Talking about Bain Capital and the death panels

With over 2 $billion still to be spent and five months to go, Obama and Romney war rooms have some freedom to experiment.

Republicans would like to raise dark questions about the inner nature of a president who’s been in all our homes and personal communication gadgets for four years. So far, however, they’re not committing significant resources to redefining Barack Obama.

Democrats, on the other hand, are already taking a significant risk: They’re saying that the profit-maximizing mission statement of Bain Capital—Romney’s formative professional home—can’t restore the US economy, that good government isn’t just good business practices writ large. They are trying to take the economy issue back from the Reagan Republicans and their sunny rhetoric.

When Democrats talk about “services” and “sharing,” Republicans talk about “freedom” and “opportunity.” But Republicans don’t settle merely for bland abstractions; they also reply with “death panels,” bureaucrats, and Europeans.

Conservatives accept that it’s all right to be called a “populist,” if you win. In approving and defending advertising attacks on Romney’s years at Bain, Obama has clearly decided that he can bear that accusation as well. Many thoughtful commentators have taken offense. Sebastian Mallaby, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, concluded:

“If the president wants to go to war with private equity, he will have to explain why he is against companies such as Toys R Us and Burger King. Meanwhile, he should recall that he won the last election at least partly because his opponent seemed clueless on the economy. Before he launches another populist broadside, Mr. Obama needs to ask himself: does he want to be the candidate who looks clueless this time?

Click on: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4724d5c0-a368-11e1-988e-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1vsU6M8Tq

It’s obvious that Obama will go further than most Democrats have dared to go to win—or, rather, to not be America’s first one-term black president.

He is not, however, running against John McCain. He’s running against an opponent and a Republican Party that are believed to be superior economic managers. Their winning reputations, however, hang more on their management of the rhetoric of economic leadership than on their performance in office.

Republicans don’t explain Schumpeter’s term “creative destruction.” They rely on the Muzak conservatism of Frank Luntz to tell them what to say. In this election, they’ve been told to talk about “the job-creators” and “job-killing” regulations, and to stay away from harsh terms like “profits” and “capitalism.”

Obama can’t enter a fight over how to manage the economy and let the Republicans control the language of the debate. He can’t defend taxes or regulations without talking about what “profit” and “capitalism” can—and cannot—do.

The Democrats would be foolish to think that Bain Capital and investment banking will be defining election issues.

However, in nominating an investment banker, the Republicans have put themselves in a dangerous spot. They’ve burdened their own message with an extraordinary assignment: that after you’ve strangled the federal government’s spending powers, untaxed dividends and profits can solve America’s social and economic problems.

A cynic and a linguist cloud the truth

On the first of the month, Frank Luntz gave nervous Republicans a shrewd list of words to repeat when selling themselves and their American vision in the next election (Click on:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html).This blog (December 2) complained that his advice was too selective, rather chicken-hearted, and would only corrupt what could be an exceptionally clear-headed fight over America’s future.  

Linguist and left helpmate George Rakeoff takes a very different approach, offering a pretty alternative of his own:  

“Unfortunately, Luntz is still ahead of most progressives responding to him. Progressives need to learn how framing works. Bashing Luntz, bashing Fox News, bashing the right-wing pundits and leaders using their frames and arguing against their positions just keeps their frames in play.

“Progressives have a basic morality, which is largely unspoken. It has to be spoken, over and over, in every corner of our country. Progressives need to be both thinking and talking about their view of a moral democracy, about how a robust public is necessary for private success, about all that the public gives us, about the benefits of health, about a Market for All not a Greed Market, about regulation as protection, about revenue and investment, about corporations that keep wages low when profits are high, about how most of the rich earn a lot of their money without making anything or serving anyone, about how corporations govern your life for their profit not yours, about real food, about corporate and military waste, about the moral and social role of unions, about how global warming causes the increasingly monstrous effects of weather disasters, about how to save and preserve nature.

“Progressives have magnificent stories of their own to tell. They need to be telling them nonstop.”

Click on: www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=george-lakoff

So, listen carefully progressives: don’t argue, moralize.

Imagine a Moral Market, regulated by angels, where our pension funds grow in double digits and our corporations will make profits just short of “greedy.” Promise a Market for All, except, most likely, in the delivery of public services. Insist that the unproductive rich and their unpatriotic corporations run our lives and that once we’re free of them we’ll be happy to pay—whatever we’re told it will take—to save the planet. Imagine that—without the other side’s corrupt lobbyists—government will be waste-free, that its claims on us will always make sense.

Both Lakeoff and Luntz live in California. Each wants us to pick their illusion; probably each believes that the real world will submit to their story—if it turns out to be a blockbuster.

Republicans refine their vocabulary, not their ideas

Frank Luntz is too expensive a political consultant to be asked to spend billable hours crafting new policies or even complete arguments to elect another wave of Ronald Reagan apostles. He is literally a wordsmith—he offers individual, precious words that Republicans of any intelligence can use.

This week the Republican Governor’s Association met in Florida and asked for his ideas on how to navigate the changing political scene, including the grievances of the Wall Street Occupiers, and new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share." Here are a few of Luntz’s telling suggestions:

“Don't say 'capitalism.' 

"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said.” The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

“Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'

"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

“Don’t talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'

"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."

He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.

"So why are we talking about jobs?"

“Don’t say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'

"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."

“Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'

"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

Click on:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html

So let’s get this straight: The Republican counter-revolution will take back America by being against waste, compromise, and socialism. It will tell the jobless to get a career. It will be for free markets but won’t defend the profit-seekers who drive the system—and greatly determine which careers will exist. It will promise to balance the budget while talking around the business of budgets—spending or taxing.

Mark Twain said, “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”

Luntz is not a brilliant writer. He’s a brilliant hack with a doctorate from Oxford: he uses words to refresh clichés, not to inform. The last thing he’d recommend would be a word that casts too much light. It might create a shadow.