Hot Luntz

Political Consultant Frank Luntz is arguably the most influential man in the world.  His distinguished career as a director of focus groups for the Republican Party, frequent commentator on Fox News, consultant for conservative political parties in Australia and the United Kingdom, and author is tempered with the unapologetic dishonesty of his mission and that of his company, the Word Doctors.  The Word Doctors's work is, as Luntz himself describes it, "testing language and finding words that will help (our) clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate."  In other words, Luntz is an unabashed propagandist in the grand tradition of Big Brother and Napoleon the Pig.

Frank Luntz has been particularly active at preventing necessary environmental protection legislation from even being debated by casting doubt on the issues in question and changing the terms of debate: Luntz was the man responsible for changing "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" under the Bush Administration, creating the perception that science was uncertain and the world may even be cooling down.  In a notorious 2002 memo to President Bush:

The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field." 

After this memo was released to the public by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz attempted to preserve his image by distancing himself from the Bush Administration and recommending vague policy solutions aimed towards energy independence and a cleaner environment.   In 2010, he blamed political rhetoric for stalling the debate, but declined to say that it was his political rhetoric that was responsible.

Due to Luntz's prowess at getting clients elected through deceit, his usefulness has thus far outweighed his repugnancy for the Republican Party.  On oil drilling, Luntz has had moderate success at reframing the debate as being about allowing "energy exploration," casting big oil in a heroic light.  In a 2007 interview with Terry Gross, Luntz described a focus group where he showed participants various photographs of drilling that he himself selected. Since focus groups are confidential, details were never released to the public.  As Luntz describes the results:

The public (said) after looking at the pictures, that doesn't look like my definition of drilling—it looks like my definition of exploring—then don't you think we should be calling it what people see it to be, rather than adding a political aspect to it all? 

Terry Gross responded:

Should we be calling it what it actually is, as opposed to what somebody thinks it might be? The difference between exploration and actually getting out the oil—they're two different things, aren't they?

Luntz has been reprimanded or censured by several media watchdog groups, including the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the National Council on Public Polls, and Media Matters.  In the same 2007 Terry Gross interview, Luntz redefined the term "Orwellian" as a positive thing:

To be 'Orwellian' is to speak with absolute clarity, to be succinct, to explain what the event is, to talk about what triggers something happening… and to do so without any pejorative whatsoever.

I'm dumbfounded by just how ironic this is: Luntz's body of work is so transparently hypocritical as to invite laughter; yet as the prime Republican strategist, he has been successful in reframing more than one debate, getting Bush reelected, embracing the birthers, death panels, and socialism memes to stall healthcare reform, distracting people from serious issues, and in general, at underhandedly and shamelessly manipulating public opinion through lies and deceit.  I'm reminded of Donald Draper's "It's Toasted!" Lucky Strike campaign, but Luntz's work is a thousand times more soulless, if such a thing is linguistically (or naturalistically) possible: Mad Men work to create misinformation in order to market a product that consumers may or may not choose to buy; Luntz works at creating misinformation within the public service of government, where he markets positions and falsifies ideas that are then forced on citizens.

Nevertheless, Luntz was called out by name at the Republican Retreat two weeks ago by the President. After talking about engaging in honest debate and not more politics as usual, the President closed by pointing to the fact that Frank Luntz, the very symbol of political strategism, had a front-row seat.

On fair and balanced Fox and Friends last week, Frank Luntz got a chance to respond to being called out by President Obama.  In typical fashion, he distanced himself from strategism and expressed solidarity with the President, whose vision of more problem solving through honest debate and less politicking clashes directly with Luntz's very existence.

I think it's time to take a page from the Dan Savage playbook and invite readers to submit definitions for the new slang term "Luntz," I welcome any and all suggestions. 

Comments

[Richard Grossman]

I took a Luntz just before I read this article. Now, I want to take another.

[Sean]

A Luntz: a terd that just wont flush down

[Joseph Cox]

To Lunz: When only two people are in a room and one loudly farts and then insists it wasn't them.

[Josh]

To Luntz (verb): To clog the toilet with a luntz and blame it on the guy who left before you.

Example: The cocktail party was going swimmingly until someone luntzed.

[Christopher Carr]

I remember reading a David Sedaris story about someone luntzing at a cocktail party

[Henry]

To use specious arguments and logical falacies to win a debate.

[Pete H.]

What can you say about a guy who looks at a rug like that in the mirror and then decides to go out in public? That he's not delusional? That he sees things as they are?