care system, through the poisoning of the environment, through the enforced poverty and obscene income disparity of our time.


Digg!

Glenn Smith is the author of "The Politics of Deceit: Saving Freedom and Democracy from Extinction." He runs DriveDemocracy.org and the Texas Progress Council, a message and political research lab in Austin, Tex.

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


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:
You da man, George ! I look forward to that new book of yours !
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 18, 2006 2:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way "conservatives" defined freedom and made the ignorant feel "free" even when they really weren't all goes back to the way the cons made sure that any freedoms granted would only be on their terms. That reminds me of how Germany back in the 1930s militarily took over and occupied half of France while making sure the other half governed on Germany's terms.

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

And to those stupid consultants always trying to fuck the Democrats,
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 18, 2006 2:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say purge the motherfuckers or else the Democrats will be lost forever. People are sick and tired of highly paid consultants running both parties to be honest.

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

Mind Over Matter?
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jul 18, 2006 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cognitive theory (how you think) and Behavioral theory (how you act) have become the two dominant perspectives of contemporary society and culture. Although alluded to what this article identifies as missing is understanding the unconcious which is eactly the same in all human beings and is what binds us together. Freud began the understanding of these forces over one hundred yeas ago and many researchers in the twentieth century expanded his work. They identified the two most potent unconscious forces: sexuality and aggression. These respresent the heart of controversy and struggle between "conservative" and "liberal" in my view. One is to repress and control, the other to express and allow. There is a balance so gravitating to one extreme or the other is optimal. In parenting it is called Authoritative. But we are now in the Dark Ages regarding our understanding or acceptance of our humanity. When we begin resurrecting previous thought and theory from the twentieth century we may begin to see the light once again. There are rules to the unconscious and in the long run I trust in life; and human beings.

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

» RE: Mind Over Matter? Posted by: douglashoyt
» RE: Mind Over Matter? Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Mind Over Matter? Posted by: agapegirl
» RE: Mind Over Matter? Posted by: atom6277
framerism
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 18, 2006 4:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I distrust the whole idea of framerism. It seems to me to be just another way of maximizing propaganda and minimizing real independent thought. Maximizing lies and minimizing truths. Maximizing dogmas and minimizing new ideas. Maximizing the past and minimizing the future. Maximizing the war rut we are in and minimizing the peace route we should be in. We need to climb out of the old box and start fabricating a new box closer to the new realities that we are now discovering.

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

» RE: framerism Posted by: ankhet
» RE: framerism Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
I got no problem with conservatives definition of freedom
Posted by: cold2touch on Jul 18, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i.e., To conservatives, their authoritarian freedom seems the only natural road to human fulfillment. People are born bad, and will remain bad and "unfree" without discipline, punishment, hierarchy, and authority., so long as they are at the end of the ever tightening leash that I hold while lounging on the deck of my yacht.
"Freedom only comes through discipline (and bondage)" I intone between fragrant puffs of my Partagas cigar.
Yeah, I can see it, grateful appreciation in their moistened eyes.

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

Freedom's NOT just another word for nothing left to lose
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 18, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" 'freedom' is achieved by following strict rules, by accepting the discipline of those in authority."

Freedom my pitoot! Typical Orwellian malarkey. And up is down.

Freedom is not a vague, wispy notion. It is a well-defined quality that increases with the number of options available, a quality that in physics is a quantifiable property (relating to the term entropy which relates to and refers to the options open to the particles, or their freedom to choose alternate paths). For our purposes, we mean options open to people. Let’s look at the word carefully for a moment.

Freedoms are limited in part by nature, so called physical freedom (we can’t float at will), biological freedom (only women can choose to conceive), economic freedom (more different kinds of good to select from and more money to spend means more choices), and political freedom which is limited by laws that compel or forbid choices. We are only interested in the last two of this here, especially political freedom.

Every law that compels or forbids a previously legal option reduces freedom (constrains options). This is not always undesirable since not all options are desirable, and freedom includes the freedom to make a mistake, so some laws are helpful. For example, we don't want people free to defraud one another or accidentally purchase tainted food. The choices we want are informed choices.

For good or ill, the freest people are the ones with the most choices. These are the people with the least number of legal restrictions (political freedom) and the most number of economic options (economic freedom). Once again, people who live with the least number of laws constraining informed options and the most wealth live most freely. That is not a vague concept.

By that reckoning, we were probably the freest people on earth ever last century, but that is clearly no longer true. Canadians, for example, enjoy most freedoms enjoyed by Americans, plus the freedom to consume cannabis without being called or treated like criminals, and their gay citizens enjoy the freedom to opt for the legal benefits of civil union.

But Americans are seeing the opposite as the
I read the FOLLOWING from today's news illustrates:

"Last week Carruthers told Reuters he thought that a U.S. Republican-written, House of Representatives-approved bill to crack down on Internet gambling by banning banks and credit card companies from processing the payments was bound to fail due to the mountainous backlog of other U.S. legislation."

The neocons couldn't limit another one of our freedoms because there were too many other freedoms in line ahead it to be eliminated! They just couldn’t get to it yet. Does that say anything to you about freedom Republican style? Nice.

I guess that as long as freedom is a wispy, semantically null word for Americans - a sound with no corresponding semantic content - they belong to the Republicans that have convinced them that rigid control is freedom. And why should such people have any more than that anyway?

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

Another solution to the problem is to raise consciousness in the .....
Posted by: Pepper on Jul 18, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..... general population including those with the hardwired structural thinking problem. It can be done. I am not an expert, but I have seen the power of coming into the light from the darkness of ignorance. I think its worth exploring and using in raising our children and aiding others to explore their own identity and subconscious mind.

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

Hamiltonian Freedom is not the American way.
Posted by: Riverside on Jul 18, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alexander Hamilton was certianly a patriot and an important contributor to the founding of this nation, but he also firmly believed that "the people are a great beast," therby setting a rigidly conservative standard for governng the governed.

The odious flaw here is that conservatism, real conservatism deals with much more than just how we-the-people will be governed and so in the political arena what persists is the "mean streets" portion of a much broader conservative theory. We progressives need to get past these "mean streets" in order to make contact with what I call unliberated progressives. It usually takes very little time for this group and true progressives to arrive at joint political philosophies. If you doubt this consider that our Constitution is a direct product of that process.

This is what we must accomplish here and now if we progressives and those conservatives both of whom love America want to keep it free and democratic.

Oddly enough "big government" Democrats more by happenstance than design create a stronger central government that mimics Hamiltonian federalism, while true conservatives have always believed in limited federalism and more self government. It is this minimalist view of true conservatives and the broad, people oriented view of progressives that have been the core of our real democracy.

We need to get back to this common ground. Right now, both Republicans and Democrats are standing in the way. So we the people must come together to again create America as we did in the very beginning.

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

There is wisdom in relativity
Posted by: Mazer on Jul 18, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was a very well written article. It is good to see a more objective and scientific approach to politics instead of the usual conservative-bashing that most articles featured on this website (and many of the commenters!) are guilty of. It is so important for people to see that there is no "I'm right, you're wrong" when it comes to politics and freedom; that mentality is certainly flawed. Everyone has their own ideas about freedom and about the world. I personally believe that morality and politics are relative, and we need to be aware of this.

I also want to praise Riverside for his last comment about how "true conservatives" promote limited federalism and self-government. What could be less authoritarian than that? Ideologies in this country (at least in the flawed dichotomy of liberals and conservatives) have been flipped on their heads.

Freedom, however you want to define it, will never be achieved with these adversarial structures (both political and mental) intact, or at least until these conceptual frames are universally recognized.

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

coming up with valid specs is not easy
Posted by: cold2touch on Jul 18, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Freedom is an elusive target and there are banana peels every step of the way.
Lakoff pointed out one dichotomy that is pretty easy to deal with. Obviously, the conservatives' idea of freedom being the reward for passing the doggie obedience school with flying colors does not sit well with those of us who detest having to jump through hoops and play dead on command.
We don't want freedom to be identured.

But there are other ways to slice that pie, such as the so called dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what happens when free masses acting in cleanly run elections return a pernicious populist demagogue such as Hitler in Weimar Republic, Milosevic in Serbia, Hamas in Palestine, Regan in USA, Sharon in Israel or Ahmedinejad in Iran.
Put it this way (without qualifying the terms): Should morons be accorded equal weight to intelligent people?
However one frames Freedom, sooner or later a group will test the limits of the envelope, stretch it or even break it, as the current administration has so clearly done.
Maybe that is the way it should be for the people to wake up and rethink the basics instead of wondering whether Corona is the best choice for the beach party.

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

» I quite agree Posted by: cold2touch
"...the brain uses conceptual systems, structural contexts hard-wired into the developing brain,...
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 18, 2006 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...which determine the meaning of words." Maybe. But if so, how much, and along with what else, and when?

I never see any references to the evidence that Lakoff must rely on to demonstrate that fundamental notion. I assume, however, it is related to Chomsky's theory of language. At issue, therefore, is not what the purported consequences can be for this theory of language but its own intellectual respectability.

What spooks me is how all I see on AlterNet are fantasies of what must be done in view of Lakoff's assertions. It sounds too much like the voodoo it celebrates. I'm one of those who does not plan to respond to someone sticking pins in an icon with my name on it.

When do we hear from Lakoff's informed critics? The fact that he is eager to tell us how much power we can have if we just follow his theory sounds too much like explaining thunder as the gods throwing bowling balls in the sky.

The success of the far right was predicted by non-Lakoffians like Kevin Phillips long before and for less esoteric reasons than Lakoff's Wizard of Oz GOP controlling us with their shadow pictures.

Give me some predictions rather than retrospective allegations. That's the difference between justifications and excuses.

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

Let Freedom Ring
Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand on Jul 18, 2006 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This thing, freedom. We think we know what it means, yet there are many different uses of this word, and several different concepts of the ideas it embodies. I did this exercise back on March 20, the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq to bring George Bush's idea of freedom to the Middle East, and here are some of the things I came up with:
freedom and liberty
freedom vs tyranny
freedom vs slavery
freedom of movement
freedom fighter
free trade
free markets
freemasons
free flowing
free association
free to be me
free form
free wheeling
free for all
free spirit
free will
free thinker
free love
free givaway
free lunch
free-loader
freedom of religion, speech, the press
freedom to assemble, to petition the government
freedom from taxation, fear, want
freedom's on the march
it's a free country
free your mind from mental slavery
footloose and fancy
The list could go on and on. This is one of the most basic concepts of our democratic system, yet it seems to have been horribly mangled and misused by propogandists and idealogues. Advertisers use it ad nauseum, as in fat-free instead of saying non-fat, as well as using the free givaway as a lure to people who don't understand that there is no free lunch.
So, it seems to me that rather than trying to divide the types of freedom into the 4 outlined by ssegallmd, it seems more useful to look at several different qualities that the word freedom embodies: 1)liberty, being unconstrained by some oppressive force, be it physical or mental or whatever; 2)free-for-all, free-wheeling - feared by conservatives because they believe that it leads to chaos; 3)free in the monetary sense, which allows free market systems to be a way of expressing freedom without being associated with the moral decline of the free spirit.
I think that this categorization of the different nuances of freedom can help us to expose how this powerful word can be strategically placed as a trigger on our emotions and how it has come to be framed by the different constituencies to connote totally different things. Thus, every time I hear Bush say "freedom's on the march," I cringe and wonder, what exactly kind of freedom could he possibly be talking about??? Is he strictly talking about freedom from Saddam Hussein? Then, yes, we succedded in freeing Iraq. Maybe he adds in a sprinkle of free election rhetoric, and that's good enough for alot of people. But to me, I see more lack of freedom now, as in freedom of movement, freedom fom fear, freedom from having American soldiers breading through your door at any moment, freedom from American imperialism...
These are all things that we as progressives can point out in our quest to reframe issues and use language to its fullest extent to make people think about what is going on in the world today.

From George Orwell from his 1945 essay, Notes On Nationalism:

It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one's own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias. If you hate and fear Russia, if you are jealous of the wealth and power of America, if you despise Jews, if you have a sentiment of inferiority towards the British ruling class, you cannot get rid of those feelings simply by taking thought. But you can at least recognise that you have them, and prevent them from contaminating your mental processes. The emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality. But this, I repeat, needs a moral effort, and contemporary English literature, so far as it is alive at all to the major issues of our time, shows how few of us are prepared to make it.

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

on "our historic struggle for freedom"
Posted by: janakiblum on Jul 18, 2006 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is interesting that the "own images from our historic struggle for freedom" - such as the suffragette the poor child, and versions of the slave - called up in the article, are also part of the (sometimes longer) history and folklore of a number of other nations, showing that ideas of freedom are not peculiarly "American" as Alternet and many other publications appear to maintain! A bit of knowledge or even curiosity about the rest of the world might show that -gasp!- in general, Americans are not that unique!

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

Arbeit Macht Frei - as free as sheep can be
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Jul 18, 2006 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The goal of our current batch of conservatives is not to protect the freedom of ordinary people at all, but to condition the masses into a state of complacent compliance.

The phrases 'Democracy in the Middle East' and 'The spread of democracy' are little more than Orwellian code for converting most of mankind into a resource - legitimate commodoties for trade, labor, and consumption.

We don't want the Iraqi people to have real sovereignty, just the illusion of it. What we really want is a compliant regime that goes along with our energy policies. Hence, Bremmer's 100 rules are written in stone in their new constitution.

And our real desire in free elections is for the opportunity to 'win' them, and see our preferences materialize under the guise of the will of the people, wherever there are resouces we desire.

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

NOT READY FOR FRAMING QUITE YET, SADLY
Posted by: chanceny on Jul 18, 2006 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fear is the tool brandished by the neoconartists to change the subject, reframe the debate and counter progressive challenges against ther tyranical rule. As long as the masses are kept frightened, seeking solace and protection from daily newly minted boogeymen manufactured to feed their insecurities, it doesn't matter the framing. Freedom to those caught up in this fear-induced climate, means standing fast in solidarity with the leadership they trust to hide behind. Patriotism is wearing their tiny flag pins, defending the need to cede liberties in the cause of 'homeland' security and to fight those who would dissent from staying the course their trusted leaders have carved out for them to blindly follow. History has recorded the 'sheeple ' phenononem countless times, the outcome worsening with each new generation living under flawed, corrupt and even insane leadership. Even mass death and destruction are ignored for the greater good that has been promised for those who keep the faith. Liberals must break thru this BS by confrontation. Call those who declare themselves bush supporters cowards. Tell them that their fear is misplaced. Advise them that fear itself is all bush has been offering them and he is doing everything to prolong the killing, provoke more hatred for America and done nothing to actually secure our country - it's borders, ports or our environment. He is a failure as a uniter, his 'decidership' sucks and his performance on the world stage is our national embarrassment. Once reason is restored and fear is faced with bravery, not cowering compliance, can we frame what was and can be again, the practice of a true, constitutional liberal democracy that benefits all Americans. The stuff our founders dreams were made of that created our America awaits us if we conquer the demons of fear these treasonous facists are relying upon to destroy all we fought and died to preserve.

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

"The Power of Nightmares"
Posted by: mcartri on Jul 18, 2006 4:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Between Lakoff's works and John Dean's continuing exposure of "Conservatives Without Consciences", we can see that George W. Bush and bin Laden share the spreading of terror as the foundation for their actions. The visual story of this fear mongering to repress freedom is found in the 3-part 2004 BBC documentary, "The Power of Nightmares". It is incredibly powerful and can be viewed free at Google Video or purchased at Amazon.

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

VOTER ALERT: YOUR GOVERNMENT IS "FREE" TRADING YOUR FREEDOM TO OMAN !!!
Posted by: SDres11 on Jul 18, 2006 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
REPORT: Oman Trade Pact Permits Foreign Ownership of U.S. Nat’l Security Assets

In an explosive report tonight, top House Democrats discovered provisions in the controversial Oman Free Trade Agreement that would permit foreign ownership of U.S. ports and other key national security assets. Three Democrats and one Republican held an emergency press conference today to expose the provisions just before the House is scheduled to vote on the Oman pact on Thursday. As Reuters reports, "Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman." Those provisions might also allow foreign ownership of other key national security assets, considering just after the recent Dubai Ports controversy, that country went ahead with plans to purchase a major U.S. defense contractor.
Last month, lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. Senate joined hands to pass the Oman Free Trade Agreement - which is being pushed aggressively by the Bush administration and its largest corporate donors. Lawmakers ignored major labor, human rights and environmental objections to the pact put forward by more than 400 union, religious and consumer groups. Among those voting for the pact in the Senate were Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), two Senators facing tough re-election bids who could face renewed criticism in their home states that they have sold out their constituents.

The House vote is expected to be much closer than the Senate vote, and the explosive news tonight puts a new level of pressure on congressional lawmakers of both parties not to sell out. To date, a number of Democratic lawmakers have yet to say how they will vote on the Oman pact. Corporate lobbyists are aggressively targeting the 15 Democrats who last year capitulated to Big Money's demands and backed the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement. They are also targeting members of the New Democratic Coalition - the group of Democrats most closely affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.

This vote is going to be extremely close - and bought-off lawmakers are scrambling to hide and/or obscure the details of these national security provisions. But as Reuters notes, even the Bush adminstration's trade representative acknowleges that the national security provisions create an exploitable security hole. That means that regardless of the propaganda efforts, the upcoming vote will put House members on record not only on economic issues, but on national security issues. Are these lawmakers going to sell out America's national security? Or are they going to stand up to Big Money interests and say this trade deal and others like it are unacceptable? Contact your House Member immediately and tell them you expect them to put America's national security first.

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

Proven again and again
Posted by: rafey on Jul 19, 2006 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indeed! Transcending entrenched ideologies is our only true gateway to freedom. This, history has proven again and again.

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

On Lakoff's studies of semantics.
Posted by: onsemantics on Sep 7, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The topic of ‘framing messages’ has been sorely overlooked in blogs orientated to the Democrats, and progressives.

Talking points from the progressives may actually sway an ample majority of malleable voters to the Democrats by the November Election. Talking points can even convey wisdom on propaganda itself!

An ample and growing majority of the public have “tuned-out” the very media chaos that is orientated around “knee-jerk reactions.” Ironically, these people can still be reached.

Examples to consider:

* Let’s talk about…talking points.

* Talking points, said again and again for the first time!

* Media-spin, counter-spin, “counter-counter-spin”; just dizziness!

* “Their job?” -- To confuse the “rest of us!”

* With all of the mudslinging, nobody comes clean!

* The only thing we have to fear are the fear-mongers themselves!

* Politics WITHOUT ALL OF THE POLITICS!

** BOOK: Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show (Hardcover) By Geoffrey Nunberg.

http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/258

In short, the Democratic Party can develop talking points that get results:

Examples:

* Don’t think of a GOP Elephant.

* Economic relief.

* Votes but verified.

* When the majority votes, the votes help the majority.

** BOOK: The Tipping Point: How Little Things can Make a Big Difference. Malcolm Gladwell. http://www.gladwell.com/tippingpoint/index.html

An apt quote:

* From talking points to tipping points!

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

bil
Posted by: Bil on Jan 3, 2007 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
new1
new2
new3
new4
new5
new6
new7
new8
new9

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