#rsrh …”The Little Blue Book?” This title isn’t just a framing FAIL, George Lakoff.

This is a framing critical fumble with double zeros on the Critical Fumble Results chart.  Zombie rips apart this book with his(?) usual aplomb, but let me be more minimalist about it: if I was going to mock a book written by George Lakoff (who is, of course, the head gold-Rolls-Royce-owner of the progressive ‘framing’ cult) then I would have snottily suggested to him that “The Little Blue Book” – with all of its resonance with Chairman Mao* – would have been a much better and accurate title than whatever Lakoff had come up with.  And yet… he picked it.   Reality defeats me, yet again.

And these people wonder why framing doesn’t work.

Moe Lane

(H/T: Instapundit)

*Admittedly, Mao has run up quite the death count, and Lakoff has not.  Then again, if Lakoff had named his book My Battle and had it be all about how the Democratic party was stabbed in the back by AIPAC then we probably wouldn’t have tolerated the sly reference to fascism; I see no reason why sly references to communism should get a pass.

4 thoughts on “#rsrh …”The Little Blue Book?” This title isn’t just a framing FAIL, George Lakoff.”

    1. Really? I respect her courage, then: the Activist Left is particularly vicious towards conservative women who take them to task.

  1. All of that said, I’ve often explained to others (via Bill Whittle, originally) that conservatism embraces a fatal view of humanity. It states that no group of men and women is smart enough to rule others on all matters large and small, so the best policy comes from a collection of self-interested micro decisions, and not a from a small group of leaders who “know best.” This creates a messaging problem for conservatives. It opens up the whole “uncaring” line of attack. It makes it really hard for Mitch McConnell to answer Chris Wallace’s question about the uninsured, because the answer is more complicated than the compassionate-sounding “Healthcare is a right!!” It’s really hard to explain to somebody that the compassionate government of the past 50 years has actually caused dramatically more harm than good, even though this is provably true.

Comments are closed.