The statement from Ariana Huffington (in bold below) is one of the best examples of the folk theory upon which Critical Discourse Analysis is based - namely that words influence people in certain inevitable ways. It is also a good example of the sources of disaffection with the mainstream debate experienced by US conservatives as described by Alan Brinkley. Brinkley suggests that the 50s and 60s brought a liberal mindset in which no alternative to post-Roosevelt era view of the world was possible to imagine. And this same sense of inevitability of conclusion from words still permeates the left/right divide; as a result each side views each other as either incompetent or corrupt (if not outright evil) because those are the only possible explanations of why they do not agree. Lakoff explained the source of the difference well in Moral Politics but seems not to have learned his own lesson in later work.

On The Media: Transcript of "HuffPo a Go Go" (June 6, 2008) ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: I really wrote the book not really to catalog what has happened but to understand why, because I think if we're going to put an end to this dark chapter in American history, we need to understand why.

And you’re absolutely right. The 28 percent of Americans who still approve of George Bush are not going to be in any way influenced by my book. But there is another 20 percent that I do want to appeal to, and that’s the 20 percent of additional Americans who make the 48 percent that are considering voting for John McCain. If that 20 percent reads my book and at the end of it they are still thinking of voting for John McCain, they can have their money back.

BOB GARFIELD: So the answer to my question is that you wrote this book to make sure that John McCain is defeated?

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Yes.