Principia Discordia

(http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2008/11/Frank-Luntz-phd_18e5c.jpg)

I first heard of Frank Luntz on the Colbert Report on Aug 16. He is a communications consultant (read: propagandist) working for the GOP. Luntz is a pollster, meaning he does really fine analysis of language, communications, and their effect on public opinion. In absolute seriousness: He is the modern incarnation of a court wizard. He is an expert at psychic warfare.  I find him completely fascinating, and I think he's worth paying attention to.

Here's Luntz coaching Stephen Colbert. Colbert has hired him as a campaign consultant; I'll be really curious to see where this is going. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394777/august-16-2011/colbert-super-pac---frank-luntz-commits-to-the-pac  - This interview is fascinating. I feel like we're peeking behind the curtain and seeing exactly how rhetorical machinery works.

Luntz's job is to get deep into the American psyche and tease out exactly what it wants. He then figures out what language most effectively taps into those hopes and fears.

(http://images.politico.com/global/news/090521_luntz_ap_297.jpg)

Luntz is a memetic mercenary. An ontological alchemist. Luntz is the guy who framed the "estate tax" as the "death tax". He wrote the memo which became the Bush White House's playbook for dismissing global warming. (the American people are uncertain about the science, therefore you need to make them feel that the scientific community is uncertain too.)

Luntz draws a lot of heat. And it's a well placed anger - his work is incredibly manipulative by nature. It focuses on the form, not substance, of communication. And it's really effective, that's why he's worth keeping your finger on.

In this video, Penn and Teller try to take him down a peg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4 -  they explain exactly why polls are bullshit. Watch how Luntz uses effective language to make somebody give two completely contradictory answers without even realizing it.


In this short video clip from PBS' Frontline, Luntz defends his famous "climate change" memo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yz8UwRsWPA -- he doesn't believe in the content of the memo anymore, but he insists that whether you agree with it or not, you gotta admit that it was genius. Watch him effectively shift the goal posts in this interview to move it away from being right/wrong. It really is a work of art.


(http://images.politico.com/global/news/090505_luntz_ap_297.jpg)

Here's a long one, but it's absolutely packed with interesting stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhdLGvcOuMM --- Luntz spoke at a luncheon at the Goldwater Institute last year during the healthcare debate. (Fast forward to 5 minutes, that's when Luntz starts talking) The room is filled with right wing politicians and big name donors. In this video, he goes over some of the linguistic tai-chi and psychic warfare he's developed for the 2012 election.

QuoteTo the people in this room focused on tort reform: Americans are not particularly sophisticated. They think torts are a french pastry. Can you please call it "Lawsuit reform"?

The longtime PD members will recognize that Luntz shares a lot of characteristics with Ben "Call Me Doctor" Mack. I've never seen anybody wield political language this precisely. Watch how during the course of this speech, he insults nearly everybody in the room. He establishes that he's not just some fat fuck who sells books, he's smart as a whip, and you should pay attention to him if you want to know what's up.

(http://content6.flixster.com/photo/12/20/87/12208724_tml.jpg)

Short video - Frank Luntz on the six critical components that determine the success or failure of a political party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DOy9mQZy8M

Frank Luntz addresses Ron Paul supporters who are killing his platform: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0mS35mqnRE&feature=related -- In this video he talks a bit about how mudslinging works.

It's all smoke and mirrors! Here's a short clip which exposes a layer of manipulation. Fox News showed clips from a Frank Luntz poll of "random citizens". This video shows the same "random citizen" in two different videos, clearly indicating that he's a paid actor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3BDvfAf2c4&feature=related


Politics aside, I find Luntz and his work fascinating. Let us know what you think, and please share any other Luntz media of interest.

I had a leaked copy of Luntz's Republican strategy book somewhere, let me see if I can find it.

Ah, here it is.  128 pages, well worth reading http://ifile.it/41gu0rj

Here is an extract:

QuoteThe results on Election Day illustrated an essential principle of electoral success: it is no longer enough to say no. Voters need someone who will say yes. John Kerry became a symbol for voters opposed to the President's policies and procedures, but not much else. Conversely, George W. Bush became the vehicle for those who wanted an affirmative, proactive, preventative approach to homeland security. Americans will tell you that it was Bush, not Kerry, who offered the hope that personal security could be restored. And in this election, hope won.

When it came to the war on terror, Americans knew where their President stood and exactly what he believed. They simply did not share the same level of confidence in John Keny. The events and aftermath of 9111 may not have changed everything, but it certainly changed the outcome of the 2004 presidential race.

In the end, hope won.

Turning toward 2006, it has often been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it That is excellent advice for the Republican Party, whose electoral position is eerily reminiscent of 1986 — when the GOP dropped seats in the House and lost control of the U.S. Senate in the sixth year of Ronald Reagan's presidency. The surprising electoral collapse crippled the Republican legislative agenda for nearly a decade — until the Contract with America reversed the Republicans' misfortune in 1994.

You cannot permit history to repeat itself. By carefully examining what happened the last time the GOP bad an incumbent President at the sixth year of his presidency, it will hopefully serve as the first step in preventing a similar catastrophe.

Here then are the seven reasons why the Republicans did so poorly — and the Democrats did so well. In 2006, you will need to do things differently if you wish to deflect the infamous "sixth year itch."

1) The 1980 election brought in weak Republican candidates that were finally swept out in 1986. The Republicans made sweeping House and Senate gains during the 1980 election due to the coattail effects of Ronald Reagan. The House lost 26 of the weaker seats in 1982 thanks to a poor economy, but it took until 1986 for the Senate to catch up. The reason: weak Republican Senate candidates who normally wouldn't have won were elected and had six years before facing the voters again. In 1980, Bob Dole told reporters that 'had we known we were going to win control of the Senate we would have run better candidates,' Said Charlie Cook, "The crop of GOP candidates was the political equivalent of hothouse plants able to survive only under the most optimal conditions."

Strategy: Acknowledge the complexity of your district and the challenges ypu face should the political climate turn sour. Too often Members in close elections acknowledge their electoral weakness after the election but don't address it until it is too late. If you received less than 57% of the vote, your campaign should begin today: a 20-month effort that includes fundraising, voter contact, message development and grassroots operations. And all of it should be measured on a monthly basis.

2) Republicans stayed home. Both in 1982 and in 1986, Republicans did not turn out in usual off-year numbers So not only were there no presidential coattails but the inverse was true. Democrats turned out in greater numbers, and they turned out Republican  Members of Congress.

Strategy: Pick out issues that matter to the base and HOLD some of them until the second year of the Congress. This is very important. Republicans will want to go to THEIR people with THEIR legislation 30-days before Election Day when it is still fresh and newsworthy. Rather than rushing to pass all the good stuff in 2005, you need to keep at least one major item that can be voted on by Congress and signed by the President in the waning days of 2006.

3) There was a national theme. Local politics dominated the eclection. There was no umbrella effort to unite voters across the county to keep Republicans in office. It was assumed that Reagan himself would be the unifying force and "stay the course" would be the message. Instead, an incredible 30% of those who voted for Regan in 1984 actually voted for a Democrat Senate candidate in 1986 — and roughly 25% voted Democrat in House races.

Similarly, there was no presidential "bounce." President Reagan campaigned hard to help keep Republican control of the U.S. Senate about as aggressively as George W. Bush did in 2002. However, by the sixth year of his term, Reagan was only able to achieve a 3-point bounce when he visited a state and it dissipated within a week.

Strategy: Do not depend on a popular president .to bring home the vqç House and Senate Republicans must establish. their own identity in advance. People have different reasons for casting votes in Congressional elections than in a presidential contest. "Getting things done for America" is exactly what they want from the next Congress and that's why it should be at least a theme of your efforts.

4) Democrats fielded unusually strong candidates, Democrats afraid to run in 1984 lined up to take on Republicans in the off-year, and they had theft best crop of candidates since 1974 (including Tom Daschle and Bob Graham). Democrat recruitment efforts started quite literally the day after Reagan's landslide election, and by January 1, 1986, the seeds for a strong comeback had already been sewn. Moreover, the entire Democrat leadership was involved in the recruitment effort. Republicans took their strength for granted, and were surprised at the disaster that unfolded on Election Day.

Strategy: Assume that your opponent will be the toughest you'll face in your political career — and start planning your response accordingy. Complacency is perhaps the biggest threat to an incumbent's re-election hopes.

5) The gender gap was a chasm. Republicans won a barely tolerable 52% of the male vote and a disastrous 42% among women. In fact, it took eight years — 1994 — until the collapse among women was fully addressed, When asked why they abandoned the GOP, the Number One complaint was the tone: too harsh.

Strategy: Republicans need to cultivate the so-called security mom with a legislative and communication agenda targeted directly to them. Bush did better among women, particularly younger manied women, than any GOP candidate since 1988 because of security concems. Security will keep these women voting Republican if they are addressed directly and personally. And since women value time over money, your strategy should include your successful efforts to promote legislation that in some way provides women more free time.

6) Republicans stayed in Washington while the Democrats beat them up at home. In the Georgia Senate race, incumbent Mack Mattingly had a 24-point lead with three weeks to go. In Alabama, Jeremiah Denton was up 15-points. Jim Broyhill was leading by 16- points. State after state, House and Senate Republicans had significant leads that evaporated because theft opponents were' on the ground running hard while Republicans were inked in useless debate a thousand miles away. The Democrat strategy was to emphasize face-to-face contact and contrast that with the "out-of-touch Washington insiders." Republicans, stuck in DC, were dependent on paid media to get theft message out — and it didn't work.

Conversely, Idaho Senator Steve Symms simply left DC and flew home — telling constituents that they were more important than whatever was being voted on in DC. He was one of the few GOP incumbents re-elected that year.

Strategy: Go home. Stay home. This is one of the most important lessons not just of 1986 but of the last ten years as well. The earlier and more often you get home to campaign, the better off you are. Every day you stay in DC after October 1st the more vulnerable you are.

7) The 1986 vote was a much older vote. Voters under 30 simply did not participate in 1986, while voters 55 and older came out in larger numbers. 'rns older shift and concerns about what Republicans might do to Social Security and Medicare helped swing a number of close races to the Democrats.
Strategy: Republicans MUST do a better job communicating Social Security reform in 2005-06 than they did the prescription drug benefit in 2003-04. The fact is, seniors who understood the benefit came to appreciate it — and Republicans did better among the 60+ electorate than in any presidential contest since 1988 — but too many seniors were too ill informed, and that created too much unnecessary confusion. The communication training process for Social Security must be as formal, mandatory and comprehensive as the Medicare reform effort that took place back in 1995-96. Members must make the rounds of senior centers with formal presentations to address the scare tactics sure to be employed against them.

For fun, compare some of the advice in the book with Obama's 2008 campaign.  You will see some striking similarities.  Especially the talk about hope, bipartisanship and accountability.

Oh neat, he was on Colbert last night too! Colbert is paying him to develop the meme "Corporations are people" into something people will swallow.

Part 1: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/400559/october-24-2011/colbert-super-pac----corporations-are-people----frank-luntz

Part 2: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/400560/october-24-2011/colbert-super-pac----corporations-are-people----frank-luntz-s-focus-group

great line from Luntz: "My career depends on you not dunking that American flag in that cup of coffee."

I've always thought of Luntz as a sort of evil alternate universe George Carlin.

Oooh, very interesting!

The guy's a modern day evil genius.

I thought I had seen this guy before... I've seen some of the focus group/poll footage before. What I find fascinating is that people hate him; he is arguably amoral when it comes to solving the puzzles placed before him, but he's not actually evil.

Also, I am fascinated by the interactions between him and Colbert. Colbert is absolutely genius, and so is Luntz, which leads me to believe that Luntz is deliberately playing straighter man to Colbert's straight man. Fucking brilliant!

I love love love spin doctoring. It's one of my favorite things on earth.

 :asplode:
Ah! It's impossible to assume anything about him from what he says, because he is specifically a master of manipulating what is said!
My first impression is that he truly believes in the beauty and power of language, which I appreciate. This is most likely more than an act, because he kinda has to believe in that to be effective at what he does.
He seems also to truly believe the very concepts he's been hired to spread - but I think that is more likely only superficial - like Nigel mentioned, he's no doubt "acting" in a way, just as Colbert is in his way. Idk for sure, though...Very fascinating subject Cram! Thanks!

You're just now hearing about this guy?

This guy has been fucking shit up for years.

YEARS I tell you.

oh, and..

FUCK YOU LUNTZ!

(leaked) Luntz Republican Playbook uploaded to scribd for easy access: http://www.scribd.com/doc/70467439/Leaked-Luntz-Republican-Playbook

Quote from: Disco Pickle on October 27, 2011, 04:06:00 AM
You're just now hearing about this guy?

This guy has been fucking shit up for years.

YEARS I tell you.

oh, and..

FUCK YOU LUNTZ!

No, a lot of us have heard about him as "That Republican pollster guy" for quite a long time.

But it's only been recently that he's been roped into collaborating in a [Discordian] way with Colbert. Fortunately, it seems to be a puzzle that he likes.

anybody know how to download streaming videos from colbertnation? I've googled, but I can't figure it out. (and I hate watching streaming vids in browser)

... though maybe I'll just click em and watch em that way. never mind.

Most people walk around with heads full of opinions that aren't their own.  It's fascinating to read about a person who is responsible for manufacturing so many of those opinions, and hear him speak openly about the tricks of his trade.  Thanks, Cram for posting those links, and thanks Cain for posting the link to his book.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?

"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."

Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.

1. Don't say 'capitalism.'

"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'

"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But  "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'

"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."


4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'

"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."

He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.

"So why are we talking about jobs?"

5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'

"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'

"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'

"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."

Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'

Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."

9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'

"There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."

10. Always blame Washington.

Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."

BONUS:

Don't say 'bonus!'

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."

"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"

This is /fascinating/. He's exactly as you said, a court wizard. People who want to understand public speaking skills should LISTEN CLOSELY to this man. I think he is amoral and a mercenary, and damn good at it. If Obama paid for him, he's be wooing the Democrats in this same way. Really really interesting. Especially the Goldwater speech. Just wow. And it's never clear from any of this what his position is. Or maybe, his position is that of whoever is paying him.

Very interesting. I do think he made a mistake with "job creator" though. People have realized that what politicians refer to as "job creators" don't actually create jobs. Or so I hope.

Quote from: Triple Zero on December 02, 2011, 03:45:52 PM
Very interesting. I do think he made a mistake with "job creator" though. People have realized that what politicians refer to as "job creators" don't actually create jobs. Or so I hope.

Yeah, he's a little behind the 8 ball on that one.

I'm going to spread this around a little. People need to see the man behind the curtain.

Fuck yeah, I'm with Nigel.  And I still see him as an evil genius--he may not be evil the sense he fucks with people to do anything but make a profit, I don't believe he's sociopathic or anything.

But it would be nice if he wasn't on the side of the fucking GOP.