The Demise of a Great Institution

On Monday, April 21st, 2008, the Rockridge Institute announced that it will cease all operations on April 30th. This is shocking news. In the progressive world, this should be an atom bomb. American progressives are losing a major asset. Sadly, most of them will not notice.

The Rockridge Institute was founded by George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist in Berkley, California. Although the organization included more than Lakoff, its mission was based on Lakoff’s ideas. As a scientist, Lakoff has studied how we use language in politics. He uncovered some myths and mistakes used by progressives in political discourse, and he exposed how conservatives use language to their advantage. For decades, conservatives have funded think tanks, scholarships, publications, and television networks for the sole purpose of promoting conservatism and framing the debate in their own terms. The Rockridge Institute tried to do the same for progressives.

Lakoff has written several books, his most important being Moral Politics. In it, he discusses the different ways liberals and conservatives use language to describe morality. The book provides an insight on how people look at things differently, and how they can use the same words but mean different things. Moral Politics should be a bible for progressive writers and politicians. It provides a blueprint of the conservative mind. In 2004, after the swiftboating of John Kerry, Lakoff published the book Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. It condensed the concepts from Moral Politics into a guide for action. If Moral Politics was the bible, Don’t Think of an Elephant was a salvation tract. While Democrats were licking their wounds and trying to figure out what went wrong, Lakoff was waving his arms, trying to get their attention.

Some people noticed. Howard Dean wrote the forward for Don’t Think of an Elephant. Dean is not the ideal example of a Lakoff-style communicator. Dean is not the ideal example of anything. Nonetheless, Dean recognized the need to frame the debate and to take the progressive message to groups that Democrats have long given up to the conservatives. His election as chairman of the Democratic Party was the first victory for the Young Turk Democrats who are beginning to use Lakoff’s techniques in their campaigns. Dean’s 50 state strategy strikes fear in the heart of the Old Democrats. Traditionalists would rather play to the old Democratic allies. It is less risky, and less expensive. Deans’ well-publicized feud with Rohm Emanuel ahead of the 2006 mid-terms signaled the division within the Party.

Despite this rift, Lakoff’s theories work when they are used properly. Barack Obama started his campaign by framing important issues in ways that were designed to appeal to independent voters. In the primaries, independents clearly preferred Obama to all other candidates. While reframing the debate is helping progressives, changing the dialogue that has long been dominated by conservatives will not happen overnight. In the fray of mudslinging, Obama felt the need to attack his opponents, lest the attacks on him stick and doom his candidacy. He has relied less on framing lately and more on traditional campaigning. Nonetheless, the theories of George Lakoff made an unlikely candidate into the Democratic frontrunner. Obama had several strikes against him: his skin color, his youth, and his unfortunate middle name. Despite that, he was able to get people to listen to his ideas. Whether he makes it to the White House or not, that alone should be considered a success for the Young Turks. If Barack Obama can get this far, a progressive Democratic candidate can win a congressional race, even in a Republican stronghold. Progressives no longer have any excuses for losing. They have the roadmap.

Starting April 30th, they will be on their own. The Rockridge Institute will be no more, and there will be a void in the progressive movement. Hopefully that void will be filled by some other organization, or perhaps several. Rockridge cites financial difficulties, among other things, as the reason for their closure. In their announcement letter, they give six problems they encountered in their operation. At the top of the list is what they call “The Progressive Funding Problem”. To sum it up: conservatives write big checks, progressives write small ones. Though the Rockridge Institute did remarkable well with their limited resources, the conservative side has a well-funded network. This is no secret or conspiracy theory. Conservatives are quite open about it. Their organizations have recognizable names. For decades conservatives have felt the culture moving away from them, and they are doing everything in their power to move it back. One poorly funded organization cannot overcome that kind of opposition.

Another problem Rockridge encountered, one that is perhaps as sad as the funding problem, was resistance within the progressive community. Progressives have been repeatedly making mistakes in the way they communicate their ideas, and conservatives have been taking advantage of those mistakes. The old ideas are deeply ingrained. Cognitive science provides answers, but it is difficult to get activists who have run on the same message since the 60s to try something new. Especially when they have limited funding. It is an understandable objection, but it is one that must be overcome if progressives ever want to build a solid majority and implement their policies.

I repeat my charge against the Democrats: George Lakoff is an underappreciated asset. This man needs to be fully funded, and Party operatives need to be well-versed in his methods. Young Turk candidates have spring from nowhere to achieve national recognition by changing the way they use language. This can be done on a broader scale, but it will require the Party to set aside the old methods that are no longer working. It is a risk, but the early results show great promise. Sadly, too many of the Old Guard would rather go down with the ship.

© 2008 Bryan Lower

Feedback: