Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush 'Staying the Course' Right Over a Cliff

By George Lakoff, AlterNet. Posted October 30, 2006.


What the president is discovering is that it's not so easy to make us forget his position on Iraq: The laws of language are hard to defy.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The Bush administration has finally been caught in its own language trap.

"That is not a stay-the-course policy," Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, declared on Monday.

The first rule of using negatives is that negating a frame activates the frame. If you tell someone not to think of an elephant, he'll think of an elephant. When Richard Nixon said, "I am not a crook" during Watergate, the nation thought of him as a crook.

"Listen, we've never been stay the course, George," President Bush told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News a day earlier. Saying that just reminds us of all the times he said "stay the course."

What the president is discovering is that it's not so easy to rewrite linguistic history. The laws of language are hard to defy.

"The characterization of, you know, 'it's stay the course' is about a quarter right," the president said at an Oct. 11 news conference. " 'Stay the course' means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working - change. 'Stay the course' also means don't leave before the job is done."

A week or so later, he tried another shift: "We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly."

To fully understand why the president's change in linguistic strategy won't work, it's helpful to consider why "stay the course" possesses such power. The answer lies in metaphorical thought.

Metaphors are more than language; they can govern thought and behavior. A recent University of Toronto study, for example, demonstrated the power of metaphors that connect morality and purity: People who washed their hands after contemplating an unethical act were less troubled by their thoughts than those who didn't, the researchers found.

"Stay the course" is a particularly powerful metaphor because it can activate so many of our emotions. Because physical actions require movement, we commonly understand action as motion. Because achieving goals so often requires going to a particular place -- to the refrigerator to get a cold beer, say -- we think of goals as reaching destinations.

Another widespread -- and powerful -- metaphor is that moral action involves staying on a prescribed path, and straying from the path is immoral. In modern conservative discourse, "character" is seen through the metaphor of moral strength, being unbending in the face of immoral forces. "Backbone," we call it.

In the context of a metaphorical war against evil, "stay the course" evoked all these emotion-laden metaphors. The phrase enabled the president to act the way he'd been acting -- and to demonstrate that it was his strong character that enabled him to stay on the moral path.

To not stay the course evokes the same metaphors, but says you are not steadfast, not morally strong. In addition, it means not getting to your destination -- that is, not achieving your original purpose. In other words, you are lacking in character and strength; you are unable to "complete the mission" and "achieve the goal."

"Stay the course" was for years a trap for those who disagreed with the president's policies in Iraq. To disagree was weak and immoral. It meant abandoning the fight against evil. But now the president himself is caught in that trap. To keep staying the course, given obvious reality, is to get deeper into disaster in Iraq, while not staying the course is to abandon one's moral authority as a conservative. Either way, the president loses.

And if the president loses, does that mean the Democrats will win? Perhaps. But if they do, it will be because of Republican missteps and not because they've acted with strategic brilliance. Their "new direction" slogan offers no values and no positive vision. It is taken from a standard poll question, "Do you like the direction the nation is headed in?"

This is a shame. The Democrats are giving up a golden opportunity to accurately frame their values and deepest principles (even on national security), to forge a public identity that fits those values -- and perhaps to win more close races by being positive and having a vision worth voting for.

Right now, though, no language articulating a Democratic vision seems in the offing. If the Democrats don't find a more assertive strategy, their gains will be short-lived. They, too, will learn the pitfalls of staying the course.

(c) 2006 George Lakoff and The New York Times. Originally printed in The New York Times on October 27, 2006.

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

See more stories tagged with: iraq, staying the course

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 at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! 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:
'Mission accomplished!'
Posted by: Bobsays on Oct 30, 2006 1:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think I now suffer from 'mission accomplished' nostalgia. Remember those heady days? Notice how those two words never get mentioned anymore? We aren't even promised another mission accomplished moment because this is now a 'long war'. It is just going to go on and on.

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

» RE: 'Mission accomplished!' Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: 'Mission accomplished!' Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: 'Mission accomplished!' Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: 'Mission accomplished!' Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: 'Mission accomplished!' Posted by: Captainmagic
» RE: 'Mission accomplished!' Posted by: willymack
» RE: 'Mission accomplished!' Posted by: symcokid
Time for BUSH to be IMPEACHED
Posted by: thinkverybig on Oct 30, 2006 2:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It can't come soon enough. Let's IMPEACH and Jail BUSH, CHENEY and RUMSFELD.

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

cliff
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 30, 2006 3:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's cliff notes no longer work because the cliff has become so steep and treacherous. History is littered with failures who failed to study history until it became too late to survive the slings and arrows of an outraged citizenry at home and of a vengeful citizenry throughout the world battered by big bombs and big lies.

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

» RE: cliff Posted by: willymack
Damn right. I just wished the so-called "liberals" would wake up and change their "latte" course !
Posted by: SDres11 on Oct 30, 2006 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I often wonder why is it that there are more fault-finding articles with no solutions let alone worthwhile ones. If someone brings up the idea of industrial hemp to replace oil, they get ignored and/or laughed at. Of course that ain't the worst of it. Back in my state of South Dakota, most of the Democrats are making social issues such as "abortion" and gay rights their central campaign themes and pissing off voters especially their real base or what's left of it when they ought to focus on the environmental, economic, and insecurity factors that forced "abortions" in the first place. Unwanted/unexpected pregnancies is exactly what's been going on and it's PATHETIC that even the so-called "liberal" groups choose to ignore the perpetrators on the "right" that caused all this mess in the first place.

P.S.: I don't apologize for slamming the door on any Democratic volunteer who asks me to vote for this or that Democrat based on their opposition to the abortion ban while at the same time doing their "pro-business centrist" bullshit pandering to the "right".

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

LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 30, 2006 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything the president says requires a lengthy explanation and much clarification. Why is this? Didn't we all have English teachers ? If they would all stop the cumbersome analogies and say what has to be said we would all understand. Of course it's better if we don't. That's the plan. And now we have Tony Snow to Clear things up. Why is it so easy not to like Tony? He gives new meaning to arrogance. This could all change in 8 days! VOTE!! Thanks, ANNA

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

» RE: LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Speaking of language...
Posted by: Plexius on Oct 30, 2006 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I noticed that Lynne Cheney asked Wolf Blitzer on a recent CNN interview, "Do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq?" Bill O'Reilly asked David Letterman the exact same question on the Tonight Show.

It would appear that these neocon operatives have a new stategic phrase to discombobulate the opposition. If you answer "yes" to the question, then you are agreeing that we should continue the war, even intensify it. If you answer "no," then you may be portrayed as someone who does not support the team or tribe--in effect, you are a traitor.

I am working on responses to this loaded question. This is my best one, so far:

"That is a loaded question. Iraq is a lose-lose situation. And the best way to minimize loss is to stop fighting and leave. Now!"

I know a short, simple response would be better, but this is what I've got now. Anyway, I'm sure we're going to hear this "win" question trotted out by the Republicons any chance they get.

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

» Here's my response Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Here's my response Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Speaking of language... Posted by: McJulie
» Yes, "Define win"... Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Speaking of language... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Speaking of language... Posted by: Trazom
» The real divide... Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Speaking of language... Posted by: larryblackhall
» RE: Speaking of language... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Speaking of language... Posted by: Plexius
» RE: Unconditional surrender of WHO? Posted by: Edward George
George Bush and the World Court
Posted by: arthur_ide on Oct 30, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Bush has lied about everything: from weapons of mass destruction, to the number of individuals killed in Iraq. Like Hitler, he invaded one nation in rue for invading another (Afghanistan, then Iraq). He is personally responsible for torturing, maiming, raping (both genders) Iraqis and Afghanis, increases the wealth of his cronies obscenely (MobilExxon) while giving largesses to his pals at Halliburton. He has committed more crimes against humanity than did Hitler, and with the radical religious right, tramples not only on basic liberties, but like John Adams, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR has slashed habeus corpus from the Constitution and made it a worthless document, giving cause for universal hatred for the USA and Americans. George W. Bush and his allies Donald Rumsfeld (who installed Saddam Hussein for Ronald Reagan), Dick Cheney (Halliburton), and the queen of War Condi Rice, along with Tony Blair of the UK should be tried by the World Court for crimes against humanity--and when found guilty, executed--as would have been the fate of the original Hitler (but who committed suicide).

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

So much for "framing"
Posted by: SteveB on Oct 30, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, so framing works like a charm - until it doesn't. Maybe we should take this as an encouraging sign that reality still occasionally gets to have a say in the American political process.

And that's my problem with Lakoff: if the Dems (or anyone else) actually came up with policies that made sense, the framing part would be easy. For example, how about if the Dems "frame" their position on the Iraq war as: "Bring Our Troops Home!"

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

Stray the Course, Expose the Lies
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 30, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debacle in Iraq is NOT a result of incompetence, or misunderstanding, or miscalculation, or anything like that.

The civil war in Iraq was a deliberate result of official US policy. Stop letting them lie and set the tone of the debate.

Go to Sourcewatch and start using their own documents against the neocons:

P2OG

"Page 26: Recommendation: Proactive Operations "

"Recommendation
Develop an entirely new capability to proactively, preemptively evoke responses from adversary/terrorist groups"

(in other words, detain and torture Iraqis then set them free/SET THEM LOOSE/UNLEASH THEM ON THE IRAQI PEOPLE)

"Proposal: P2OG

One way to invigorate U.S. intelligence would be to "Develop an entirely new capability to proactively, preemptively evoke responses from adversary/terrorist groups," according to the DSB. Such an approach would "improve [intelligence] information collection by stimulating reactions" from the target [5] ... which is to say, provoke the terrorists into action. See Counterpunch article. "

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

No valid military goals remain in Iraq.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 30, 2006 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't train our people to "nation build". At best, our exquisitely adapted and superbly talented uniformed young destroyers make poor, tempermental--and rarely even criminal--baby sitters. The mission--even if you believe that a prominent reason that the U.S. deployed forces to Iraq was for the purpose of securing the Anthrax and chemical weapons we knew he had, along with the nookyouler technology we know he didn't--is OVER; any such military mission to counter potential Iraqi threats to the U.S. is long, long over.

No reason that we should support any candidate that wants to keep our people there, hanging aound, DYING, while the Grand Poobah waits for doves and roses to fall from the sky. Far better for our people--and Iraq's too--that we vacate the area and let the people of Iraq decide their fate.

To address the author's treatment on the language of war, I would encourage anyone who speaks to a supporter of continued Iraqi involvement to find out (civily) what the hell their idea of "the mission" is, because the administration has yet to specifically articulate the "mission". Further, it might be instructive to inquire of such individuals as to how many of their fellow countrymen and Iraqi's under our quasi-occupation they are willing to sacrifice of to see an undefined "when the Iraqi's can take over" mission accomplished. Finally, providing they remain staunch supporters of "only leaving when the Iraqi's can take over", why exactly letting the Iraqi's take over in the next ten minutes wouldn't be a great strategy for accomplishing that particularly worthless military mission.

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

» Yes, throw Bush's 'nation-building' quote at 'em Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Chris Floyd on Propaganda:
Posted by: rwa on Oct 30, 2006 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[From the Washington Post]: "Horror at the bloodshed accompanying the U.S. effort to bring democracy to Iraq has accomplished what human rights activists, analysts and others say Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had been unable to do by himself: silence public demands for democratic reforms here." (Notice the casual language of the Washington Post. Notice how they insert propaganda lines into articles. "US effort to bring democracy in Iraq"? Are you kidding me? Does the writer of the article really believe that this was what it was about?)

Here we see the falsity of the supposed "objectivity" fetish of the mainstream media laid bare. The fetish is entirely focused on the word "objectivity," never on its practice. There is nothing remotely objective about using "the U.S. effort to bring democracy to Iraq" as a standard descriptor of the war and occupation. It is not an any way a neutral reflection of reality. It simply parrots a Bush Administration propaganda point without question, without nuance.

The conventional wisdom of Beltway journalism: the war in Iraq is yet another noble cause gone FUBAR because it "wasn't done right." (This is also the prevailing wisdom of much of the Democratic Party as well.). You can see the gang gathering around the water cooler with David Broder, shaking their heads and clucking, "Dang, we'll never get democracy in Iraq now, not after the way Bush and Rumsfeld have screwed this thing up." They might even spend long sleepless hours in the dead of night, fretting that "if only Jerry Bremer hadn't done X, if only we'd gone in with a half a million troops, if only those bad apples hadn't gone sour at Abu Ghraib...." finally trailing off, with a heavy sigh, into troubled dreams.

There is scarcely an acknowledgement anywhere in the Media Establishment that the Iraq War was an evil and misbegotten enterprise from the very beginning: conceived in greed and arrogance, sold by deceit, a criminal action by every legal and moral reckoning. As Hamlet said: "It cannot and it will not come to good." And it has not. Wars of aggression are evil things -- the "supreme international crime," as the Nuremberg Tribunal recognized -- and they will breed nothing but evil. When Bush sat before the television cameras to announce the invasion of Iraq that night in March 2003, he might as well have pulled out the shredded corpse of a child and began gnawing on the red, corrupted flesh, for he was at that moment consigning thousands upon thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent people to death.

Now, none of us expect the Washington Post to ever indulge in such tasteless apprehensions of the actual reality of our time, or to ever describe George W. Bush and his handlers and minions as what they really are: murderers. But would it really be so difficult merely to refrain from adopting the murderers' propaganda directly into "news" stories? Would it really be so difficult to practice a little -- what's that word again? -- objectivity?

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

» We know Posted by: owleyes
Offense is the best form of defense.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 30, 2006 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Alternet deserves some credit for being different, I too am not so sure they're going to fare well in the long run. Democrats and Liberals/Progressives in general continue to forget that simply reacting and saying "no" to the cons only makes the cons stronger. Ever since last election, even as Tim Kaine won the governor's race in VA, I was still less confident that the Democrats would be able to hold on to much less capitalize on their gains. Last year alone, the Democrats caved in on the bankruptcy legislation, Terri Schiavo, funding the Iraq occupation, further domestic budget and tax "cuts" to benefit the wealthy elite, class action UNfairness designed to shield Corporate America, Corporate America's favorite go-to lawyers for business elitists John Roberts and Samual Alito, fraudulent policies on Hurricane Katrina, etc ... Had the Democrats not only opposed them but fought for alternatives win or lose, they would already be having lots to smack the GOP with but right now most of them are at a loss and they're still going on the defensive even when the public says "God Damn it, it's ok to be liberal. Just do what you claim to stand for !"

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

Also, just in, looks like more Democrats are planning to stay the course on NO REFORM !
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 30, 2006 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lakoff correct on the Dems
Posted by: opeluboy on Oct 30, 2006 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are few Dems suggesting more than a better organized and conducted occupation of Iraq. Rahm Emanuel and other brainiacs in charge of the party have seen to it that real anti-war, pro-peace candidates are replaced with pro-war, Repug-lite fakes.

There will be no change if these people win, most of whom have already signed on for nuking Iran. But if it makes you feel better to think it will, go ahead. You're no dumber than most Americans.

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

It's all ours now
Posted by: symcokid on Oct 30, 2006 6:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and the Arabs must realize by now that GOD wants US to have their oil otherwise why would he have put us over there. The Indians realized the same thing in this country when they handed their land and resouces over to the Europeans and declared, "here, you guys take a crack at it"!

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

The Democrats DO have a plan:
Posted by: PT Alden on Oct 30, 2006 7:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Lakeoff and have enjoyed him on NPR, but I feel he's being a bit unfair towards the Dems when he states they have no plan. The Democrats have released an alternative and detailed plan for both combatting terrorism and fixing Iraq. The problem is The New York Times and other major media outlets don't print these plans.

I'm not saying I have much more faith in the Dems. I don't. But it's unfair to say they aren't trying when its the media that keeps the public from hearing them.

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

Revolt
Posted by: guerillaTHOUGHTterrorist on Oct 30, 2006 10:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a people, we should demand a new mandate. Never agaisn should we allow these politicians to hide behind PR reps or press secretaries. The taxpayers of this country should be able to sit the president, or any politician for that matter, on a pedastal on live TV, and grill him/her with any question that we see fit. I can't even begin to imagine how many politicians would crumble under this kind of pressure. There would finally be accountability. How many more times can we sit by and watch our leaders lie to our face, take our money, fill their own pockets, and not rise as one to politically slay them? We should demand that as taxpayers, as the politicians' employers that we give him a performance review. We can finally ask him why we spend so much on defense when we live in one of the safest countries on this planet, why we have no national healthcare yet we are the wealthiest country, why corporations hardly pay any taxes, and why year after year they give themselves pay hikes while there is no living wage for most other workers. College tuitions rise, as do corporate profits, yet median income has stagnated. These are questions we should be able to demand that politicians answer. Instead they distract us with things like gay-marriage, the perceived terrorist threat, and other issues that have no significant relevance at all. The politicians treat us like mushrooms. They keep us in the dark, and they feed us shit.

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

» RE: Revolt Posted by: Plexius
The DLC has just launched a major attack on Lakoff !!! DEATH TO THE DLC !!!!
Posted by: NDnative on Oct 31, 2006 5:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The DLC, while it LIES about having plans, has no REAL plans other than sugarcoating the rightwing propaganda and staying the "turn this country into a one-party state" course. Don't believe me? Read this article and purchase all the firearms you can before they stop you !!!!

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

You All Miss the Point
Posted by: gellero on Nov 1, 2006 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must stay in Iraq until the Iraqis can rule and the resistance is defeated. Otherwise it will become a new Al-Qaida training camp. Just like Afghanistan. Remember the 3000 killed on 9-11??? Only 1700 were killed at Pearl Harbor. Like it or not, that's the reality. Don't be deluded....Democrats will not change the war at all.

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

» RE: Maybe you mean REPUBLICAN Iraqis Posted by: Edward George
YOUR COMMENTS TO ME ABOVE
Posted by: gellero on Nov 3, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both well taken. But the FACT is Osama is on record saying KILL AMERICANS and was training THOUSANDS. Read the book 'OSAMA...THE MAN WHO DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA' which was published years BEFORE 9-11. It goes into facts, and they are footnoted. Iraq was a secular, though hostile state before the war. Rich, poor, whatever. We should not let murderous Islamofascists get a base there, period. The Democrats know that. THE WAR WILL NOT CHANGE post election

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