Lakoff seems to have started this by raising the issue of frames and explaining how the frames used by progressives and conservatives are based on different value assumptions.
But my point is that there's an even more basic level where the debate isn't about values but about tribal and inter-tribal hierarchies - and specifically about the dominance and submission relationships that define them.
When a conservative talks about abortion, the abortion issue itself is a cover-story for the real dynamic - which is an assertion of power over those who disagree.
This power-grab dynamic is the one unifying feature of all conservative politics and corporate expansionism.
And there is no rhetorical answer to it, because it's not a rhetorical position - it's simply a statement of 'I own you and I control you'.
When you look at the Iraq quagmire, or Gitmo, or any of the other Bush disasters, or the Econo or FT writing nonsense about Europe, the basic aim is to assert dominance, either by force or by chutzpah and fiat.
The talking points around that aim are tangential. They're either lies, or irrelevant, or they don't make sense.
So how do you rhetorically challenge an assertion of dominance?
The rhetorical answer to assertions of dominance is to ignore the assertion. You can't be me, I'm taken
So you have some sort of debate with an authorian that tries to some sort of audience build himself (or herself in some cases) up as a dominator. What are the aspects of a dominator? Can you lead them into a rethorical situation where these aspects can not be fulfilled? This of course also depends on who you are in this situation.
To make in a bit more concrete, say that you are debating death penalty with a law-and-order authorian. If you are seen by the audience as more powerful (having higher rank or something) you can dismiss his attempt at establishing dominance by a lofty discussion on the realities of crime (what is). But if you are less powerful that will be seen by those seeking a leader as confirming your opponents masculine and muscular ways. Instead you might be able to ridicule your opponent - claiming he is searching for the bogeyman under his bed - and by turning him into a ridiculous figure, that is scared while you (who are less powerful) walks with courage undermine his position as leader.
Then of course there are battles you can not win, and when the opponents control the pulpit (ie MSM) that is often the case. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
