webglider
Dagobah Resident
I really like George Lakoff's analysis of the differences between the way language is used in the Republican versus the Democratic campaigns, which can be found below.
But as much as I admire Lakoff, no one knows how to manipulate language better than Shakespeare. In reading Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" the parallels between the politics of United States of the present and that of Rome during the last days of the Roman Republic become immediately apparent. I'll draw just a few of these parallels.
Poor Brutus, as Shakespeare depicts him, is a puppet, who believes in his cause which is to save the Roman Republic. He is hampered in this aim by his lack of awareness of his own psychology; he is easily manipulated by the trigger word "honor" to be the leader of the assassination of Julius Caesar. Pretending friendship, the assassins maneuver Caesar into position and collectively stab him 33 times. Amazingly, they have no awareness of the effect this might have on others. Proclaiming the enduring life of the Republic , Brutus then orders his men to celebrate the deed by dipping their hands into Caesar's wounds. "Dip" is actually the wrong word as the conspirators are actually ecouraged to bathe their hands up to their elbows in Caesar's blood Covered in blood, Brutus strides out to the marketplace to address the terrified people of Rome Aiming to win them to his side, he very reasonably states his case. The dissonance between the blood on his toga and arms, and the calm logic of his words must have shocked them enough to accept his argument. So confident is Brutus of his success, that he allows Antony, one of the most skilled orators of Rome to ascend the pulpit and deliver a speech of his own. He also gives Antony permission to bring Caesar's body with him never suspecting that the sight of the mangled body could be used to turn the crowd against him.
Antony despises the people, but he also knows them. He knows just which images to use to make them weep, (Bloody corpses of assassinated heroes serve well for this purpose); he understands how to withhold information to create unbearable suspense he knows how to gain their attentio, play on their emotions, move them from love of Brutus, to love of Caesar, from love of Caesar to murderous rage against Brutus. After that it is quite easy to then motivate them to revenge Caesar's death - after turning them into an angry mob whose one thought is to kill Caesar's assassins, Anthony knows just the right words and the right moment to unleash them onto the streets of Rome.
In other words, as Shakespeare depicts this scene, there was a moment when Rome could have gone either way. The turning point was the was the skill,or lack thereof) that each orator used in addressing the crowd.
While the crowd is rampaging through Rome, Antony he sits down quietly with a newly formed government to draw up a hit list of his names that will be used to eliminate the opposition.
Lakoff is no Shakespeare, but he understands how language works. While Brutus is not exactly analogous to Obama, {Obama is much smarter and more varied in his tactics), McCain and Palin are equal to Antony - not in their mastery of language, but in their brilliant understanding of the American world view and how to manipulate it through language, image and emotion to serve their purposes.
In other words, Obama aims to reach his audience mostly by appeals to Reason while McCain and Palin bypass Reason entirely and aim right for the gut.
As I wrote this, I couldn't help but make the visual connection of Brutus's arms covered with blood, and Palin kneeling before a bloody, anguished, dead moose. The image in both cases is blood. But while Anthony is able to use that image to turn the crowd against Brutus, Palin's handlers are able to use it to connect to their target audience's world view.
Lakoff calls this tactic "framing".
I found this article on the yuricareport who apparently found it on The Huffington Post.
http://www.yuricareport.com/Strategies_Propaganda/ThePalinChoice_GeorgeLakoff.html
The Huffington Post
But as much as I admire Lakoff, no one knows how to manipulate language better than Shakespeare. In reading Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" the parallels between the politics of United States of the present and that of Rome during the last days of the Roman Republic become immediately apparent. I'll draw just a few of these parallels.
Poor Brutus, as Shakespeare depicts him, is a puppet, who believes in his cause which is to save the Roman Republic. He is hampered in this aim by his lack of awareness of his own psychology; he is easily manipulated by the trigger word "honor" to be the leader of the assassination of Julius Caesar. Pretending friendship, the assassins maneuver Caesar into position and collectively stab him 33 times. Amazingly, they have no awareness of the effect this might have on others. Proclaiming the enduring life of the Republic , Brutus then orders his men to celebrate the deed by dipping their hands into Caesar's wounds. "Dip" is actually the wrong word as the conspirators are actually ecouraged to bathe their hands up to their elbows in Caesar's blood Covered in blood, Brutus strides out to the marketplace to address the terrified people of Rome Aiming to win them to his side, he very reasonably states his case. The dissonance between the blood on his toga and arms, and the calm logic of his words must have shocked them enough to accept his argument. So confident is Brutus of his success, that he allows Antony, one of the most skilled orators of Rome to ascend the pulpit and deliver a speech of his own. He also gives Antony permission to bring Caesar's body with him never suspecting that the sight of the mangled body could be used to turn the crowd against him.
Antony despises the people, but he also knows them. He knows just which images to use to make them weep, (Bloody corpses of assassinated heroes serve well for this purpose); he understands how to withhold information to create unbearable suspense he knows how to gain their attentio, play on their emotions, move them from love of Brutus, to love of Caesar, from love of Caesar to murderous rage against Brutus. After that it is quite easy to then motivate them to revenge Caesar's death - after turning them into an angry mob whose one thought is to kill Caesar's assassins, Anthony knows just the right words and the right moment to unleash them onto the streets of Rome.
In other words, as Shakespeare depicts this scene, there was a moment when Rome could have gone either way. The turning point was the was the skill,or lack thereof) that each orator used in addressing the crowd.
While the crowd is rampaging through Rome, Antony he sits down quietly with a newly formed government to draw up a hit list of his names that will be used to eliminate the opposition.
Lakoff is no Shakespeare, but he understands how language works. While Brutus is not exactly analogous to Obama, {Obama is much smarter and more varied in his tactics), McCain and Palin are equal to Antony - not in their mastery of language, but in their brilliant understanding of the American world view and how to manipulate it through language, image and emotion to serve their purposes.
In other words, Obama aims to reach his audience mostly by appeals to Reason while McCain and Palin bypass Reason entirely and aim right for the gut.
As I wrote this, I couldn't help but make the visual connection of Brutus's arms covered with blood, and Palin kneeling before a bloody, anguished, dead moose. The image in both cases is blood. But while Anthony is able to use that image to turn the crowd against Brutus, Palin's handlers are able to use it to connect to their target audience's world view.
Lakoff calls this tactic "framing".
I found this article on the yuricareport who apparently found it on The Huffington Post.
http://www.yuricareport.com/Strategies_Propaganda/ThePalinChoice_GeorgeLakoff.html
The Huffington Post
