Words are symbolic abstractions with which we describe and communicate our thoughts about the world and reality. Words create a Verbal World, an abstraction of reality, which of necessity includes certain characteristics while excluding others. There are different levels of abstraction to our language that we use based on the context of what is being communicated, defaulting to the highest level of abstraction unless more detail is needed. For instance, if our intent is to point out a cow in a field, we may simply say “there is a cow in the field”, without going into detail about the chemical make up of the cow, or a description of the Cow's DNA. Thus, the verbal world is NEVER a fully accurate reflection of reality – more description could always be added. Furthermore, Words, also have both a Denotative and a connotative meaning. The Denotative meaning corresponds to some external reality or idea, the connotative to all of the associations, emotional and rational, the word invokes in each individual's mind. The connotative meanings add to the inaccuracy of our communication by suggesting meanings to the listener that may or may not exist in the mind of the speaker.

As a group, Liberals loose sight of ALL these distinctions, and often treat the Word as the Thing, the Symbol as the thing Symbolized, the Verbal World as reality. The Recent attempt by PETA to rename “Fish”, “Seakittens”  is a prime example of this tendency.

"PETA thought that by renaming fish sea kittens, compassionate people who would never dream of hurting a dog or a cat might extend that sympathy to fish, or sea kittens," - PETA campaign coordinator Ashley Byrne

PETA is hoping individuals will rely exclusively on their connotative feelings about “kittens”, and never actually look at the thing being described in the real world. Those who did look at a “Seakitten” would realize it is not cute or cuddly, but wet, cold and good to eat. Nor is PETA some odd exception.

Linguist Dr. George Lakoff's book ,“Don't think of an Elephant,” is a guide to applying the same principles to various topics, using arguments based on false contexts or false definitions. He encourages Liberals to equivocate on words,confuse levels of abstraction and set up false analogies in order to set up a “frame” - a verbal world, in which Liberal positions make sense. Of course this verbal world falls apart when compared to the real, extensional world. To counter this, Lakoff warns that Liberals to never argue “outside of their frame.” Basically he advises them to deny that any other context, such as that of the real world, exists.

In his book "Language in Thought and Action", Linguist S.I. Hayakawa, describes a concept called "intensional orientation" - an over-reliance on the connotative verbal world to the exclusion of the physical. Creating such orientations is the goal of every advertiser. The whole point to to encourage consumers to buy a product based on the positive connotative meanings of words associated with the product, rather than concentrating on the denotational characteristics of the product itself.

An "intensional orientation" is characterized by

1)an unawareness of context
2)a tendency toward automatic reactions
3)Confusion of Levels of abstraction
4)Consciousness of similarities but not of differences
5)Explaining words by reference to dictionary definitions, rather than by reference to the reality a speaker is trying to communicate.

To illustrate intensional orientation, consider this article equating Obama with Lincoln.

Lincoln is revered for freeing the slaves, and putting them on an equal footing before the law. He is not exalted for being black, riding trains, raising flags, writing books or for being from Illinois. Obama has accomplished nothing as of yet, except getting elected, and he supports Affirmative Action policies directly opposed to the ideas of Martin Luther King and Lincoln. Both Obama and Lincoln were excellent word-smiths and orators, and there any real similarity between Lincoln and Obama ends. But to those suffering from “intensional orientation”, the eloquence of word-smiths gives them the power of gods – able to manufacture new realities for those who realities are based on words alone.

"Lincoln and Obama shared a loved of words, a belief that rhetoric and oratory could change people's minds, and the way they would express things, the confidence they would have in a debate - not by fiery oratory, but by a calming presence, a reasoned argument," - Rice University History Professor Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian for CBS News

Oratory does not Change minds ( unless you are intensionally  oriented) - Reasoned arguments change minds.  Lincoln's oratory was effective because he pointed to a concrete injustice, a blatant contradiction of the principles held by the Founders of the United States of America using a reasoned argument. Obama simply calls for “hope” and “change” expecting his intensionally oriented masses to never ask for specifics. There is no "reasoned argument" in his rhetoric: only attempts at Lakoff's "framing". Questions about concrete realities hold little sway or interest for the intensionally oriented Liberal, who will vote Democrat not because of their actual policies, but because they  believe, connotatively , that "Democrats" are “good, kind, peaceful, smart and right(eous)” and that he too will be “good, kind peaceful, smart and right(eous) “ if he “buys Democrat”