How to speak Republican

Conservative word doctor Frank Luntz explains what Bush should say about the war, why Nancy Pelosi should keep quiet, and what the GOP can learn from Barack Obama.

By Katharine Mieszkowski

Read more: Republican Party, Politics, News, Katharine Mieszkowski, Nancy Pelosi, 2006 Elections

Jan. 23, 2007 | Frank Luntz is a Republican word doctor who coaches conservatives to talk to Americans about "personalizing" Social Security instead of "privatizing" it. He urges them to promote "tax relief," not "tax cuts." He's counseled Republicans to spread doubt about the scientific consensus around global warming. Recently he recommended that "drilling for oil" be referred to as "exploring for energy," which goes down much more smoothly. Luntz is so reviled by environmentalists that one group has named an award after him for great achievements in doublespeak.

In his new book, "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear," Luntz promotes and analyzes his own contributions to the political lexicon -- including Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract With America" -- dissecting why some phrases resonate and others flop. In a phone interview with Salon, Luntz discussed his dissatisfaction with the way the White House talks about the war in Iraq, his impressions of Barack Obama, and his beef with the progressive netroots.

What do you think of the president's use of the word "surge" to describe the increase of troops in Iraq?

It's a huge mistake.

Why?

When people hear the word "surge," they think escalation, and when they think escalation, they think Vietnam. The president would have been better off focusing on "reassessment" and "realignment" -- a reassessment of where we are and where we need to go, and a realignment of troops and resources.

The surge is about a number. It's about numbers which also lead to casualties. A reassignment and realignment is about the overall strategy, tactics and action steps. It's broader, it's more precise, and it's more comprehensive.

Isn't part of the problem with talking about a "surge" is that it focuses on process over outcome?

That's correct. But you can't focus on victory anymore, because the American people don't believe that victory is a possibility. But it's a legitimate point. You do still have to address the outcome -- define it, explain it. What is your definition of "successful outcome"?

It can't be as simple as "victory," because it doesn't have any credibility.

Correct. The most important rule of language in 2007: It must be believable.

So what would be a credible outcome, if not victory?

Well, the outcome, if we decide to give up and leave, is the guarantee of massive civil war, far beyond what we have today, and one that could easily spread throughout the entire Middle East. So, bad as the situation is now, it could still get worse.

So the White House could talk about how it could get worse if we don't do X, Y and Z.

That they have done. In a single word, it's the language of consequences. Consequences themselves are neutral, it could be good or bad, but consequences are real, particularly in times of war.

So do you think that Democrats are being clever by using the word "escalation" because it has an association with Vietnam?

Absolutely. I think it's a very smart approach. But the way that some of them have articulated their opposition is so awful, like what Barbara Boxer said to Secretary Rice. That's the kind of overreaching, over-the-top hyperbole that undermines the Democratic effort to provide an alternative. In their anger, they have allowed their rhetoric to race beyond their solutions. It's a very dangerous place to be in politics.

Because then you have the Republicans saying, "Well, if you have a better idea, we'd love to hear it"?

Right. Exactly. What's your solution? And the answer is that they have none. They have no consensus. They've got no agreement, and they're triggering it by their use of extreme language. For Barack Obama, who up to this point had run a perfect campaign, to compare the U.S. effort to babysitting, completely undercuts the seriousness of a war that has already taken thousands and thousands of lives. That type of language is beneath him, and it will also undermine him personally. People like him because he doesn't try to be cute.

But you generally think he's good with language?

Yes, I do. Because he doesn't sound like a political animal. He sounds like a human being. Barack Obama is the kind of person you'd like to have a beer with and sit in a classroom with. He rarely uses sounds bites. Everything he says sounds like something you and I might say in a conversation with each other. That's why his babysitting comment struck me so horribly. It was the first time I've heard him slip into political speak.

It sounded like somebody else had crafted it for him?

It sounded like they had been batting it around: Let's get a good sentence into as many news broadcasts as we can.

Is there any way Bush can talk about committing 21,000 more troops that would be more palatable to the American public? Or is that policy so unpopular that he can't build support for it, even by describing it differently?

If it's just that policy on its own, it's too unpopular. It has to be part of a greater effort. But even in the questions you're asking me, you've made a decision, the media has made a decision, the public has made a decision: that if it's just about troops, it won't work. It has to be something broader. It has to be something comprehensive. That's why the concept of a reassessment and a realignment was so important for him.

Look, words only work so far. Even the best words will not sell an unpopular policy, and the danger is that people tend to raise the power of words beyond what they can actually deliver.

A number of conservative commentators are now using the same language they used to attack John Kerry to attack the Democrats' criticism of the Iraq war, saying, "They were for the war and now they're against it." Do you think that still resonates?

I don't think so, because you're trying to be too cute. I think that the best way to support the war is to do so unabashedly and intellectually, without cute words and phrases.

So, that smacks of a "gotcha" language, and it's beneath the subject matter?

It's a war situation. In war situations, the goal is not to create the best sound bite, it's to provide the best rationale. It's to educate and explain. That's the difference between pulling someone to support the war versus pushing them. The Bush administration and so many of the supporters of the war are still using push rhetoric, which is very political and very divisive.

It's pushing people to support something without giving them the necessary tools to do so, without giving them the defense, the evidence, the education. The difference between push and pull is that push asserts and then explains. Pull explains and then asserts.

So, basically, they have to explain why you should support this war before they tell you to do so.

They've got the Ricky Ricardo challenge: "Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do."

Next page: Why Pelosi makes Washington insiders gag