----- 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