In checking Encyclopedia Discombobula this week, I noticed Ben is (thankfully) back to writing wonderfully intelligent pieces on politics and rhetoric. See his April 14th post, specifically the last paragraph, quoted here:
Lakoff isn't trying to give people a handbook to counter zealots who reflexively vote Republican. He's trying to get folks to realize that if you're sincerely interested in advocating for policies grounded in progressive principles, then arguing a point imply by reciting statistics won't cut it; communicating how those factoids are relevant to everyday life is what is needed. The only way to communicate effectively with somebody is to make sure you're on the same page, and that requires having enough respect for the listener to figure out what their concerns are and know how to address them. The biggest flaw I see with this plan is that I don't think you can teach anybody how to attain the qualities necessary to make it work: compassion and patience.
This reminded me of a topic I've been meaning to write about, which is the push by the UUA to develop a "language of reverence." Actually, it's a reclamation of the language of reverence. This is necessary because, as has been stated by Ben and so many other pundits, the main problem the left has in this country is that we've--for far too long--allowed the right (both the political and religious) to frame the argument, including defining all the terms. So instead of participating in a volley of ideas, we're forced to scurry around, trying to swing at what is hurled at us by an out-of-control serving machine.
It didn't used to be this way. Remember how, back in the day, the left made great strides in pushing for reform? Take for instance abolition, women's suffrage, prison reform, etc. Many of these causes were pushed forward by using the language of reverence (and many of the causes were led by UUs). Just look at how MLK (Okay, not a UU, but he's still a valid example for my main argument.) used religious rhetoric to turn the nation on it's ear, appealing to people's consciences through Biblical imagery. This use of reverent language is rarely seen today from our side, largely because so many on the left are afraid of proclaiming their faith--whether that be humanist-atheism, monism, Buddhism, Christianity, whatever--for fear of abandoning the secularists. The problem then becomes making the secularists in our camp understand and be comfortable with a new rhetorical strategy.
To the degree we allow fundamentalists and politicians and advertisers to conscript religious language, we are less effective in sharing our faith, the prophetic part of our faith which moves against injustice and injury.
The point?: In debates, both theological and political, people often only understand you (let alone listen to you) if you address them in their own language. So, let's get re-acquainted with an old tongue and learn to use it to better frame our arguments.
