What do you think?
Rate this book
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
Geoffrey Nunberg breaks new ground with this fierce and funny narrative of how the political right has ushered in a new world order, aided unwittingly by the liberal media. Democrats are well known for their "lousy bumper stickers," as Joe Klein puts it. As liberals wade through the semantics of "social security lockbox," "single payer," and other wonky locutions, the right has become harder, meaner and better at getting out the message: the estate tax became the more menacing "death tax" and a contentious education initiative was wrapped in the comforting (and memorable) blanket of "No Child Left Behind." But Nunberg shows that the real story is more subtle than just a bumper sticker war. Conservatives' main goal wasn't to win voters over to their positions on healthcare, education, or the environment. They had a much more dramatic ambition. By changing the meaning of words like "values," "government," "liberal"; "faith," and "freedom," conservatives have shifted the political center of gravity of the language itself to the right. "Whatever our politics," Nunberg observes, "when we talk about politics nowadays, we can't help using language that embodies a conservative world-view."
272 pages, Hardcover
First published July 3, 2006
14 people are currently reading
293 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Nunberg
15 books20 followersGeoff Nunberg is a linguist and professor at the UC Berkeley School of Information in Berkeley, California, USA. He is also a frequent contributor to the National Public Radio program "Fresh Air".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
August 6, 2022
If you're not aware of how the right wing has molded language to their advantage, this book may be interesting to you.
However, it was published in 2006, and so is woefully out of date. Secondly, his prescription for the problem is way too broad-brushed and incomplete. Lastly, if you're in a rush you can probably get by with reading only the last chapter.
However, it was published in 2006, and so is woefully out of date. Secondly, his prescription for the problem is way too broad-brushed and incomplete. Lastly, if you're in a rush you can probably get by with reading only the last chapter.
November 4, 2007
The author does a very incisive job of outlining how conservatives (not sensible conservatives, but nutbar conservatives) have dominated the general messages in this country by dominating the media, staying on message with more rigidity than the Nazi army, and creating a very loud echo chamber. They would like to convince first themselves, then the rest of the country, then the rest of the world, that America was founded as a conservative country and therefore must continue as such to be true to American values. However, American values are LIBERAL, always have been. Liberals have to fight this, and this book gives you ideas how by showing how conservatives manipulate language and, therefore, thinking. (Language reflects thinking, but it also influences it.) Enough neocon garbage propaganda already!
June 25, 2008
Over the years, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg has written numerous pieces on the culture of words for Fresh Air and the New York Times. This book is a more extensive essay on the role that certain words, vague in meaning but rich in emotional connotation, have played in the ascendancy of American political conservatism. You know the words already, they are those irksome un-signifiers like "values", "freedom", "bias", "terror", "elite." Nunberg explains how the right has crafted cultural narratives around words like those that generate populist appeal, while obscuring the actual affects of conservative policy.
August 19, 2008
I've also been reading this book for over a year. It's a little dry in places, but mostly I get so angry over the direction that our country is going that I have to put it down. Being a communications major and especially interested in linguistics and how culture is reflected in language and how language shapes culture, this book is excellent! It makes you stop and realize how the American English language is changing and how it is so influenced by politics (both right and left).
August 5, 2007
I always respected Geoffrey Nunberg as a linguist who was amazingly good at academic philosophical work as well. But he also has been advising the Democrats on how to be less hapless and wrote this enjoyable and very accessible book peeling away one at a time the layers of false consciousness encoded in the language of present-day politics.
September 22, 2021
This book is an analysis of how political words, concepts, and, frameworks in US politics are understood in a conservative paradigm due to gradual linguistic shift orchestrated by conservatives since the 70s. The book features ample examples from the lexicographical roots as well as the evolution of word meanings in contemporary usage. Many examples came from the author's "Going Nucular". So if you enjoy his lexicographical genealogy and witty narratives, you will find them here.
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 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 turn 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". There 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.
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 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 turn 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". There 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.
January 31, 2021
“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” by Geoffrey Nunberg. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️.5
“Talking Right” is a political linguistics book on how the Republican Party in the United States uses its rhetoric in terms of race, class, economics, religion and “traditional values” by hijacking words like “patriotism,” “liberalism,” “freedom” and even “people of faith” whilst discussing the right’s attitudes towards big business, the liberal elite and the liberal media.
This book was published in 2006 so it is a little out of date (very weird to think that 15 years ago is out of date), but Nunberg uses this book to reflect upon the political lexicon of the republicans surrounding the 2004 election whilst tackling the rhetoric of modern American political jargon that the republicans have been spitting out since the Nixon Administration (though he does go back further when necessary).
Nunberg also explores the reasons why the left has a difficult time opposing Republican language since the Democrats don’t seem to have one of their own, and when they do, it’s not the best.
Over all, this book took me a while to get through because it is a lot to take in at once. However, this book is very informative and reflective about how to perceive the Republican Party’s rhetoric today as it allows its reader to grasp how the party has come to this point. Unfortunately, Nunberg passed away before he could make a sequel which would have been much appreciated given the current climate.
“Talking Right” is a political linguistics book on how the Republican Party in the United States uses its rhetoric in terms of race, class, economics, religion and “traditional values” by hijacking words like “patriotism,” “liberalism,” “freedom” and even “people of faith” whilst discussing the right’s attitudes towards big business, the liberal elite and the liberal media.
This book was published in 2006 so it is a little out of date (very weird to think that 15 years ago is out of date), but Nunberg uses this book to reflect upon the political lexicon of the republicans surrounding the 2004 election whilst tackling the rhetoric of modern American political jargon that the republicans have been spitting out since the Nixon Administration (though he does go back further when necessary).
Nunberg also explores the reasons why the left has a difficult time opposing Republican language since the Democrats don’t seem to have one of their own, and when they do, it’s not the best.
Over all, this book took me a while to get through because it is a lot to take in at once. However, this book is very informative and reflective about how to perceive the Republican Party’s rhetoric today as it allows its reader to grasp how the party has come to this point. Unfortunately, Nunberg passed away before he could make a sequel which would have been much appreciated given the current climate.
March 13, 2022
How everyday political vocabulary has changed with trigger words being used so that the
meaning is emphasized negatively, unpatriotically, un-American. etc.
The words become code to put the opponent in a bad light.
Americans think of themselves as pre-rich. &* * *
Americans all expect to be rich someday and anyway, they don't care about having a lot of money. p 59
Class (an illusion sought) Class is about what one drives, and where one shops and how one prays, and only secondarily about the work one does or the income one makes. p. 60
e. g. you're going to get into the overpriced coffee habit. p. 67
Concern about truth goes by the wayside and the concern is what labels can be assumed on one hand or projected on the other to give an idea to fit the raising or lowering of repute.
Logic does not matter only appearance.
meaning is emphasized negatively, unpatriotically, un-American. etc.
The words become code to put the opponent in a bad light.
Americans think of themselves as pre-rich. &* * *
Americans all expect to be rich someday and anyway, they don't care about having a lot of money. p 59
Class (an illusion sought) Class is about what one drives, and where one shops and how one prays, and only secondarily about the work one does or the income one makes. p. 60
e. g. you're going to get into the overpriced coffee habit. p. 67
Concern about truth goes by the wayside and the concern is what labels can be assumed on one hand or projected on the other to give an idea to fit the raising or lowering of repute.
Logic does not matter only appearance.
Read
October 14, 2011Though weirdly dated in some respects (Nunberg refers to the "I-Pod", for example, with that punctuation), the call that this book makes for a liberal narrative that can match the conservative narrative of everyday, honest, pious Americans vs. "elitist" unpatriotic liberals is absolutely up-to-the-minute. And there's some reason to think that the developing language of the "99%" is capable of providing such a narrative, comparable to Clinton's picture of people who "work hard and play by the rules" but who still "get the shaft". And Nunberg's diagnosis of the conservative rhetorical strategy of characterizing their opponents as some variety of "elites" is present in their description of the OWS protestors as "bored trust fund kids" (Limbaugh, grabbed from someone's FB feed).
One benefit of reading the book is you get a collection of the best zingers from David Brooks without actually having to read his column. For example, Brooks is describing "Latte Liberals" who spend $3 for a cup of coffee because (1) they are uncomfortable with conspicuous consumption because they care about the plight of the poor and yet (2) they have a bunch of money they need to spend:
"So their dilemma is how to spend money in a way that won't make them look like vulgar Republicans. One way is to spend extravagantly on things that used to be cheap, like coffee, bread, water and casual clothes. That way they don't look like Donald Trump, just upscale graduate students" (quoted on pp. 67-68).
Also worth noting is something that Nunberg mentions called the Claritas/Prizm system of classifying "geo-demographic clusters" for marketing purposes. It divides the country up into 66 categories based on the type of neighborhood you live in. It's entertaining to find which category you belong to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claritas...
One benefit of reading the book is you get a collection of the best zingers from David Brooks without actually having to read his column. For example, Brooks is describing "Latte Liberals" who spend $3 for a cup of coffee because (1) they are uncomfortable with conspicuous consumption because they care about the plight of the poor and yet (2) they have a bunch of money they need to spend:
"So their dilemma is how to spend money in a way that won't make them look like vulgar Republicans. One way is to spend extravagantly on things that used to be cheap, like coffee, bread, water and casual clothes. That way they don't look like Donald Trump, just upscale graduate students" (quoted on pp. 67-68).
Also worth noting is something that Nunberg mentions called the Claritas/Prizm system of classifying "geo-demographic clusters" for marketing purposes. It divides the country up into 66 categories based on the type of neighborhood you live in. It's entertaining to find which category you belong to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claritas...
February 26, 2008
Tell me a story, Nunberg says. His ultimate argument, written and supported well, is that conservatives have woven this narrative in which liberals are these elitist snobs who are trying to put a gay marriage in every pot and kill all the babie they can get their hands on, resulting in the downward spiral of Western Civilization. Nunberg shows through careful analysis how this narrative is actually accepted even by liberals and the mainstream media despite its being demonstrably false.
In order to make leftist political ideas as reasonable and common sensical as they were in the days of FDR what is needed, he says is an alternative narrative where the elites are greedy lords of capital giving the working man the shaft courtesy of the GOP. Democrats seek to protect and advnace the interests of those who are working hard and playing by the rules.
It's a good story. More importantly, a true one.
In order to make leftist political ideas as reasonable and common sensical as they were in the days of FDR what is needed, he says is an alternative narrative where the elites are greedy lords of capital giving the working man the shaft courtesy of the GOP. Democrats seek to protect and advnace the interests of those who are working hard and playing by the rules.
It's a good story. More importantly, a true one.
Read
August 5, 2008Written from a liberal political perpsective, the book explores how the right has used language to further its agenda. Nunberg made some great points, and his statistics about word usage were really intresting. But I found that some of his reasoning was flawed. The book was something of a liberal manifesto, so I guess it was okay that he wasn't balanced in his approach. But the book made me want to stand up for conservatism - even though I usually consider myself to be every so slightly left-of-center politically!
December 11, 2011
When I purchased this book at the time it was released, it seemed more insghtful and relevent. This is not to say the book is any less valued at this point, but either through exposure, my own political education in the tiem since buying it, or because of the evolution of politics in general, voters and the media are far more savvy to the things written about in this book. Just the same, its always a good refresher to pour through and remain sharp on spin.
January 13, 2009
"Talking Right" is a scholarly narrative that details the nuances of political discourse. I had no idea that Democrats were losing the War of Words. I always feel like a winner. Just kidding. :) It really is an entertaining and thought-provoking book.
January 8, 2016
Basically a concession that conversatives have done a better job of using language and branding for propaganda and a challenge to liberals to reclaim the langauge of debate rather than engaging conservatives using their own deeply loaded terms.
April 21, 2013
A bit dated, but still helpful for understanding how Republicans have controlled the political dialogue for the past forty years. It seemed to me, however, that he could have spent more pages telling what to do to overcome it and perhaps a bit fewer pages describing the problem.
September 12, 2007
Even though I am a democrat I also admit that they aren't very good at campaigning unfortunately.
Want to read
August 8, 2007Oops. I just cleared out my review, because I realized I was thinking of a different book by Nunberg. Never mind...
January 17, 2008
01/17/08
February 2, 2008
Really interesting discussion of language in politics and america.
December 21, 2008
Leaves a lot to be desired. Read God's Politics instead.
June 10, 2010
It was extremely applicable, then Obama got elected. Looking at it retrospectively, you can see how much the book is dated. We'll see how things look in 2012
September 11, 2010
Spoiler alert: This book is depressing.
September 22, 2012
Thought-provoking. All about the power of buzz words and how often even the most insightful and intelligent people shelve their critical-think for group-think.
January 16, 2014
I have a great respect for Geoffrey Nunberg. Even thou it is not an easy subject, the book was easy to read. Even esear then in my own language ( http://pit-online.info/mozliwosci-e-d... )
October 15, 2012
annoyingly partisan and not interesting enough.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews