Here's another part to my spotty attempt to comment on the use of various
rhetorical devices in contemporary politics.
I am NOT interested in discussing the "sides" or the "right" or "wrong" of each candidates position on issues here, rather let's look at some of the argumentation techniques they are using. This might be helpful to my GST students who will be learning about making good arguments themselves in our Galileo game next week.
First, the article.
George Lakoff takes on the maverick label, and more interestingly, drilling. The article has two interesting parts:
1. Certain TV ad spots being run by Candidate A still manage to let Candidate B frame the debate, specifically around the "maverick/anti-maverick" moniker. Running an ad with the theme of "He is not a Maverick!" like saying to someone "whatever you do, do not think of an elephant!" The person, of course, starts thinking about elephants. They can't help themselves.
To the Linceans in my GST class, this is similar to letting the Conservatives call Galileo a heretic, and you blast back about whether he is or is not a heretic. Stop
only using their word and start using your own word to define your guy. We can't say scientist because they didn't have that word yet. But certainly "heretic" is not where you want to be on this issue. Bring the words closer to your home base.
Instead of saying, "Don't think of an elephant!" and stopping there, why not try, "Think about flamingoes!" or if you must invoke the elephant, how about "Don't think of an elephant, think of flamingoes instead. Flamingo, flamingo, flamingo." Not as effective, because there's still a fleeting discussion of elephants, but better than just mentioning elephants by themselves.
2. The second great point to this article is the way it breaks down the drilling debate in simple terms. Lakoff talks about "the drilling frame" to mean an assumption by common people about the way drilling works, fed by advertisements and pro-drilling sentiment. Again, just an example issue. I'm less worried about the "sides" on this issue, and more interested in the argumentation. To wit...
The Drilling Frame works like this:
You drill. You hit oil. You pump it up. There's lots of it. Prices go down.
What is left out of the frame are all the crucial facts.
The timeline: It's ten years from drilling to getting gas at the pump.
The amount: It's very small compared to what we use. We'll barely notice it. There isn't enough to significantly bring down prices.
The danger: Drilling is killing: Offshore spills can destroy fishing grounds.
The world market: The oil will go on the world market, which means that China, India, and other countries will drive up the price. There may be no saving at all.
Global Warming: More oil can only increase global warming.
A Diversion: Drilling takes investment away from alternative energy.
This is a great way to explain how to take a position from your opponent and methodologically explain why it is wrong, clearly and succinctly -- while still respecting the many facets of the issue as a whole. Brilliant.
