Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show Paperback – July 3, 2007
| Geoffrey Nunberg (Author) Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author |
| Price | New from | Used from |
Enhance your purchase
- Print length288 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherPublicAffairs
- Publication dateJuly 3, 2007
- Dimensions5.5 x 0.75 x 8.25 inches
- ISBN-101586485091
- ISBN-13978-1586485092
![]() |
Frequently bought together

- +
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Going Nucular: Language, Politics, and Culture in Confrontational TimesPaperbackFREE Shipping on orders over $25 shipped by AmazonGet it as soon as Friday, Jul 15
Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, the First Sixty YearsPaperbackFREE ShippingGet it Jul 15 - 22Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
The Years of Talking DangerouslyHardcoverFREE ShippingGet it Aug 19 - Sep 7Usually ships within 4 to 6 weeks.
I'd like to read this book on Kindle
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonTop reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The conservative linguistic shift was done by a two-step process. First, it begins with what Rorty called "final words", plain, common, everyday basic words used for propositional attitude towards actions and beliefs. These final words have been captured under conservative understanding. Politics also has its final words such as "conservative" and "liberal", "choice" and "freedom", "values" and "freedom", "elites" and "plain folks". The second step involves final words under certain narratives entering the public discourse to become political symbol words. "Values" means conservative beliefs such as family values, patriotism, school prayer, sanctity of life. "Value candidate" or "value voter" becomes a symbol word for conservative politics. "Elites" now means media elite, Hollywood celebrities, and the academia while it used to mean business executives and the rich in early 20th century. "Cultural elites" became a catch all phrase for liberal establishment. The conservative meaning of words are not just used only by conservatives but also by their opponents and the media. Nunberg thinks this acceptance was just passive acceptance consciously or unconsciously. That maybe partially true. It seems another reason is that if conservatives discuss issues under their framework and understanding, rejoinders can only make sense and fruitful if words are used under the same understanding. Once you become an interlocutor, you are using the words in their framework.
The linguistic shift enables the conservative to dominate the political hermeneutics in various ways. One way is to change the meaning of political label. The label "liberal" has been changed from the original FDR New Deal meaning to any character the conservatives want to demonise to such a degree that no Democrat or liberal is willing to use it, and, hence adopted the new label "progressive". Another way is to change the meaning and narrative of common political concepts. Political class is no longer defined by occupation and income, but by lifestyle, such as choices of wardrobe, diet; beverage, car, media consumption. J.C. Penny vs Lacoste, baloney sandwich vs sushi, Chevy vs Volvo etc. Nunberg's work provides many examples of how conservatives distorted meaning, interchanged meanings, added meaning of final and political words, exhibiting his expertise in polysemy as a pragmatician.
Nunberg thinks the Democrats cannot rectify this linguistic shift accomplished over decades just by reclaiming the terms and reassigning ad hoc meanings. What is required are narratives to go with the terms. The narratives must associate with stories that the public can identify and sympathise, such as Clinton's "people who live from paycheck to paycheck" or Mario Cuomo's "people who work for a living because they have to". They need to be a political narrative that coherently connects the Democratic issues. It seems that has shown to be no easy task given that the Democrats always get drawn into a defensive battle to talk about what the Republicans want to talk about while trying to sell liberal social issues that only minority interest and action group care.
Mr. Nunberg presents a brief history of the neoconservative movement to recount how language has been deployed in order to associate particular words and phrases with politically-charged meanings. For example, the phrase 'cultural elite' was introduced by Vice President Dan Quayle in 1992 and succeeded in connecting Hollywood entertainment with sectors of the public who might have felt apprehension about social change. Indeed, Mr. Nunberg points out that since the 1960s the Republican Party has adroitly manufactured and magnified the importance of Pat Buchanan's 'culture war' in a way that has convinced large blocs of the working class to vote against its own material interests. Unfortunately, as liberals are reduced to a snobbish and out-of-touch caricature of the consumer culture imagination, Mr. Nunberg contends that the Democratic Party has failed to articulate a meaningful narrative of its own to inspire the faithful or to define the Party's mission.
Nonetheless, Mr. Nunberg believes that the Democrats can yet prevail if it dares to once again speak truth to power. Mr. Nunberg cites Bill Clinton's highly effective narrative about the powerless versus the powerful during the 1992 campaign as an example of how a message can resonate with an increasingly insecure working class beset with economic grievances. To that end, the author goes on to argue that in the wake of the Bush administration's disastrous policies (including preemptive war, fiscally irresponsible tax breaks and reckless environmental rollbacks), liberals have an excellent opportunity to articulate a new popular narrative of working-class struggle in the pursuit of economic justice and equality.
I highly recommend this important book to everyone, and especially to those interested in media and politics.


