|
In his new book, Words
That Work, Dr. Frank Luntz, a well known Republican
pollster for politicians and large corporations, holds forth on how to use
language to achieve one’s ends. “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear”
is his subtitle and mantra throughout this 300-page manual. But given Dr.
Luntz’s tendency to let the end justify the means, the subtitle might better
have been taken from Rule Seven of his Ten Rules of Effective Language: “Messages need to say what people want to hear.”
That may be an acceptable strategy for corporations as they
market their products and services, but it’s a treacherous one for
communicating serious national issues and public policy. We all know PR and marketing tactics are used
in the political realm, but the question is, how far should it go? It’s one thing to sell me soap with
seductive, manipulative language. It’s
another to sell me a candidate or serious national policy with “words that
work,” which too often are disingenuous euphemisms, glossed-over facts and,
yes, simply what I want to hear.
Dr. Luntz says his research finds that Americans are not
well educated or informed about history or current affairs. Thus, he claims that communicating with them
using “complexity or intricacy of any degree almost always fails.” So,
should consultants like Dr. Luntz be paid to enable public ignorance
with pabulum, or should they challenge citizens to chew and digest
substantive information?
But let’s be fair:
Dr. Luntz skates on the same pond with all of us who work in
communications, where slippery ethical issues sometimes arise that can be
difficult to address. But Dr. Luntz frequently
ventures onto very thin ice and too often plunges into the drink. Here are some examples of his proudly self-proclaimed
“words that work:”
Republican Contract
with America:
Dr. Luntz was the primary architect
of this document comprising 10 promises to the country, many of which are now in
the dustbin of Congressional history.
Such euphemisms as Taking Back Our Streets Act (anti-crime package),
Personal Responsibility Act (welfare reform), American Dream Restoration Act
(tax cuts—which Dr. Luntz admits having “actively sought to blur the
substance”), and Citizen Legislature Act (term limits) pepper the Contract, the
concept of which Dr. Luntz claims became influential “around the world.” We can hope the outcomes elsewhere are happier
than what we have reaped from this Republican document which has culminated in
an administration that can’t tell a straight truth and a Republican party about
which even Luntz says, “The brand isn’t just sick—it’s dead. The G.O.P. is cracking up.”
Death Tax: This is Dr. Luntz’s name for the Estate Tax,
which he proudly claims moves public opinion toward eliminating it
altogether. Dr. Luntz believes small
family businesses and farmers’ estates should not be taxed upon death of the
owner, leaving families with limited resources for the future. That’s a valid point. But leaving the estates of billionaires and multi-millionaires
off the hook is hardly the answer. Let’s
reform the Estate Tax, but let’s not rename it, lest we forget what we were
talking about in the first place.
Exploring for Energy:
This is Dr. Luntz’s green-hued term for drilling for oil. He notes that Newt Gingrich came to him in
1995 to ask how he could “help make Republicans sound more environmentally
friendly.” This surely would have been an
uphill struggle, given President George W. Bush’s outright rejection of the
international 1997 Kyoto Protocol. But Dr.
Luntz never gives up, and when the argument about opening exploration in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ensued, Dr. Luntz helped out by cleverly called it “responsible exploration
for energy” by “energy companies.”
(Never call a spade a spade--or an oil company an oil company.)
Social Security: Dr.
Luntz wants to rename it Retirement Security. That might be ok, but Dr. Luntz also says
he’s found that older Americans might be more open to privatizing it if we call
it personalizing. So, if the stock
market sinks with our Retirement Security on board, we’ll feel better because
it was personalized, not privatized. Pulleeeze!
Illegal Immigration: Contrary to Luntz’s claim that prevention,
protection, accountability and compassion are at the core of the messages he
crafted on this issue, he suggests the following language be used by
politicians: “This is about the
overcrowding of YOUR schools…the emergency room chaos in YOUR hospitals….the
increase in YOUR taxes…the crime in YOUR communities.” This is compassion? Blaming every major urban
problem on illegal immigrants, and in the process fueling a xenophobic reaction
that smears all immigrants? It’s also
striking that in the several paragraphs Dr. Luntz dedicates to this issue, he
never mentions the responsibility of U.S. employers who hire illegal
immigrants. Now that’s an interesting
take on accountability, but it’s hard to know whose.
Gaming. That’s Dr. Luntz’s nice word for
gambling. Of this euphemism, he says, “All
of the old, unsavory associations (.e.g., organized crime, pawnshops,
addiction, foolishly losing one’s fortune) gave way to a lighter, brighter
image of good clean fun.” Indeed, Gaming
sounds like Candyland and Monopoly on Friday night with the kids. Amazing—all those social problems disappear
with one wave of a word-that-works-wand.
Much of what Dr. Luntz puts forward, including his Ten Rules
of Effective Language, is familiar to professional communicators. We all like nice words. We certainly strive for diplomacy, civility
and good manners in our communications.
But, we have to live by truth.
Dr. Luntz says early in the book, “To me, the truth matters,”
and “Actual policy counts at least as much as how something is framed.” (Only
at least as much?) But Dr. Luntz’s
commitment to truth might have been more convincing if Rule One had been
Honesty, and if he had stuck by his own advice in Rule Three: “Say what you
mean and mean what you say.” Instead, he too often advises us to employ the
slicker, easier approach of using words that work in order to say what people
want to hear.
 |
