Ideas, Issues and Arguments

If you have an article you think ought to be listed here, especially if you wrote it yourself, please login and submit the article to this category.

A Green Gist of "The Little Blue Book" about Reframing (2012)

Draft 2 is more readable as of Nov. 15, 2012, but has the same incomplete number of Chapter gists.
Draft 1 began October 20, 2012 and was very incomplete Oct. 29.

Progressive Political Talking Points and Phrases

Based on : The Little Blue Book
The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic

Authors: Dr. George Lakoff & Dr. Elisabeth Wehling, June 2012,
Simon and Schuster Press, 131 pages. Copyright: Lakoff & Wehling
Editor / Annotator: J.G. Woodward,

When printed, this is to be roughly a 10-17 page extreme condensation [plus my annotations in between square brackets] of the original 131 page book into a condensed or summary document. Ideally that document will be 1/10-th or less of the size of the original book's content. If so, then this 'gist' document will be a legitimate exact copy, with edited paraphrasing, and edited "corrections" to the book text [the latter also in square brackets] and will comprise up to 13 of those book pages and be a "legal" exact copy of portions of the book according to the Fair Use clause of U.S. Copyright Law. The "Fair Use" clause is that generous for book material copied for educational purposes.

Read more: A Green Gist of "The Little Blue Book" about Reframing (2012)

Overview of Reframing, The Little Blue Book, and Green Party Ineffectiveness

Draft 5; Draft 1 begun 12.09.23

At the target of the following bold-link is the complete Introduction chapter to "The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking [Progressively] Democratic." The book is about how conservatives frame political issues, how the Democrat (i.e. liberals' and progressives') adoption of the conservative language also adopts those conservative frames and that act becomes self-defeating to us. The book also explains in great detail how progressives can re-frame those political issues to our advantage, eliminating the self-defeating qualities of our speech.

PLEASE enjoy reading the Introduction to the book that begins on the next page of this article. It is an orientation to the notion of framing, which the remainder of the book explains in much more non-technical detail. Before the end of October, 2012, I hope to web publish on this site a very short summary of the book, the "gist" of the "The Little Blue Book," but one also with most of the book's re-framed, very positive, progressive talking points and phrases.

PLEASE also enjoy reading the entire book soon! It's really cheap to buy. You will understand some things about framing and re-framing from "The Green Gist to 'The Little Blue Book'," a roughly 17-20 page excerpt of the "The Little Blue Book" that now exists on this web site.

Read more: Overview of Reframing, The Little Blue Book, and Green Party Ineffectiveness

A Few Notes About Speech Reframing

Reframing speech requires the speaker to first understand (a) what is speech framing and (b) what are the preferred contextual speech frameworks (audience pre-existing world views or biases) that are the most acceptable to the audiences for the desired, progressively compelling speech.

The "Introduction" chapter to "The Little Blue Book"

Introduction: The Importance of Moral Frames
[to political discussions]

By George Lakoff & Elisabeth Wehling
Key: underlined text made for emphasis are by me, JGW, and additional remarks in [square brackets] are also mine, JGW, the editor-highlighter-annotator of their remarks otherwise reproduced verbatim (without alteration) below

'The central issue of our time is what kind of country America is and ought to be, that is, what system of values should govern us. First, we must understand that all politics is moral: every political leader says to us that we should do what he or she recommends because it's right, not because it's wrong or doesn't matter. And today our politics is governed by two different [polarized & polarizing] views of what is right and wrong.

The [insincere] progressive view, mostly [inadequately discussed] in the [historically mildly effective] Democratic Party [from the 1950s-1970s], is that democracy depends on citizens caring about each other and taking responsibility both for themselves and for others. This yields a view of government with a moral mission: to protect and empower all citizens equally. [Perhaps Greens can articulate this mission much better.  For Democrats...] The mechanism for accomplishing this mission is through what we call The Public, a system of public resources [often ignoring the poorest of the poort, but otherwise] necessary for a decent private life and a robust private enterprise: roads and bridges, education, health care, communication systems, court systems, basic research, police and the military, a fair judicial system, clean water and air, safe food, parks, and much more [but mostly for the middle- and upper-classes].

Conservatives [today and with increasing ferocity for the last 35-40 years, as their forefathers were in the 1920s only to become silenced by FDR's New Deal] hold the opposite view: that democracy exists to provide citizens with maximum liberty to pursue their self-interest with little or no commitment to the interests [and well-being] of others. [IMO, this is a perversion of "totally selfish and self-centered -- but moral and neighbor-loving - right-wing libertarianism," call it the extremist's Ayn Rand point of view, justifying the "let all who disagree with me die" attitude -- and as expressed as often vicious vocal hatred -- of many on the right today.] Under this view, there should be as little of The Public [Good] as possible. [Universal Health Care, free education, more frequent affordable and on-time public transportation, social security, a minimum safe healthy standard of living -- including housing and food -- for all.] Instead, as much as possible [of that public good] should be relegated to what we call the Private. [A.k.a. private sector, a.k.a. privatized for the profit of private companies and corporations.] The Private is comprised of individuals (private life), businesses owned by them (private enterprise), and institutions set up by groups of individuals (private clubs and associations). The Private is, for conservatives, a moral ideal, sacrosanct, where no government can tread, whether to help or hinder, regulate, or even monitor. No one should have to pay for anyone else. Private [selfish] interests should rule, even if that means that corporate interests, the most powerful of private interests, govern our lives through a laissez-faire [unrequlated] free market. Citizens are free to sink or swim on their own.  [This is what cut-throat unethical capitalists call "caveat emptor," or "buyer beware!"  As in: we don't need to tell you the truth about this or that product or service, or the enormity of the risk you accept in buying it.  We just need you to buy it! This also is what the the Ayn Rand conservatives call Social Darwinism, with no apologies to Charles Darwin who had an entirely different understanding regarding the well being and survival of a species, not just of the individuals who are members of that species.]

Each moral worldview [of political party members] comes with a set of issue frames. By frames, we mean structures of ideas that we use to understand the world. {In the case of Greens: we would use our worldviews to understand how the world really works, which more of the public realize is what Carl Marx was talking about 150 years ago and socialists still talk about today, and to realize our world could work so much better for the greater common good.  Furthermore it could work better by "our greater influence on governance" than have the horrible compromises the Democrats have conceded to Republicans in the last 30-40 years.] Because all politics is morally framed, all [public] policy is also morally framed, and thus the choice of any particular policy frame is a moral choice. Americans are now faced with two sets of moral choices, [the lame Democrat's tattered liberal choices, and the radical right Republicans scorched earth choices,] each leading the nation in [more polarizing] opposite directions. [When there is increasing polarization, the only "politics" remaining is "who will dictate policy?"] Nowhere is this [polarization] clearer than in the issue of health care, so let us look at this example in some detail.

Read more: The "Introduction" chapter to "The Little Blue Book"