I first “met” Thom Hartmann many years ago when he launched the Desktop Publishing Forum on Compuserve and built one of the best online communities I’ve ever been a part of. Back in the days when Quark was revolutionary and we suffered the “how many fonts can I fit on one page” approach to design, Thom not only brought us together as professionals but more importantly as friends. And, as we firepups know, creating online community takes a very special touch and sensibility and an astute understanding of communications.
I’m certain most readers of the Lake know Thom as a radio host. He’s respected and enjoyed for the tone he sets and the ways he can, once again, encourage a community of listeners and insightful conversation. In Cracking the Code, Thom opens up his toolbox of communications skills – and invites us to try them out, learning new ways in our own conversations and in our activism, to build communities of understanding, dialogue, and hopefully a broader progressive consensus.
Cracking the Code: How to Win Hearts, Change Minds and Restore America's Original Vision draws on Thom’s extensive training and practice in Neuro Linguistic Programming, years in marketing and working as a therapist, and his many years of not just talking but listening … carefully.
And given the heat of recent political discussions, it’s a particularly good time for us all to refresh our communications tool set. As bloggers and activists, we have spent the last few years working to reclaim a voice in government. Often we have focused on the need to make our outrage heard when it seems that it’s only the right wing shouts that get a place at the table. Yet outrage alone will not reshape the politics of our neighborhoods and our country - expressing what we are for as well as what we oppose is important to bringing about real change.
Thom points out that there are actually points of shared interest amongst most individual people on the right and on the left (while he rightly calls out the evil overlords like Cheney) and explores how we can begin a conversation that builds on those shared desires – good lives for our children, healthcare, decent jobs and a better future – not in surrender to the right but as an invitation for fellow citizens to work with us to "restore" that "Original Vision.”
Thom reminds us of the value of stories, the value of telling our own and of learning how to hear the stories of both the people closest to us and the wider political neighborhood. He introduces us to techniques like future casting and learning trances and helps us to recognize individual language frameworks – explaining the importance of sharing language with those we are communicating with. Motivational strategies figure in the discussion as well with Thom describing how we both move away from pain and towards pleasure – and how we can use both motivational directions to shift people's positions and actions. And there’s much more.
I am particularly fond of the discussion of framing Iraq as occupation rather than war. Not only does Thom explain why this is essential, he describes an imagined Harry Reid - Tim Russert conversation in which he shows how this shift of frame makes an end to the occupation much more achievable politically:
Tim Russert: So Senator Reid, what do you think of the recent news from the war in Iraq?
(snip)
Senator Harry Reid: Tim! Tim! Tim! The war is over! George W Bush declared victory himself, in May 2003, when our brave soldiers seized control of Iraq. That’s the definition of the end of a war, an anybody who’s ever served in the military can tell you. Unfortunately, our occupation of Iraq since the end of the war, using a small military force and a lot of Halliburton, hasn’t worked….
Rather than detail Thom’s points, I want to encourage folks to pick up a copy and read this enjoyable book. As bloggers and blog readers, we all – I suspect – find ourselves in political discussions where we somehow can’t get through to the person we’re speaking with – we lay out all the statistics, often wax wonky, and express our outrage at the powers that be – and too often our best rants do little to change the minds of the folks we talk with. Cracking the Code helps us to see a dfferent way – not “changing minds” but reaching towards dialogue and then alliance. Thom never asks us to deny our outrage – he shares it – but he shows us how to shift the way we approach that conversation. With skill – and respect – we become more able to share our dream of a bettter world – and energize others to share their stories and join in this work with us.
There’s a great CSPAN video of Thom speaking at the Strand bookstore which is a lot of fun and very informative. As Thom mentions in that speech, change always comes from the bottom up – and Cracking the Code is a gift of essential tools for us to carry as we do that work.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Thom!
Thom welcome to the Lake.
Welcome, Thom! So good to have you here. We are big big fans of the show and the book is great.
So, Siun, any stories you can tell us from the old days that are Not Ready for Prime Time?
Welcome Thom - it’s a treat to have you at the Lake!
(and Jane - my lips are sealed!)
Hi, Thom — why can’t liberals be disciplined enough to always call Iraq an occupation? It shifts the entire debate in our favor.
I listen to your radioshow often. I wonder what you think of Jeffrey Feldman, FrameShop and Lakoff, Thinking Points? It seems that they also work in neural linguistic programming.
I really appreciate your giving the “other side” time on your show and teach people how to handle their arguments. Thanks for the excellent work that you do.
I was really intrigued by Thom’s book … and could not believe how timely it is as we jump into election time. There’s a lot to learn and also I think some great ways to look at political statements with more clarity about how certain frames and languages impact us and voters.
Hey, great to be here!
Thom, the only ways I can listen to your show are Sirius and during my visits to Portland on 620 am. I wish there was a progressive radio station in the north Iowa backwater where I live (about 20 miles east of I-35). Getting clear sane voices on the air is one way to counter the dominance of stations like WOI in Des Moines.
I only listen online being out in the boondocks like you. It’s easy if you have DSL.
Thom … I’m sure folks will have all sorts of questions since you are so much a part of the work we do but I wanted to make sure we spend some time on the book and the lessons you’re sharing.
I noticed you mentioned writing the book on air - could you tell us a bit about that process and how it shaped the final text?
Mr. Hartman:
Would you care to comment on how we can or perhas should deal with NCLB and getting a decent education for our kids? These are very important questions in this house.
Speaking of clear sane progressives, I was in Portland when you introduced Al Gore. I wonder what role you think he should play, if any, in the presidential election?
“Why can’t liberals be disciplined?”
The conservative world view is essentially hierarchical, paternalistic, top-down, follow-the leader. This comes out of their belief that people are essentially evil (original sin, etc.) and that the purpose of “leaders” and institutions like government and church are there to constrain the evil impulses of people. Thus when a “good person” leader is found, they want to lead.
The liberal worldview - first articulated in the 1600s by Locke and Rosseau and the 1700s by Jefferson and Madison, is that people are essentially good and therefore can be trusted to self-governance. Therefore the purpose of these institutions isn’t to restrain us, but to empower us to achive our greatest potential, and help out the helpless.
The consequence of that is that liberals don’t follow leaders well. Reed and Peolosi are trying to herd cats. And, truth be told, if suddenly dems were to all whip themselves into shape, they’d no longer be the kind of people we want to vote for.
Will Rogers was right…
would that be genocidal occupation?
I suspect that Al Gore will simply play the role of elder statesman, endorse whomever is the Democratic candidate, and get out of the way. The party is already largely behind him and his agenda.
WRT writing the book on the air, I’d thought it would be fast and easy and we’d be done in a few weeks. Instead it took about a year. Geez. The spoken word is frighteningly different from the written word, so there was a pretty massive amount of editing we had to do…
What sort of tactics and dialogue should we perhaps avoid when we are confronted with right wing dogma on social issues?
Thank you for coming by today, Thom (and great introduction, Siun!)
I really enjoyed reading this book, and learned a lot. I have a question about the words we use to engage different senses. When I started working again in 1998, it was in a very ethnically diverse workplace, and there was a new word use, primarily among African-American employees: “I feel you” or “I feel that” which, I learned quickly, meant “I understand you.” People used this construction instead of “I hear you” or “I see.”
Soon, everyone in the workplace was saying “I feel that.” I always thought “I feel you” was over the line for a mixed-gender workplace, considering the valid discrimination actions our employer constantly faced.
But, when I read your book, I wondered if “I feel you” is a construction used, and invented, to appeal specifically to the kinesthetic sense. I wondered also if there have been any studies about ethnicity and primary sense.
Thanks for this great book which provides many useful communications tools.
And how cool to have one of our old DTP Forum members here! Thanks so much for the nice welcome!!
I don’t think using the word genocide will get us anywhere productive - other than maybe in the dock at the World Court in a few years when these guys are brought up on charges. For the moment, though, I’d just stick to “occupation.”
While wars are won or lost, occupations naturally “end.” I wish Obama and Clinton would pick up on this the way Edwards had…
Thanks Thom … where better for a MacWoman TeaOp to end up than with the ladies (and gentlemen!)of Firedoglake.
Teddy - the discussion on auditory, visual and kinesthetic language really jumped out at me too … and is very worth exploring.
Teddy - yes. When I worked with the Apache on res in AZ, and with the Dene in the NW Territories, I noticed that about 90% of them were kinesthetic. But Apache kids who grew up in Phoenix were mostly visual. I think this is probably almost entirely cultural, but aboriginal - and oppressed - cultures seem to be more likely to be predominantly kinesthetic, and dominator cultures seem to be more visual (maybe a dissociative necessity to keep them/us distant from the pain our conquest of the world is causing others).
The HomelandArggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Thom Hartmann! Welcome!
You, sir, are an inspiration.
So glad you’re here today! You have countless fans here on the Monterey coast. My dear 88-year- old neighbor calls you her “link with sanity” and right up there with her other great American hero Thomas Paine. Her name is Bessie if you’d like to give her a wave during this FDL Book Salon it will surely delight her.
Democratic flaccidity has become the mother of impatience for many of us. What to do?
I listen to Hartman almost every day, and the depth of his knowledge on many subjects, including the various complicated scandals of this administration is incredible. I do think he often gives too much latitude to some of the wingnuts who call, but that’s part of his inclusive style…very unlike the combative and ego-laden style of Randi Rhodes.
This sounds like a great book, but I’ve pretty much given up hope in this country. For every knowledgable and strong progressive voice like Hartman’s on the national stage, there are twenty Savages, Limbaughs and O’Reillys who know how to appeal directly to the Reptilian brain of their listeners. Not to mention the hundreds of clueless bobbing head pundits and brain-dead “reporters” who distort and deaden the Democratic discourse. SIGH!!!
But keep up the good fight Hartman…we’ll go down fighting!
Thanks, Sangemon - and to everybody else for their kind words!
WRT NCLB, I think it should be simply and totally scrapped. As Jim Jeffords pointed out when it pushed him over the edge and out of the Republican party, the primary outcome of it was to turn a multi-million-dollar private testing industry into a mandated-you-must-buy-from multi-BILLION-dollar industry (which Neal Bush is part of). It’s got nothing to do with education other than trashing public schools to set up privatization.
Do you really think that they will be? Or will it be, “Let’s just move on and put all this unpleasantness behind us”?
hi, Thom. I’m a longtime listener, and appreciate all you do. (and you do so MUCH, too. you are, without doubt, the hardest-workin’ man in talk radio!)
that said, I’ve got a smallish problem with the way you frame something… :)
whenever the subject (on your show) turns to wingnut talk radio (Savage, Rush, et al.), you say that they “do a good radio show”. (or at least you did with Savage, recently.)
I don’t see any way in which they could be thought of as “good radio”, with the possible exception of show production and/or the host’s ability to fill time. the contents of these shows are SO vile as to be injurious to the public via the corruption of fact-based, accurate reporting. it is the rough equivalent of a toxic spill, and to my mind, should be treated as such. (in other words, we don’t allow toxic spills because they injure the commons, and we shouldn’t allow these aural toxic spills, either.)
I think if HC wins, her changes will remain. Ditto for Romney and/or McCain. Politicans frequently change positions, and usually the changes stick.
FDR ran on a platform far less progressive than Hillary or Obama. We must keep reminding ourselves of that…
I must say that your deconstructing of Nancy Pelosi’s statements on the war were eye-opening for me. How would you rank her on your continuum of communicators, Thom? When you analyze her words, you seem to find much to praise, but I wonder if it isn’t entirely unconscious on her part. She does not seem that skilled to me.
So Thom, are you having fun with the lack of influence that conservative radio talk show hosts (no names) are having on the GOP nominating process? I know I am.
Savage, Limbaugh, et al do “good” talk radio, in that they *effectively* communicate with and hold audience. There are, tragically, a lot of liberals who don’t know how to do that. The medium itself - unlike a toxic spill - is values neutral. We need to be teaching a new generation of progressive hosts how to do more than just do boring interviews with authors and suck-ups to big-name politicians.
What? I think you have to take into accout the time frame and events. I strongly disagree with your statement.
I find it interesting, Jane, but not that different than my support for Edwards and Kucinich (and Dodd would have been okay) but now we have H/O. Talkers, by their nature, tend to be at the outer edges of politics, as we represent the movement, not the machine.
WRT Pelosi, she’s a brilliant communicator in many ways. That’s how she got to where she is. AND she could do a few things much differently - she needs to take a few Newt lessons.
What statement?
I don’t know if you would call Rachel Maddow “talk radio”, but she really is effective at holding my attention.
Hey Thom,
I haven’t kept up with what you do, I’m sorry to say, but in your opinion, are the Dems siding with Bush on telecom immunity doing so for altruistic reasons or are they bought? I know my senator J-Rock got a timely 40k.
Also, do you think McCain should publicly thank Ann Coulter for campaigning for Hillary? Seems to me she is to the Republican Party what Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was to Chicago.
Thom … one thing I’ve been thinking a lot about recently is how our anger at Bush et al shapes our statements on politics - and how perhaps that anger is not the best core for us to draw on if we want broader change.
While I love John Edwards, I wondered if his “fight, fight,fight” messaging hurt him in contrast to his more nuanced “fight but sunny” 2004 effort?
presumably wrt whether H. Clinton would govern according to her campaign rhetoric.
Coulter, IMHO, is the Paris Hilton of politics - she’s famous for being famous. So she’ll say whatever she things is most likely to get her in the news. Her books are shallow and vapid, so she has to go on shock value. My guess is that if there was any thought beyond the above in her “endorsement” of Hillary, it was to hurt Hillary with Democratic voters.
Dems haven’t yet caved on telcom immunity. we need to keep up the pressure.
I think there’s a slight difference in that you really didn’t see yourself as a kingmaker, and I think RushBo definitely did feel his altar needed to be knelt at before a Republican could get the nod.
Unless you’re hiding a huge ego problem exceptionally well.
“what statement?”
kiddo is referring, I think, to your saying that FDR ran less progressive, but wound up being very much so.
I wish we could count on something like that happening with Hillbama, but don’t see any signs that they’re inclined to do so. Obama’s constant dogwhistles to “centrists” and right-leaners doesn’t fill me with hope. (actually, for a guy who supposedly peddles hope, I really feel very little when I think of an Obama presidency.)
Thom, do you think David Atlee Philips and Maurice Bishop were one and the same, as Gaeton Fonzi has suggested?
Noted, sport. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, and hope that I’m right, cuz if you are, we’re all in trouble.
WRT Edwards, I think he would have had greater success with the “inclusive” frame that Obama is using than the divisive frame that most often dominated his rhetoric. That said, he is/was totally right that there *is* an oppressive “them” out there who have declared a predatory war on the middle and lower-income classes, that they’re mostly inherited wealth and corporations, and that the only way to stop them is to confront them the way TR and FDR did. But most middle class Americans don’t yet feel it as intensely as we did in 1932…
I was an Edwards supporter BECAUSE he was willing to fight. How important do you think Obama’s ability to inspire and bring in new and younger voters will be to Democratic success in 2008. Hillary seems to be “nuts and bolts.” Obama has been accused of being more “form” than “substance.” Do you think Obama will develop more of a fighting instinct after the primaries or are we likely to end up with another John Kerry type?
Thom -
You speak often about how the lack of closure after Watergate, the pardon of Nixon and the lack of prosecutions, has made it possible for the cons to get us into the mess we find ourselves in today.
Do you see any possibility for forcing the next administration to really hold the Bushies to account, and I’m talking World Court here?
And if so, what do we as citizens need to do to make that happen?
I think it did hurt because this election is about vision
Like Bobby Kennedy’s using George Bernard Shaw’s words
And I might still vote for Edwards on Tuesday - or Kucinich, or Dodd - because they’re all still on the ballot
Sloth - don’t know. That would be a good question for Lamar, who did most of the detailed research on the book.
And, yes, the “centrist” positions of H and O concern me. OTOH, the next president - who will certainly appoint at least 2 SCOTUS judges - being a Republican scares me a hell of a lot more. We can at least infiltrate and influence the Democratic party. Look how much we’ve been able to influence the Republicans (shudder)…
I haven’t seen so many Kennedys on my teevee in a very long time. This week, there are both Hillary and Obama advertisements swamped with Kennedy imagery — RFK and his children for Hillary alongside Cesar Chavez’s grandson; Caroline, Teddy, and Patrick for Obama, with JFK imagery.
What’s the utility of this imagery, Thom? It seems to me like lots of “them” and not much “you.”
Sang - we need to (as the election passes over the next year) convert the “impeachment” movement into a “prosecute the war criminals” movement, IMHO. But it’s frankly far too early to be pushing that; it could backfire at this stage.
I too still might vote Tuesday for edwards–not for the man but for his policies and to say to the other two: Dont Waiver. As my political scientist daughter said to me: you will get a chance to vote for OB or HRC, but this is your one shot to stand with edwards and his policies.
that said, I am intrigued by whether these two “leaders” will lead against telecom immunity, and also how we can improve the framing of that issue before it is too late.
Good Day Thom.
‘But most middleclass Americans don’t yet feel it as intently as we did in 1932…’
‘Yet’, being the significant word.
Analytic philosophers are concerned with:
1) meaning
2) the link between language and reality
3) cognition
Are we basically talking about ‘intension’ here?
Howie linked today to a good example of Obama fighting … Obama v McCain
and I liked his ability at the debate to use humor to take them on …
I really think the country is ready to ridicule the right.
I think that the Bushies all get away free because of pardons. There will be no appetite in the country to go to the World Court. This Bush walks and we really can do nothing except prevent another Bush from gaining power sometime in the future.
JFK and RFK were iconic figures. In the US, the prez combines two functions that are separate in most other nations: Head Of State and Head of Government.
In the UK, for example, the Queen is the head of state, while the PM is the head of government.
Because we combine the two, we tend to notice the HOS part the most because it’s the most visible. JFK was brilliant at it. As was Reagan in many ways (although he was criminally bad as HOG).
Anyhow, watching the debate, I kept thinking that HC was running for HOG and Obama for HOS. Each now has the challenge of convincing voters s/he can also be the other.
What do you think of a big impeachment push after election day, Thom? Couldn’t the 110th go out with a bang in December by impeaching both Bush and Cheney, and referring their Articles of Impeachment to a (presumably more Democratic) new Senate in January?
In other countries, btw, they elect both a PM and a prez (like Israel, for example), thus splitting up the HOG and HOS.
Hi, Thom
Welcome to the Lake. Sorry I didn’t know earlier you’d be here.
I’m working with Nancy Skinner on her campaign and just want to thank you for your help in promoting her in the DFA All-Star contest. She’s on to the finals now, which end at 11:59 p.m. this coming Wednesday. I hope all the Firepups remember to go out and vote for her and that you’ll remind people to vote on your show this week.
Sharon
That’s a really good way of looking at the difference … interesting.
Are you directing your question in my direction? ;0)
But isn’t the way to prevent them from gaining power sometime in the future to prosecute them when possible?
I don’t think impeachment will happen, before or after the election, which is why we will need - in about a year - to really push for criminal prosecutions. The SCOTUS has ruled that presidents are not immune from such prosecution and cannot use confidentiality/privelige to withhold documents or testimony.
What’s problematic here, though, are 5 million missing emails. They need to start nailing people down for those ASAP…
If any of Conyers’ or Leahy’s investigations uncover “dramatic” enough crimes (e.g. - political crimes, like Nixon wiretapping Dems), then impeachment is still possible, btw. That’s why we need to be supporting their ongoing investigations. Conyers said last week that “Impeachment is not off the table.” And he’s the guy who would initiate it, not Pelosi.
Amen, sage
Mr. Hartmann, I just tuned in so I’m not up to speed on the direction of the conversation..but I couldn’t let this opportunity slide by without telling you how much I appreciate your work with ADD and ADHD children.
My very first introduction to your writing was with “Hunter in a Farmer’s World”. It was recommended by a psychologist right after we were told there was a possibility that our son had ADHD (He was three and had been kicked out of preschool, with the director telling us not to bring him back until he was on medication. He never went back, instead we moved him to a Montesorri.)
That book helped me understand how wonderful it is to think the way we do (I was diagnosed soon after he was), even when the rest of the world doesn’t see it. I went through all the stages of grief - for him AND for me - and when I finally got the courage to tell my mom and she just looked at me and said, “We had no idea what was wrong with you”, I just had to laugh. She still doesn’t get it, not completely - but I do. I wouldn’t be ‘normal’ now even if I could. Neither would he.
After attending private schools, skipping a grade, and four years of homeschooling (there are not many options in our little rural farming community for kids like him), my son is now a high school junior taking honors classes and working towards an academic scholarship. His teachers adore him, and he has a very large circle of friends and a very cool outlook on life.
From all of us, thank you so much. You made a difference.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.
I totally agree, Thom. I’d be much happier seeing them all thrown in prison after they leave than even seeing them impeached. Seeing them all lined up in their orange jumpsuits would be a beautiful picture, indeed.
Did you see where Carl Bernstein, in his book on Hillary, says that she strongly opposed her husband’s pushing NAFTA? Whew…
I think this is partially why Teddy’s out there
Thanks, Kest - from one Hunter to another.
I don’t see how we can better communicate to the world and to ourselves that we recognize the criminality of BushCo than by bringing them to justice in our own court system. I pray and hope this happens. It needs to.
I am most afraid of another “bygones” Presidency, and both our Democratic candidates have all the language at their disposal to implement one: “Look forward, not backward,” “Let’s solve today’s problems and avoid tomorrow’s, not look to the past,” etcetera.
What specific pressure do you recommend on a newly elected Democratic President to act on BushCo’s crimes?
I read that about Teddy being PO’d about Billary’s comments about LBJ, and while I believe it’s possible/probable, don’t think it accounts for the level or intensity of his participation in this campaign. He’s pulled out all the stops - I think he really believes in Obama, and is putting his own legacy at risk (or reward) by putting all his chips on this one candidate.
Kestrel - I share your gratitude for Thom’s work on ADD - so important.
Along with the political uses of Cracking the Code, the tools Thom discusses have real value on personal levels and I loved the discussion of how that works in his marriage - and I know that Thom’s use of shifting frames made a very big impact on my family when he wrote in new ways about ADD. My son’s outlook changed a lot when he saw himself as hunter in a farmer world (as did my own self image) rather than “problem.”
Thom - since we have several good psychotherapists on the FDL team, could you say a bit more about NLP and what you’ve drawn from your work with kids into your work in radio and the progressive movement?
Well, that’s the basis of the book, Siun. Kinda hard to condense into a post, other than to say that the book is mostly a toolkit for communications. Other books out there dissect positions or politicians or whatever - I just wanted to give people a toolkit. There are some bows and ribbons, some examples, and all that, but mostly just nuts, bolts, screwdrivers, pliers, etc.
Thom;
Your execellently crafted statements regarding ‘World Views,’ conservative and liberal, delineate the fun-da-mental (with emphasis on the last sylable) choice confronting humanity, today.
Only one leads to the future. But both need daily exposure for those who do not, as ‘yet,’ understand that the choice is necessary and must be deliberate; it is not merely necessary, but inevitable, and, if avoided, the results will be grim.
It’s the only way that we will be able to restore not only the trust of other countries, but also the trust of our own citizens in our own system of justice.
Just bought a copy.
you won’t regret it
That’s a wonderful distinction, Thom, and I think you’re spot on.
I listen to the show everyday and think you’re the smartest guy on the radio.
Amen again, sangemon
Ah, the hunter-farmer continuum, it sure helped be come to a better understanding of who I was.
I’d add that I consider NLP to be the most powerful of all psychotherapeutic tools that involve talking. EEG neurofeedback, and bilateral therapies are equally powerful in different ways (see my book “Walking Your Blues Away”). Anybody doing therapy for a living who hasn’t been trained in NLP and high levels is trying to run a BMW on watered-down gasoline. (Sorry for the lousy metaphor - you get the point.)
I really loved the story of the German solar panels.
Agreed.
“at high levels”
What is NLP?
Thanks so much for being here today Thom! Any plans for a book tour on the west coast?
I love your work Thom, I also notice that you are a proud and successful capitalist, do you envision a day when humankind will get beyond it.
Yes, Teddy - it illustrates a really good use of government. People will collectively do the right thing more often than not, even when individually they may do the wrong thing.
Hockey players, for example, when asked if they’d like to wear a facemask and head protective gear, will always say “no” because it slightly disadvantages them by limiting their range of vision and motion. But when you ask them if everybody - including themselves - should be mandated to wear such gear, they will say yes. We understand the concept of the collective good - it’s the basis of family, for example - but cons don’t seem to get it.
Hi Thom, great to get to ask you questions here. And I hadn’t realized that you’d also written about ADD. I’m so getting that book this weekend. Anyway …
Republicans incorporate a lot of dogwhistle terms, like Huckabee’s ‘verticality’, or structural themes into their speech that identify with the cultural mindset of their target audience, or at the least, a mindset that audience has come to grips with. The Democrats have a problem in this because they’re trying to reach all the ‘other’ audiences, people who don’t necessarily have much in common with each other culturally and who may be far more in tune with pop culture than a traditional one.
Do you think there are particular culture wells that Democrats could be drawing from more effectively to communicate their values?
NLP is NeuroLinguistic Programming. Google it - lots of really rich material out there for free.
Did the west coast book tour in November…
Evolute - beyond capitalism? I hope so. I’m an opponent of unfettered or unrestrained capitalism, but recognize the potential and real benefits of highly regulated capitalism. And we need to be promoting more collectivism, too.
Neuro linguistic programming = framing
Yes. Like the Repubs, Dems should be working to and for their base, and dragging the middle in with them. It’s always been this way (FDR did it brilliantly), but I think that since Newt the Dems have had collective PTSD. Somebody needs to do an intervention with them, and it may be we the voters this November…
Thanks!
Framing is one of perhaps 100 to 200 different tools/systems within the toolbox of NLP, fyi. It’s just the most well known right now, probably because of Feldman and Lakoff’s great work.
Natasha … great to have you join us today. You’ll love the work on ADD!
And by that I hope you mean by giving them a PTSD-proof majority!
Thom;
I suspect you may be loathe to do this, but might you speculate on just how ‘bad’ you think the economic realities will become?
What suggestions have you regarding solutions, noting your comment about ‘highly regulated’ capitalism and the need for more ‘collectivism’?
What might this combo look like?
I knew I was being over simplistic ;-)
Two best of my ADHD books are “ADD:ADP” and “Edison Gene”. “Healing ADD” is about ADD and NLP, fyi. Good, too. For adults, the success book is good…
Ooooh, well I guess we DO have to go there, don’t we?
Yes, that’s what I meant. We need to re-empower them. I think there are too many of us following them around and shouting at them as it is. We need to say more “we’ve got your back; be brave!” and less “How dare you wimp out again?!?”
Although both messages are important. It’s just that I think most elected dems are getting them at a ratio of 1:50 and it should be 50:50
I think they’ll be able to keep their fingers in the dikes until November, but the price we’ll pay will be terrible. They’re inflating our currency like crazy to prevent a re-norm