Lakoff's article, The Framing of Immigration, shed alot of information on the problems of terms like "reform", "illegal alien" and "undocumented workers." He said that these terms have many problems with them, and because of this fact, they should basically be abolished from our political language. But what would be have without them? What should "illegal immigrant" be changed to? He not only understands the problems of this language, but he also understands this very question. It's a no win situation.
I believe his points against the problems of these terms are valid. "Illegal Immigrant" does send the notion of criminality. The vast majority of these people aren't criminals. They are just workers who are trying to raise their families, get their children education and who do the jobs that no one else is willing to do in our country. They aren't murderers, or rapists.
"'Undocumented workers' come to America for a short time, work for low wages, do not vote, have few rights and services, and then go home so that a new wave of workers without rights, or the possibility of citizienship and voting, can come in."
Where is the democracy in that? Why aren't they given the same types of rights that we have as workers? This kind of attitude feeds the wrong kind of idea.
I'm going to switch topics to another article, Word Lab, which was like no other article that we have read so far in this class. It was informative, but at the same time, it was an interesting character study on Luntz. The author humanized Luntz by detailing his sleep habits, his unrelenting desire for more information and knowledge, and his likable type of personality. So basically, I'm saying it was an easy read.
I don't think Luntz is a bad guy. Yeah, he may be pompous, but he's just doing his job--a job he's brilliant at. His ability to find important cognitive feelings out of regular joe-schmoe type people is invaluable to the political environment that he is working around. He absorbs all the positive language and trys to rid away all the negative language that could potentially end up hurting his client. He sways the "swing" voters by studying their wants and feelings and by showing compassion. I think it's incredible what he does. While it does hinder the public discourse with language such as "death tax" "department of defense" and "climate change", it does make the population choose, rather directly, what they want. Do you want death tax, or don't you? Whereas they might be undecided on estate tax, death tax will elicit the better response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Luntz is brilliant in doing his job????
I could not disagree more. In the Word Lab article, Lemann also talks to Robert Merton, the guy who made focus groups. He pretty much disproves everything that Luntz does when he mentions something along the lines of "there's no research in his work, and there is no way to KNOW that a politician wins BECAUSE Luntz gave him the correct words to say."
No one can ever know if Luntz is the reason people choose to vote for a certain candidate, so giving him full credit for anything is pretty absurd.
Post a Comment