¿Cómo enfrentar lo avances políticos y electorales de la derecha norteamericana desde los tiempos de Ronald Reagan? ¿Por qué se han producido?

The gist of this book is that you should not use the language of those you are debating because it reinforces their frame/world view/idea. You want to tie your own ideas to your frame/world view/idea and use only that language. For instance for progressive ideas you would say taxes = investments, regulations = protections, protest is patriotic, etc. He notes that gay rights was successful in this with the messaging "Freedom to Marry" and "Love is Love". He also lays out how the Republican party has been training their members, and implementing this idea very consistently for decades.

He also explains how the right has a father figure world view, while progressives have a nurturant parent world view. The father figure/authoritarian male world view description helped me understand how people can rationalize their hypocritical positions on various issues more than any other explanation I have encountered thus far. ( )

how conservatives have framed the debate on public issues

Of the three books I've recently read on political messaging and tactics, this is by far the best. It doesn't have the snarky cynicism of Frank Luntz's book, and avoids the "Ends Justify the Means" attitude of Saul Alinsky. Instead, Lakoff recommends that progressives focus on values they truly believe in, and stop responding to the debates in ways that conservatives have framed.

He believes that progressives have "lost" the culture wars because of their inability to properly frame their arguments, and instead have only responded with truth and facts. "It is a common folk theory of progressives that 'the facts will set you free.' If only you get all the facts out there in the public eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. It is a vain hope."

Instead, progressives should do four things to win the culture wars: "Show respect. Respond by reframing. Think and talk at the level of values. Say what you believe."

It is interesting in that it mirrors much of what Jonathan Haidt argues in "The Righteous Mind." But where he loses me is in defining which moral models of the family progressives and conservatives adhere to. Progressives use the nurturant family model, where they believe "the world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents' job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others." But conservatives use the strict father model, where "what is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong."

He does an effective job at explaining how these models define adult world views, but a less than adequate job of proving these moral models to be true. His idea that "preserving and extending the strict father model is the highest moral value for conservatives" is a bit of a straw man.

Overall worth a read, though, as it does give a different perspective of why people cannot seem to agree about important issues. ( )

A short and quick read. The best parts from it in my opinion: the “strict father” model that conservatives use versus the “nurturing family” model that progressives use – very enlightening. Also, how thoroughly conservatives have been able to frame a lot of issues – for example, the concept of tax relief (instead of looking at what you get for your money).

“Frames trump facts” and “the private depends on the public” are two another good points from the book. However, I had hoped that it would contain a lot more practical advice on how to use framing to your own advantage. There is a very good chapter at the end, with a lot of examples of how to respond to conservative talking points. But I would have liked more on that. Still, good and eye-opening.
( )