Bush puts his own spin on
'freedom'
Left's mainstay word recast in economic terms, analyst says
- Joe Garofoli, San Francisco Chronicle January 21, 2005
While progressives were turning their backs during George W. Bush's inaugural
address Thursday, the president laid claim to one of their metaphorical mainstays:
the meaning of "freedom," a word he mentioned 26 times in his 21-minute
speech. In Bush's parlance, "freedom" has been recast largely as "economic
freedom," a political shift that could damage liberals already searching
for a cohesive message, analysts said.
"What he's done is take over the old progressive language of 'freedom' and
redefined it without explicitly saying it -- only with code words -- in terms
of a conservative worldview," said UC Berkeley linguistics Professor George
Lakoff. "Those people who've got that worldview will understand the code
words."
In Lakoff's decoding of Thursday's address, "freedom" meant "unfettered
economic markets." Same goes for phrases such as "ownership society"
and "the governing of the self." They're conservative shorthand for
believing that the government should not be regulating business."Conservatives
have been masterful at this, but they've been working on it for 35 years, while
progressives have just been standing by," Lakoff said.
Outflanked liberals have tapped Lakoff for his skill at deconstructing how conservatives
use language to dominate the political landscape. Democratic congressional leaders
distributed copies of his most recent book, "Don't Think of an Elephant,"
to their membership.
The conservative notion of "freedom" isn't the one held by the progressives
who are trying to pick Lakoff's brain. "For progressives, yes, there is economic
freedom," he said. "But freedom for them extends to other aspects of
life." When Bush is talking "freedom," Lakoff said, he isn't talking
about "freedom to marry." Or "freedom of a woman to control her
own body and reproduction." Or freedom to "unfurl a banner protesting
the president."
Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, agreed that Bush's
speech had transferred the concept of freedom "from the foreign policy world
to the domestic policy world." When Bush said, "By making every citizen
an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater
freedom from want and fear, " Whalen said, he was espousing the conservative
ideal of the self-made person who doesn't need a government handout. "He's
essentially using it to say the days of New Deal policies (of government assistance)
are over," said Whalen, who worked on George H.W. Bush's unsuccessful 1992
presidential campaign.
Even when Bush used "freedom" in political terms Thursday ("The
best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world"),
Lakoff interpreted it as the desire for individuals to benefit from free markets
-- not just personal liberties -- across the globe. "Yes, (he means) freedom
to pursue democracy," Lakoff said. "But what constitutes democracy?
He's saying, 'This is freedom to pursue money.'"
Claiming the language of the other party isn't new, and it's often done by successful
politicians of all stripes, Whalen said. Former President Bill Clinton used "personal
responsibility" to talk about welfare reform, a longtime Republican ideal,
Whalen said. And, he said, John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural speech borrowed hawkish
phrases such as "pay any price, bear any burden" that would sound more
familiar coming from a conservative.
Bush used the word "freedom" Thursday six more times than Martin Luther
King did in his seminal "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. Recapturing
the metaphorical war will be difficult for progressives in Bush's second term,
Lakoff said. Their first battle is expected to be over the president's plans for
partial privatization of Social Security, and winning won't be as simple as tweaking
their sound bites.
Democrats must come up with a set of values to explain why they feel that, say,
Americans shouldn't be able to invest their Social Security funds in the stock
market, Lakoff said. And the rhetorical battle will probably come back to the
concept of "freedom." "When Republicans talk about Social Security,
they talk about freedom," Lakoff said. " 'You can invest your money
better than the government can.'
"The Democrats respond by giving all the facts and figures," he said.
"None of them say, 'This is an issue about whether we're going to have a
guaranteed annuity for everyone in our family, the American family, or whether
you're on your own, buddy.' "Rather, they argue the details," Lakoff
said. "As soon as progressives argue the details, conservatives come back
and argue their own details, and nobody knows the difference. And as soon as you
get into the technical details, the liberals lose. Because the other guys are
arguing values."