----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Orlando Schwartz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:05 PM
Subject: LA Times Editorial


> This message was  originally submitted by [log in to unmask]  to the 
> IOWA-TOPICS
> list at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG. If you simply  forward it back to the list, 
> using
> a mail command that generates "Resent-"  fields (ask your local user 
> support or
> consult  the documentation  of  your mail  program  if in  doubt),  it 
> will  be
> distributed  and  the  explanations  you   are  now  reading  will  be 
> removed
> automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you receive 
> into
> a digest, you will have to  remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you 
> should
> be able  to contact  the author  of this  message by  using the  normal 
> "reply"
> function of your mail program.
>
> ---------------- Message requiring your approval (110 
> lines) ------------------
> This editorial is from the LA Times today. I have pasted it in below to 
> prevent everyone having to register. Frank Luntz is chief spinmeister for 
> causes not usually supported by those reading this Topics list. Seems like 
> complex rationalizations to me. Lanny Schwartz
>
> COMMENTARY
> The Lexicon of Political Clout
>
>
>
> By Frank I. Luntz, Frank I. Luntz's clients have included Fortune 100 
> CEOs, leaders of countries and politicians such as Rudolph Giuliani and 
> Michael Bloomberg.
>
> I've been a pollster and wordsmith for senators and CEOs for more than a 
> decade, and I have a particular interest in language. What words do people 
> understand? What's the clear, common-sense way to say what you mean? And 
> how can politicians best educate and express their ideas?
>
> That's why I wrote a "A New American Lexicon" for my business and 
> political clients. But it soon made its way to the Internet, where it 
> raised a storm among Democrats in Washington and in the blogosphere, who 
> accused me of the worst kind of spin. They say I'm manipulating the debate 
> in an attempt to obscure the true effect of the policies I advocate. Yet 
> this lexicon genuinely seeks to establish a common language for a 
> pro-business, pro-freedom agenda.
>
> Admittedly, in these times, most political language has taken a partisan 
> tone. But my suggestions are meant to help reach that critical, nonaligned 
> swing voter, just as product advertising is designed to appeal to 
> nonaligned consumers.
>
> Yes, there are instances in which language can be used to cloud judgment 
> and obfuscate the facts, but its beauty is that it can also be used to 
> enlighten. I seek to use words to brighten a debate that has been darkened 
> by those who nuance over what the meaning of "is" is, and whether you have 
> smoked marijuana if you didn't inhale.
>
> Let me be specific. "The death tax," "energy exploration," "opportunity 
> scholarships" and "personalizing" Social Security — I didn't coin those 
> phrases, but they are now in the public lexicon and I can rightfully be 
> "blamed" for popularizing them. They are not, as some say, Orwellian. I 
> seek clarity in our nation's great debates, and all too often the words we 
> have used until now hinder real discourse.
>
> For example, why /not/ use the term "death tax" for the taxes paid on an 
> estate? What is the event that triggers it? I pay a sales tax when I am 
> involved with a sale, and I pay income tax when I earn income. And when I 
> die, if I'm successful and forget to hire smart accountants, I may pay a 
> tax. What else would you call that other than a death tax — a "permanent 
> sleep tax"?
>
> Laurie David, a leading Hollywood environmentalist, publicly labeled me 
> "evil" because Republicans had adopted some of my language to talk about 
> her issues. Yet I would assert that "responsible exploration for energy," 
> which includes the search for incredibly clean natural gas, is a far 
> different activity than plunking down a well haphazardly and just 
> "drilling for oil."
>
> To me, calling for a "cleaner, safer, healthier environment" and 
> supporting helicopter rides over the Grand Canyon and, yes, snowmobiling 
> in Yellowstone Park is not a contradiction. I don't believe our nation's 
> natural beauty should be locked up. The environment and commerce can and 
> should coexist. That's why I am a "conservationist" rather than an 
> "environmentalist." The difference? Conservationists are mainstream and 
> environmentalists are extreme.
>
> Similarly, I'm for calling the money paid to help parents choose their 
> kids' school a "scholarship" because "voucher" trivializes the powerful 
> opportunity the transaction confers on poor families. I'd argue that it's 
> more accurate to call "school choice" "parental choice in education." 
> Considering how such a program equalizes education for rich and poor, the 
> most accurate phrase would be "equal opportunity in education." Is that 
> Orwellian? Is that calling war "peace" or freedom "slavery"?
>
>
>
> That brings me to Social Security. Critics of the president's plan say it 
> is "privatizing" the American retirement system. This is simply not 
> accurate. Even under the most innovative reform proposals, the vast 
> majority of your Social Security contribution (12.4% of your income up to 
> the first $90,000, just in case you had forgotten) would remain completely 
> unchanged and untouched, so Washington can continue to spend your 
> retirement savings on other programs and you can continue to collect that 
> great 1.6% return on your Social Security "investment."
>
> I have encouraged supporters of Social Security reform to counter such 
> inaccuracies by talking about how the president's plan "personalizes" 
> Social Security. When you personalize something, whether monogrammed 
> towels or Social Security, you enhance ownership by allowing the owner to 
> leave his or her mark on it. In this case, personalizing Social Security 
> means partial ownership of our retirement. Instead of Washington making 
> all the decisions, we will personally determine how a portion of our 
> retirement savings should be invested.
>
> In the end, this ongoing battle over language is more about comprehension 
> than articulation. It's not what we say that matters. It's what people 
> hear. I seek simple words that are easily heard and understood.
>
> There are always two sides to every issue, and both sides believe in their 
> soul that they are right. I help communicate the principles of the side I 
> believe in, using the most straightforward language there is. My goal is 
> to make honest political rhetoric that achieves worthy goals, to level the 
> linguistic playing field and to inform Americans of the true nature of our 
> policy debates.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
 http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp