14408RE: [GreenLeft_discussion] Results in WA
- Feb 27, 2005-----Original Message-----
From: bobgould987 [mailto:bobgould987@...]
The radicalised working class and middle class voters clearly didn't
see it that way because the Socialist Alliance vote was so low in two
of the three upper house electorates it contested that it didn't
register a percentage, and the percentage in the other seat was .02.
From: Ian Latto [mailto:ilatto@...]
Political parties collect baggage from each unjust action. But each
short term step of ethical compromise in the course of history will
destroy every political party.
Has any political party lasted as long as a Church? No.
"Old style" political parties which rely on terminologies long poisoned
within the mainstream seem to have minimal chance of gaining ground in
contemporary "democracies" unless such minority parties re-evaluate their
The technique of "framing" as described by Lakoff in his "Don't Think of An
Elephant" book, used most blatantly by FOX (Fair and Balanced, We Report,
You Decide) is a tool which would be very useful to socialists, not least as
a pointer to the need to find an alternative to even using the term
"socialist", as it seems to be a poisoned word within the mainstream.
Other poisoned words/phrases include "left", "left wing", communist,
communism, Marxism etc etc.
A good example of an obvious right wing party being formed using "frames"
marketing is Family First.
It is always a bit perplexing for me to witness the reluctance of those on
the left to engage in the same pragmatic, ruthless marketing used by the
right to hoodwink the mainstream. I guess it comes down to principles and a
determination to never stoop as low as those we fight, but surely Blind
Freddie can see more success from forming new parties with new "frames"?
The technique of framing was recently discussed on Margo Kingston's webdairy
in the DTOAE review thread:
What do the various old-school people on this list feel about such matters?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>