Here is a quote from the article about college republicans you linked to: "My fellow liberals and I didn’t see ourselves as engaged in a war of ideas. We probably didn’t even realize there were any conservatives around to fight with."

This is why I have no problem with the so-called trolls that have been popping up here and there in the comments here. It's easy to share ideas and make pronouncements with like-minded people - almost a little too easy. Always keeping in mind the other side, and being challenged at every point can only make any progressive argument stronger and more meaningful. Even if the "troll" comments are stupid and thoughtless, they still must be taken on (not entirely evaded by suggesting that an alternate troll-free site be set up until they leave). After all, most people are stupid and think simply, so if the trolls can be made to think differently, so might most people...

College Republicans. . . aren't they the evil frat in Animal House?

This indoctrination goes on in the high schools, as well. We have a conservatives club at my school. A Republican teacher started it, no doubt so that he can get these kids thinking early and often, "It's okay to be greedy," "We deserve to be so privileged," and "Why should I care about other people?" There are kids who are just born Republicans. They fall right into it as if it were made for them. Personality might be the determining factor (an idea that is scary). And of course, there are a lot of rich parents in my district preaching GOP propaganda. The day they propose to put up a Reagan statue in front of the school is the day that I think I'll start looking for a new job.

Did anybody see the movie, PCU? I know it's a so-so comedy, but I can't seem to shake the images of the ridiculous, overzealous student-activist groups as they were portrayed. Perceived legitimacy is what it's all about. Young Republicans are so often portrayed as weenie weasel, brown-nosing dicks and prisses in the movies and on TV (Animal House, PCU, Alex Keaton on Family Matters, Carlton on The Fresh Prince of Bel Air--it seems to me there are plenty more of such characterizations). How does this reconcile with the real-world legitimacy that young Republican groups seem to have? Why aren't they laughed off of campus?

I appreciate your thoughts, Anonymous, but I think if you go back and read through the transcripts you'll see that every time serious attempts were made to engage the trolls in real, meaningful debate, they followed the same pattern. They 1) plagiarized, 2) hurled personal attacks, and then 3) attempted to change the course of the conversation by bringing up off-topic issues like Ward Churchill, the “murder of unborn babies.” Ultimately they left. I, like you, would welcome the thoughts of Republicans seriously interested in discussing these things, but the trolls we’ve attracted here so far are not those people… With that said, however, I will remind you that I never blocked their IP addresses, not even when it became clear that they were posting under aliases.

... And, Dirtgrain, if there's not already a Young Democrats/Progressives club at your school, perhaps you might want to consider starting one. I for one would donate to such a cause.

Thanks for bringing up Luntz again, as I’ve been too busy lately to reply to your book club post until now.

As a Lakoff fan, I have to try to clarify your characterization of Luntz as Lakoff’s source material. Although Lakoff analyzes some of Luntz’s language, Luntz is not a source of Lakoff’s ideas; Lakoff was publishing important theoretical work in cognitive linguistics while Luntz was still in high school. I also don’t think we need or want a left wing version of Luntz to police our political language. While we would benefit from better message coordination, would you really want some liberal spinmeister sending you marching orders on what words to use and what words to avoid? The Right needs this kind of message control because they frequently have to hide their real agendas. As Lakoff points out, Republicans’ use of Orwellian phrases like “Clear Skies” and “faith-based” reveals the weakness of their ideas. (By the way, shame on Governor Granholm for using the term “faith-based,” a Republican euphemism for “religious” used to erode the separation of church and state. She also reportedly [http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw112943_20050314.htm] told those who would challenge her new “office of community and faith-based initiatives” to “bring it on,” parroting Bush’s ill-advised taunt.) Because we have better ideas than the Right, we shouldn’t have to resort to deceptive framing. We also don’t need to rely on hired consultants like Luntz to come up with effective language; a better way to develop useful frames is open discussion. See, for example, the site of Lakoff’s Rockridge Institute [http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org] which includes open forums. (BTW, while looking around the site I found a review [http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rosen/walmart/sellingwomenshort] of a book on Walmart which you might find interesting.)

The main thought I took away from our book discussion is that we need to come up with frames that challenge the widely held assumption that capitalism is natural and just. Most Americans see the workings of “free markets” as inherently right, like the will of God or karma. Unregulated markets may efficiently distribute goods and services and stimulate economic growth, but they are not an end in themselves; rather, we should judge markets by whether they produce widespread prosperity. I agree that “corporate media” and “cheap labor” are useful expressions for questioning unregulated capitalism, but we also need language that affirms regulated markets that serve the common good. A good example of this kind of language is the expression “fair trade,” which effectively suggests that a “free market” that pays coffee farmers poverty wages for supplying coffee to wealthy multinationals and their consumers is not a “fair market.” Although freedom is a powerful and basic idea, so is fairness—even capuchin monkeys understand it [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html]. “Shareholders”--as opposed to “stockholders”—may be another useful construct. I’d like to hear other suggestions.

Jim, I didn’t mean to suggest that Luntz preceded Lakoff in any way. I was just attempting to point out that Lakoff’s work is informed by the Republican message as crafted by Luntz and others. Perhaps my phrase “source material” was misleading. I wasn’t suggesting plagiarism or anything of the kind… just that Lakoff used the language of Luntz and others, like a chef might use piece of meat, to create some dish… I’d like to say more, but I’m very, very tired. (The baby kept us up for a long, long time last night.)

I figured that that's what you meant; thanks for clarifying the point.

I can hardly believe that Clementine could be anything but a delight! I hope you catch up on your sleep tonight.