Pretty Paper, Pretty Ribbons Of Blue

In yet another example of their ongoing misguided attempt to lure “Red State voters” into their camp come election time, Democrat activists have turned to the most logical place they know of in order to learn how to achieve this objective – Berkeley, California.

Seriously.

As noted in a July 31 Newsmax.com piece, “This spring, activists in New York and Seattle invited Berkeley linguist George Lakoff to speak about how to reframe the abortion issue.” This is part of an effort by Democrats to appeal to a larger portion of the electorate on an issue that seems to favor their opponents more and more as time goes on and medical technology advances.

According to the Newsmax piece, speaking of the Democrats’ woes on this issue, Lakoff noted, “They found that choice wasn’t playing very well,” noting that “choice comes from a consumerist vocabulary”, while “life comes from a moral one.” His response to this situation is to have pro-abortion activists speak in terms of “personal freedom,” regarding the abortion issue, while going on the attack against Republicans by blaming them for high infant-mortality rates in the U.S. as well as mercury pollution “that can cause birth defects.”

To sum up, the solution advocated by George Lakoff to the Left’s woes on the abortion issue is a two-pronged approach: First, change the terminology. Second, change the subject.

The suggestion to speak of “personal freedom” as opposed to “choice” or “abortion” is just another instance of the idea that image is more important than substance – hence the focus on what “plays well.” But as much as the elitists who call for such ludicrous “fixes” to their political woes would like to believe that the great unwashed masses can be fooled into supporting something if it is put in a pretty enough package, the fact is that the people at some point do indeed put a value on the substance of a position. Somewhere along the way, the question will be asked by some, “What is it that they want me to be free to do?” In this case, the answer is, “To kill an unborn child.”

Which is why the second prong in the approach is so important. Hence, the need to change the subject from a purposeful procedure designed to intentionally end a life – abortion – to a painful fact of life that does not result from a “choice” made by the mother – infant mortality and birth defects. Unless Mr. Lakoff and company can provide documentation that Republicans are ordering truckloads of mercury dumped into public water supplies, their comparison is between apples and oranges. But then, it’s taken the discussion away from the “choice” issue as intended.

There are many conservatives who are more than willing to have a substantive dialogue on abortion – including this one. But such a dialogue should require an acceptance of facts on the part of all involved, and a willingness to speak in terms designed to enlighten, not mislead. Those who are merely after facts and truth have nothing to fear from such a dialogue.

The approach that Americans can expect to see from the Left, on the other hand, is one that only further lends credence to the idea that the last thing liberals want is for the voting public to actually see what it is for which they stand. For them the manipulation of words to mask facts is far preferable to their having to change positions based on what those facts are. For them, it is easier to hear the soothing words of comfort offered by an “expert” from a liberal elitist citadel than to face the harsh realities of what is actually desired by the people they are trying to attract.