It just occurred to me that what Ned Lamont attempted today in the Wall Street Journal is a perfect example of how the tactics of George Lakoff have saturated the political left. If you want to know what I mean, start with Anthony Dick’s review of Lakoff’s latest effort, and then — if you have time — read Marc Cooper’s review of the book that catapulted Lakoff to left-wing stardom. Both writers do an excellent job of revealing the utter emptiness of Lakoff’s tap-dancing routines.

It appears Lamont is trying to learn the steps.

Spending billions of federal dollars to reinforce the public-school monopoly isn’t a big-government boondoggle; it’s a ”social investment.” And Lamont is not a tax-and-spend liberal; he’s a “fiscal conservative” because he would take the ”$250 million a day on an unprovoked war in Iraq” and spend it instead on “social investment” at home.

And this one’s a real beaut:

… I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy.

Here’s my translation from Lakoffian “WSJ-friendly” frame into English (with assists from reader Robert C. and Lamont himself):

… I believe in requiring employers to provide a comprehensive set of core benefits, and providing a reduction or postponement of taxes to small businesses that are unable to meet this new federal requirement without going bankrupt.

That’s almost the same word count, and it definitely means the same thing, but it sure sounds a whole lot worse! Of course Lamont can’t tell readers of the nation’s leading business journal what he really wants to require them to do. So he puts the same ugly picture in a new “frame” and tries to sell it again.