1) I first have a set of technical questions related to Luntz’s book. It seems that Luntz’s book is part memoir. We’ve learned that Jon Stewart has ridiculed him, and a man with tattoos once threatened him. I seriously wonder about the rationale for including this level of personal detail. Is he trying to defend himself against past attacks? Is he promoting his firm’s services? Is something else going on? And, does it help or hurt the book overall? On a related note, who do you believe is the target audience for Luntz’s book?
2) Luntz includes a lengthy section on etymology. How do you believe it factors into his larger argument? Do you believe he sufficiently explains why some labels (e.g., Hispanic versus Latino) are more accepted than others?
3) How does Luntz view the electorate? For instance, does he believe voters need to be: a) tricked; b) convinced; or c) brought into the conversation? (Of course, you may also use your own words here.) After establishing Luntz’s view of the electorate, compare it to what you’ve heard from other campaign strategists (e.g., Lakoff, the authors of Applebee’s America, Ray Strother, Jim Kitchens, Whit Ayres, or anyone else with whom you are familiar). Do all strategists seem to view the electorate in the same way, or have you noticed differences?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
1) I think it's important to keep in mind that none of the books we're reading for this class are "textbooks," and none read as if they're written for the academic market. I, for one, really appreciate that. But, with that in mind, we have to keep in mind as well that all of the authors dealt with the same influences as anyone else writing for the popular market -- editors, publishers, promoters, accountants, etc. He may have included the personal detail for any of the reasons you list, but I'd guess there were a few conversations like:
"Frank, this is useful information, but it's boring as hell. Could you maybe throw in some personal stories? Maybe even start it out with one? Remember, Frank, we want this out before the election is too far along."
For a popular audience, I think the personal stuff makes it a bit more readable.
2) Once again, I think the etymology is basically filler that's still somewhat related (but only somewhat) to his message that some words appeal to people more than others. He doesn't get into the "why" question, but to sufficiently answer that would probably take more dial sessions than he was willing to invest.
3. I think all of the strategists we've studied/listened to/talked about thus far see the electorate in Burkean terms (although they probably wouldn't describe it that way)-- Voters are people who need to identify with a particular candidate more than they identify with another candidate.
I don't really know if this is an answer to your first question or not, but I wanted to throw in a quick comment because that was definitely something I also noticed while reading the book. Most the books we read use examples, and from time to time those examples are personal anecdotes. However, Dr. Luntz uses them a LOT, and I often read them as sort of arrogant (but maybe that's a personal bias I have). I often felt he was promoting his firm and all the great and amazing things that his existence has brought to the world of politics. But, I guess if you're trying to prove a point, using an example that you've actually seen work through the application of the techniques you're selling is a good way to do that.
I understand that are books are not textbooks, but I suppose I am rather cynical. He is obviously writing for an audience that is more concerned with the end-product, rather than the process. I know graduate students are not the book's ideal readers, but someone is. I mainly ask this question because I've had several undergraduates sing Luntz's praises.
I initially dismissed the etymology section as filler. Then I started to think about the attacks on him. I believe he has been called immoral, and we all know at least one entertainer has called amoral. I can't help but wonder if he's implying that everyone plays language games, and he's no different. I guess the leap would be that an ethnic group finding the best label is no different than him finding the best label for a tax (e.g., estate tax versus death tax).
Hmmm ... next time I might want to preview my comments before publishing. As someone who once made a living as a proofreader, I am quite embarrassed. This should be slightly more readable.
I understand that our books are not textbooks, but I suppose I am rather cynical. He is obviously writing for an audience that is more concerned with the end-product, rather than the process. I know graduate students are not the book's ideal readers, but someone is. I mainly ask this question because I've had several undergraduates sing Luntz's praises.
I initially dismissed the etymology section as filler. Then I started to think about the attacks on him. I believe he has been called immoral, and we all know at least one entertainer has called him amoral. I can't help but wonder if he's implying that everyone plays language games, and he's no different. I guess the leap would be that an ethnic group finding the best label is no different than him finding the best label for a tax (e.g., estate tax versus death tax).
Don't sweat the typos Steven -- trust me, it happens to the best of us! :=)
I think that's an interesting observation about "the end product" rather than the "process." I don't know about his intended audience, but I think that is definitely HIS concern - the end product. But I'm not going to hold that against him. In an election, the end product is either getting elected or not getting elected. As I've said before, running for an office is a very different process than producing legislation, but you've got to get through one to do the other. In Luntz's line of work, it's the end product that ensures (a word I misspelled in a previous post) that you keep getting hired.
Post a Comment