September 11, 2009

The Political Mind

This post has been a while coming, but unfortunately no matter how long I wait, it refuses to take shape. It was meant to start as a review of the book Political Mind by George Lakoff, but then I wanted to comment on the recent rightwing hysteria over health care and Obama’s speech to school children, and finally I have been a bit obsessed with the charlatan quack playing a newsman on Fox, Glenn Beck.

The good part is that all these topics are related, but the difficult part is tying these three ides together without rambling and losing track of my points. In the spirit of getting started let’s begin with Lakoff:
The political divide in America is not just a material divide. Nor is it just a religious divide. Nor is it just a matter if who controls what power. The divide is located in our brains- in the ways Americans understand the world. There we find two competing modes of thought that lead to contradictory ways of governing our country, one fundamentally democratic and one fundamentally anti-democratic.
I find the simplicity of this paragraph comforting and a great place to start, because for years I have been struggling with what I perceived to be conservative ignorance and cruelty. I often found myself thinking that all human beings must have an intrinsic need for peace and community. I felt that deep down beyond politics we are all empathetic creatures who have the interests of others at heart, but what this paragraph and Lakoff’s thesis have clarified for me, is that this shared view of reality is not the case.

However simplistic it may be, Lakoff’s description of the two opposing modes of thought shed light on one simple fact:
The brain is not neutral; it is not a general-purpose device. It comes with a structure, and our understanding of the world is limited to what our brain can make sense of. Some of our thought is literal-framing experiences directly. But much of it is metaphoric and symbolic, structuring our experiences indirectly but no less powerfully. Some of our mechanisms of understanding are the same around the world. But many our not, not even in our own county and culture.

Our brains and minds work to impose specific understanding on reality, and coming to grips with that can be scary, that not everyone understands reality the same way.
I have always had a hard time understanding conservative thought because I was viewing their way of thinking strictly through my own lens of reality. Because conservative thought, is for the most part, the mirror opposite of my beliefs I have always found it difficult engaging conservatives. In short, I guess I never understood how anyone could think like that.

What Lakoff has done, in essence, is shown that the differences between the modes of thought are not simply variations or different degrees of the basic understandings of concepts like freedom, democracy, morality, America, but that they differ in fundamental ways. Simply put Progressives and Conservatives experience reality in fundamentally different ways, and this divide is what we are dealing with in the US today. These rudimentary differences are why parents will panic and keep their kids home from school, when the democratically elected president of the country they claim to love wants to speak to their children to share what basically ended up being a conservative message.

Before I continue let’s take a look at some of the basic claims Lakoff makes about the two ideologies:
Behind every progressive policy lies the single moral value: empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy.

The ethics of care shapes government. Care requires that government have two intertwined roles: protection and empowerment. Protection is more than just army, police, and fire department. It mean social security, disease control, and public health, safe food, disaster relief, health care, consume and worker protection and environmental protection.

The role of progressive government is to maximize our freedom-and protection and empowerment does just that. Protection is there to guarantee freedom from harm, from want, and from fear. Empowerment is there to maximize freedom to achieve your goals.
The conservative thought, however, as we shall see, differs greatly:
…it has a very different moral basis than progressive thought. It begins with the notion that morality is obedience to authority-assumed to be a legitimate authority who is inherently good, know right from wrong functions to protect us from evil, and has both the right and duty to use force to command obedience and fight evil. He is the “decider” Obedience to legitimate authority requires both personal responsibility and discipline, which are prime conservatives virtues. Obedience is enforced through punishment. As long as you follow the rules laid down for you, you are free to act within that order.
As the president of the Mormon church says: Obedience leads to true freedom. The more we obey revealed truth, the more we become liberated. Not to be outdone here is Rudy Giuliani: Freedom is about authority.

Lakoff:
In conservative thought, people are born bad-greedy and unscrupulous. To maximize their self-interest, they need to learn discipline, to follow rules and obey laws, and to seek wealth rationally. The market imposes discipline. It works rationally by rules and laws, and requires disciplined rational thinking. It rewards those who acquire such discipline and punishes those who do not. The market, from this perceptive, is fair and moral.
After reading these two descriptions I began to understand why I have had such a hard time relating to or even understanding conservative ideology. I do not see morality as tied to discipline or authority, but I believe the exact opposite to be true; I see morality as our ability to feel and act on our natural empathetic tendencies. I want my government to empower and protect all of its citizens. I do not want it to disappear and allow people to follow their self-interests at any costs.

This vastly differing view of morality is why the Bush years were so difficult for me to understand. The 9-11 era and subsequent conservative hijacking of American political thought was built on the foundations of, what may appear Orwellian double speak to progressives, conservative thoughts like this: Freedom is about authority.

But how have conservatives been so successful at shaping how Americans think? How are they able to force people to act in ways that are detrimental to their own good?

Lakoff claims that our brains are actually hard wired to think bi-conceptually, understand and use both progressive and conservative thinking modes, but that when we use one more than the other our synapses tighten and build stronger connections with one view overpowering the other.

Everyone thinks in both ways, but we tend to gravitate toward one or the other after our brains build bonds to one more than the other. He goes on to say that our bonds begin and grow from frames and metaphors, and one of the main metaphors that we project on our political though is the frame of family.

He outlines two models: The Strict Father Model and the Nurturing Parent. I will let him explain what he means here:



Lakoff reminds us:
The point is simple. Metaphorical though is natural. We have a Nation as Family metaphor. We have two very different idealized models of the family, which are mapped by the metaphor onto two very different views of the nation. Our modes of moral and political thought are taken from these models.

Our democracy is presently being threatened by the politics of obedience to authority the very things that democracy was invented to counteract.
I would recommend that you read this section of the book for a more comprehensive look at these ideas.

In short, the Strict Father model believes that:
Competition is crucial. It builds discipline. Without competition, without the desire to win, no one would have the incentive to be disciplined, and morality would suffer, as well as prosperity. Not everyone can win in a competition, only the most disciplined people, who are also the most morally worthy. Winning is thus a sign of being deserving, of being a good person.
And the Nurturant Parent Model believes that:
Nurturance is empathy, responsibility for oneself and others, and the strength to carry out those responsibilities….The job of parents is protection and empowerment of their children, and a dedication to community life, where people care bout and take care of each other.
I am finally starting to understand why I find conservatives thinking so cruel. The way they view reality is completely different from me. Perhaps, because I grew up in a Nurturing Parent model, or maybe because I never want my own family to follow the Strict Father model, I expect my government to empower and protect me. I want my government to allow its citizens the ability to cooperate not compete. I do not see morality as tied to authority and discipline, but rather tied to freedom and community!

Every time I try to engage conservatives in political discourse, I end up throwing my hands in the air in frustration. After reading this book I starting to understand why:
You can’t get away from contested concepts. There will always be disagreement about the meanings of our most important moral and political ideas.
So what do we do? Are we doomed to accept that half our country will always think in diametrically opposed ways as us?



We cannot negate frames. We cannot continue to argue with conservatives using their frames. We must restructure our arguments to fit our world view.

We can:
Use progressive language, ideas, images, and symbols repeatedly to activate the progressive worldview in people who have both worldviews so that the progressive mode
of thought is strengthened and the conservative mode weakened.
If you think this is somehow sinister or back handed, just remember that this is what conservatives have done in every aspect of American life since the Reagan era. It is time we reframe the debate!
A New Enlightenment comes with a new consciousness, a basic stance toward each other and the world. It requires the realization that empathy and responsibility are at the heart of the moral vision on which our democracy is based, and understanding of real reason, and a comprehension of systematic causation: of our connection to the natural world and to each other. It also demands that we cultivate empathy, responsibility, self-reflection, and a sense of connection, together with a full life based on them. As a consequence, it is an ecological consciousness in the broadest sense: empathy and systematic causation focus in our connections to each other, to all living things to the communities and institutions in which we find fulfillment and to the natural world that permits and sustains life.
We must begin to project progressive values based on empathy and interdependence rather than defend them against conservatives values based on discipline and punishment. We have entered the age of community over individual. Now all we have to do is remind the members of our communities of this fact.

This will become more and more important since:
Our lives are being governed more and more by private corporations.

The primary mission of corporations is to maximize profits of their stockholders and executives not to carry out the moral mission of protecting and empowering citizens.
This is okay if you think conservatively and believe that citizens must be able to take care of themselves because they are afraid and disciplined, but as progressives we believe that our government should be there to protect us from institutions that:
Are accountable to their stockholders and not the public. It is inevitable that when conflicts between public good and corporate profits arise, the public good suffers.
Privateering is a means of transferring wealth from ordinary taxpayers to wealthy investors, making the wealthy much wealthier, while robbing ordinary people of security and opportunity that government should provide.
Well I didn’t get to Obama or Glenn Beck, but if you have made it this far, I hope you will come back and read more soon. Before you do, however, please leave some thoughts in the comment section.

35 comments:

  1. Wonderful post, Jabiz. Lots of great ideas here. I hadn't encountered Lakoff before: you've inspired me to check him out.

    I think Lakoff hits the nail right on the head when he speaks of the two dominant modes of thought. Like you, this struck a real chord with me. It's also something I've been reflecting on recently from an evolutionary perspective following a recent piece by Robert Wright on the struggle between Darwinian self-interest (Lakoff's 'conservatives'?) and the development of compassion (Lakoff's 'progressives'?).

    Are progressives more evolved? ;)

    And these modes of thought aren't simply political, of course. Where else do they play out in our lives, in our schools?

    The notion of language is also a good one and something to which we educators need to be sensitive. I'm looking forward to reading more about this in Lakoff's book, which I'm now sure to pick up!

    For your interest, and in case others may find this useful, I often make use of the following resources when discussing language and perspectives with my students — you may have encountered them before:

    • Dave Pollard's model of the change process
    • Alan AtKisson's amoeba of culture model of social change (I often run this as a role play)
    • Dr. Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats

    Once again, great post. Lots to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post, I think you nailed it. Progressives believe people are inherently good and conservatives believe that people are inherently bad. Christianity teaches that we are all sinners and have to redeem ourselves and is very similar to conservative ideology. Progressives believe that everyone is good unless they demonstrate otherwise. Conservatives use punishment and rules to force good behavior. Progressives try to rehabilitate wrong-doers. That said, the majority of people fall somewhere in the middle of that continuum of conservatism/progressivism.

    The real issue is how can progressives use this information to advance our political agenda. Instead of digging in our heels with more progressive thinking, we need to look at the world from the eyes of a conservative. Look at what has been dominating the debate so far; ideas like "Death Panels", "Pull the plug on grandma", "Government takeover", "Obama is a socialist" (or worse, a Fascist).

    Progressives like to take the moral high ground, but I think that backfires against conservatives. They see it a "elitist" or as a way to mask the true malevolence behind what they see as a plot to take away freedoms. We need to back off of that rhetoric (as much as we like it and it appeals to us).

    Instead, we need to develop our own straight-forward talking points that get repeated over and over. Obama started to do that by saying "Eliminate pre-exisiting conditions" and "Prevent insurance companies from dropping you when you get sick." We need more catchphrases like that.

    I'm a virologist by training and the way to fight a virus is by thinking like a virus. Same thing applies here.

    As for the crazy conservatives like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, I think the way to defeat their ideology is to pay them as little attention as possible. Trying to counter their lies and exaggerations with facts is pointless. Their cult-like followers won't listen to what we have to say and I'd rather see them ignored than countered. Fighting with them only makes them cling to their crazy ideas even tighter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:23 PM

    "I have always found it difficult engaging conservatives. In short, I guess I never understood how anyone could think like that."

    Above is your comment about what you cannot understand, which is what is wrong in our society today, and destroying our country.

    I felt the need to fill you in why we think this way.

    We believe is strict adherence to rules, because almost all conservatives I know and especially me, believe in GOD. God is strict, period. The Fear of God is real, and if you do not believe this, just give yourself to the Lord, and you will find out.

    God saved me 10 years ago, and these are his rules.

    thanks,
    WKA

    ReplyDelete
  4. "We believe is strict adherence to rules, because almost all conservatives I know and especially me, believe in GOD. God is strict, period. The Fear of God is real, and if you do not believe this, just give yourself to the Lord, and you will find out." -WKA

    This sounds very much like the way some terrorists use their interpretation of Islamic beliefs to justify their actions. It's a shame that religion does this to us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The first idea out of the box - that conservatives and liberals are fundamentally different - put me in mind of Bill Whittle's essay, "Tribes." I had to go to the Wayback Machine to find it. It advances a similar idea...

    http://web.archive.org/web/20050907232436/http://www.ejectejecteject.com/

    ReplyDelete
  6. WKA, You and I may have very different ideas about God. As an Evangelical Christian, my relationship with God is not about following rules. It's about living in gratitude, knowing that he has forgiven my sins and rescued me from an eternity apart from His loving presence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the fact that this issue quickly reverted to a religious discussion is telling. I wanted to address this in the post, but I already felt the post was rambling.

    But Lakoff does mention that much of his Strict Family model is rooted in religion.

    Interesting to note that both religious commenters have mentioned god as a father, WKA as a strict father who causes fear (exactly the frame Lakoff mentions, and the other Corrie mentions god as the decider who knows best and has the "power" to clear sins etc... again matching Lakoff's description.

    This type of thinking is so different from someone like me, who not only doesn't believe in god, but sees the interdependence of life as the key to our happiness.

    I cannot believe in a lone male decider god who either loves or punishes his children, instead I see humanity as one aspect of an interdependent universe evolving toward more empathetic and compassionate beings.

    This fundamental difference will always cause major rifts in progressive and conservative thought. Beyond politics and policy, we simply view reality differently.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, we do have a different view of reality. That's important to understand.

    And in order for us to have a civil discussion, we must attempt to understand each others' view of reality. Most importantly, we must treat each others' view with respect. I have met far too many unbelievers and persons of the Left who refuse to engage in serious conversation.

    If you ridicule my beliefs as "superstition," or as Sam Harris put it, "religious bullshit," if you even hint at bringing Hitler and the Nazis into the conversation as anything other than a perfect example of the depths of human depravity, there is nothing to discuss.

    It's amusing how so many who claim to be "free thinkers" and "open-minded" and "tolerant" can use such derogatory, insulting, and abusive language towards people that they themselves admit they don't really understand!

    Yes, I know there is plenty of uncivility on both sides. But I'm not going to be a party to it.

    You see, I understand you.

    I've been an unbeliever and a liberal (the two are not synonymous). I heckled campus evangelists. I subscribed to Mother Jones - read it, too. I threw a party when James Watt resigned from Reagan's cabinet. I worked on Paul Wellstone's first campaign.

    I understand your point of view. I've been there. I've seen the world through those glasses:

    Let's all hold hands on a mountaintop and sing together "in perfect harmony" just like in that Coke commercial. Let's celebrate humanity and our inherent goodness as the epitome of existence.

    It sounds good, it really does. But it just doesn't work. I ultimately found those ideas, those promises, to be false and empty.

    There are people who will never join hands and sing on that mountaintop. They would quite literally rather die, especially if they can kill you in the process.

    On this date in particular that should be abundantly clear.

    ReplyDelete
  9. this post has become SO very meta...i mean, it's a post about how conservatives use these sweeping, metaphorical "frames" to tap into the collective narratives that are self evident, axiomatic.
    ...and then some religious fanatic makes a comment couched in uber-metaphor language (i mean, on some very basic level, isnt god the ultimate metaphor?!?) that it's almost too rich.
    what ive learned from lakoff's book is that republicans are so adept at tossing logic out the window and just spewing narratives, symbols (marxist, sadam sympathizer, soft on terrorism, etc.) and the dems go bonkers at the repubs lies and anti-intellectualism, anti logic, etc.
    ...the repubs are masters at framing everything as a "narrative" or...probably...a better word is: archetype.
    george bush: the straight shooter.
    obama: the black man your mom always warned you about.
    islam: religious extremism.
    wall street: the wealth creators.
    god: the source of ultimate morals.
    gays: anti-family values
    minorities: the reason your taxes are so high
    sarah palin: the hockey mom with common sense
    fox news: the antidote to the liberal media

    and on and on.
    one thing lakoff does well is point out there is no "people whove failed to achieve the american dream" archetype...in the way the repubs love to throw around the horatio alger, bootstrap archetype. but what about the "Willie Lomans" (wait, maybe we do have an archetype?!?).
    but you get the idea.
    xoxo

    ReplyDelete
  10. Corrie1:25 PM

    The following addresses the post up to "Before I continue..." (I TOLD you that a proper response would be long. )

    (NB: In the interest of civil discourse and mutual understanding I'm choosing to ignore inflammatory language such as "rightwing hysteria..." , and "charlatan quack..."

    Quote from Lakoff: "...two competing modes of thought that lead to contradictory ways of governing our country, one fundamentally democratic and one fundamentally anti-democratic..."

    Nice reductio, there. So, there are two camps. One is democratic (therefore presumably Good) the other is... Not. How very Manichean. I thought the idea was that individuals are, well, individuals, and that lumping people into groups (especially groups that are largely arbitrary) was ungood?

    "...for years I have been struggling with what I perceived to be conservative ignorance and cruelty."

    At least you admit that it's a perception and not undisputed reality. There is hope. After all, many conservatives struggle with their perception of liberal "ignorance and cruelty." Let's work towards common ground, shall we?

    "I often found myself thinking that all human beings must have an intrinsic need for peace and community."

    Conservatives agree, absolutely.

    However, the *means* by which we achieve "peace and community" may differ.

    Conservatives tend to believe in *equality of opportunity* - let's level the playing field, so everyone has an equal chance at success. (Success being defined as making the best of what you have - brains, talent, willingness to work, etc.)

    Leftists tend to believe in *equality of outcome* - no one has any more than anyone else, regardless of their willingness to better themselves or to contribute to the betterment of the group.

    The difference is profound.

    The conservative says, "I work, so I get to keep the results of my labor. That's fair."

    The leftist says, "I need, and you have. Give me what you have. That's fair."

    Does that mean that conservatives don't care about the poor? Much Leftist rhetoric would have you think so. But that's false. Look at the statistics of which group gives a larger percentage of income to charity - it's conservatives by a landslide. Why? The answer might be in the tendency of conservatives to be religious. The Torah, the Christian Bible, and the Q'ran all teach believers to give to the poor. Genesis points out that we are indeed our brother's keepers. Jesus taught, "Whatever you do for the poor, you do the same for me." One of the Five Pillars of Islam is charity.

    Conservatives tend to believe that taking care of the less-fortunate an individual responsibility - it's my job. Leftists tend to believe that taking care of the less-fortunate is a collective responsibility - it's the government's job.

    Here's a direct example: I know a couple of families that are experiencing tough times. Rather than pay taxes so some government functionary can crunch some numbers and decide how many ration coupons they qualify for, how about I just take them grocery shopping?

    I told you a proper response would take up a lot of space... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. cool. you took them shopping. now do some reading, and note well the govt (marxist? socialist?...which one this week?) subsidies that make your food so cheap.

    you see it as:
    repubs are religious and therefore good...look how they give money to charity cause jesus says so.

    i see it as:
    god hates fags.
    or bush: god told me to invade iraq.

    you wrote:

    The difference is profound.

    The conservative says, "I work, so I get to keep the results of my labor. That's fair."

    The leftist says, "I need, and you have. Give me what you have. That's fair."

    ---
    i write:

    the conservative says: "even though us white males control 99.9 of all powerful institutions in this country, ...affirmative action is reverse racism!"

    the leftist says: "if being gay isnt illegal, why is gay marriage illegal?"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Corrie2:41 PM

    Billieball: Just so you know, I'm actively ignoring you. Your use of deliberately pejorative language disqualifies you from the discussion, with prejudice.

    Picking up where I left off...

    Lakoff quote: "Behind every progressive policy lies the single moral value: empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy."

    Ah... telling choice of words. Empathy. Not sympathy, not compassion. Not "coming-alongside-of-you-in-your-pain" (com-passion). Not "together-we-feel-the-pain" (sym-pathy), But rather, em-pathy: "I feel your pain."

    Share the wealth, anyone?

    Again from Laskoff: The proper role of government is to "guarantee freedom from harm, from want, and from fear." Wait just a second. Let me check my copy of the Constitution... "Provide for the common defense" - ok, I'm on board with "freedom from harm" and "freedom from fear"... but! There's this phrase, "promote the general welfare." Mmmm... not exactly the same as "guarantee freedom from want." Cross-ref to the Declaration of Independence: "...pursuit of happiness..." Y'know, I don't see anywhere that the role of government is to "guarantee freedom from want."

    Here we are back at "equal opportunity" versus "equal outcomes"

    ReplyDelete
  13. okay, just cross-ref'd with constitution. ...btw, that the same one that called blacks 3/5 a man?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Blogger was giving me grief about the length of my comment so please see here

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh and one more thing Corrie I tried to view this site, or is it two:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20050907232436/http://www.ejectejecteject.com/

    http://web.archive.org/web/20050907232436/

    http://www.ejectejecteject.com/

    And they were blocked in Doha.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In reality, I think that most people are moderates. Moderates are able to come to consensus on issues, and therefore countries like the US don't tear apart at the seams. It is the extreme views that are dangerous. The question is, are the extreme views starting to take over? Is the moderate viewpoint dying out? What role is media playing in this? Is it fueling a sharp division, partly by focusing so much on the fringes of right and left wing thinking? As this divide appears to become deeper and more extreme, what will happen? And, what role will religion play? That is always an interesting factor.

    A good political leader, in my view, should take ideas from across the political spectrum, using the best ideas at the appropriate times for the appropriate reasons. I see Obama as doing that. I didn't see Bush as doing that.

    I agree with some of the ideas put forth by Lakoff, but feel that maybe it has been a bit too simplified. For the most part, I would say that political ideologies exist throughout a spectrum...not as one side compared to another side...right vs left. I just hope the moderate voice...centrists...stay in the majority. I'm a sharp leftist, but I think compromise is found within centrist thinking, where views are not so far apart.

    ReplyDelete
  17. great post "manic impressive":
    for clarity, however: lakoff agrees with you when you say "political ideologies exist throughout the spectrum"...he is only twist is that Conservatives are so much more adept at employing narratives and easy-to-digest archetypes in their framing of issues....whereas the Left is much more about facts and empiricism...and getting using reason as opposed to emotion. think Mccarthyism vs. Al G(sn)ore.

    quick note: lakoff also think it to be a MAJOR misnomer to think of left and right idealogies as something along a spectrum. i'll let jabiz, should he have time, explain why.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Corrie6:46 AM

    Jabiz,

    Excellent riposte. I salute you for extending me the benefit of the doubt. (And FWIW I don't have a problem with the idea that humans evolved. I'm just not entirely convinced that the evidence supports the hypothesis. I'm not a young-earth creationist.)

    Your list of "progressive narratives" is spot-on - those are the caricatures of the Left seen by many on the Right. I think that Manic is on to something when he speculates that the media is fanning the flames of extremism. On any political test I've ever taken, I come out as a moderate, slightly right of center.

    If it's a "near-communist ideal" for a worker to say, "I work, so I get to keep the fruits of my labors" then how can it be wrong to say, "I provide the means to build businesses and create jobs, therefore I deserve a return on my investment as a reward for my risk-taking"? What is the difference between a "worker" and an entrepeneur who happens to have an idea so big he needs to create jobs for others beside himself in order to realize it?

    "liberal cruelty" - The welfare policies of the Left, begun by FDR and expanded by LBJ, have created a permanent underclass of fatherless black males. There are more black males in prison than there are in school, and that is a direct result of Liberal welfare policies that rewarded women for not working, for being single, and for having more children. Washington DC spends more per capita than ant school district in the nation, and how are they doing?

    See also the gleeful savaging of George Bush, Sarah Palin, and just about any other public figure on the Right who is less than perfect. One might also include the liberal demand for unrestricted abortion, including so-called "late term" or "partial-birth" abortion for any reason. I include that for the sake of completeness, not to derail the overall conversation onto a single topic.

    As regards the teachings of Jesus...
    His main line was this: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." The pronouns are singular, not collective. We-each-of-us has the responsibility to treat our neighbors-as-individuals as well as we treat ourselves. Given that Jesus definition of "neighbor" was all-inclusive, that makes sense. After all, "we-all-of-us should treat all-of-us as well as we-all treat all-of-us" is rather nonsensical (at best, it's tautological).

    Jesus didn't make us-them discriminations (except as regards religious hypocrites). He came to serve all of humanity. He treated people as individuals, not as groups.

    It seems to me that it's liberals who divide people into groups. Identity politics. Blacks, women, gays, workers, etc., all are maintained as special interest groups, and the Left has a vested interest in keeping things that way. Make sure that people see themselves as part of a put-down group, an oppressed minority, under the thumb of The Man. If they ever start thinking as individuals, they may realize that it's the policies of the Left that are keeping them down. Look up Alonzo aka "machosause" aka ZoNation on YouTube and find his very first post, "Why I'm a Conservative Republican" from back during the last campaign. He explains it well.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Corrie6:47 AM

    The promise I found false and empty was the idea that people are inherently good and selfless. We aren't. Re-visit The Tragedy of the Commons or the Prisoner's Dillemma. Attempts at creating utpoian societies nearly always fail. We are inherently greedy. Evolution-wise, "Me first" has a lot of survival value when you're near the top of the food chain. (So does, "If it moves, kill it and see what it tastes like.") And quite frankly, greed has resulted in a lot of very good things. Complacency never resulted in progress.

    That's how I see it, anyway.

    As regards the Bill Whittle "Tribes" essay, DM me an email address and I'll send you a copy (unless possessing text from a government-banned website will get you in trouble with the law). 0.o

    I might eventually get to the videos...

    Billeball - please see the Thirteenth Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  20. we can battle all night long about your views on govt and society vs. progressive views on these same topics. and nothing will come of it. why? because we start from different moral centers. all progressive public policies stem from a moral belief that it's society's just duty to protect and empower its most vulnerable members (you, on the other hand, label that as identity politics). who is right? we both are, since we both have different moral compasses.
    you believe that inner city blacks are in prison because of new deal/great society policies (interesting logic, btw).
    progressives like me, however, understand the cummulative effects of institutional inequities (slavery, jim crow, military-prison-industrial complex, et. al) on the black community...and can make obvious connections.
    regarding jesus: you told us to note the singular pronoun of neighbor. okay, i just did. so we are supposed to believe that we just have one neighbor? hardly.
    also, jesus never existed. and if he did, he was a just a great dude. but no more the son of god than any other prophet. remember: we all are atheists when it comes to religions we dont believe in. corrie, you are an atheists with regards to, say, hinduism.
    but back to identity politics: go back to the constitution...who were the enfranchised members of society: landed rich white men. ...so what you see as modern identity politics, most sentient humans with morals see a movement toward inclusivity. i am sorry you feel threatened by women and blacks gaining, say, the right to vote.
    now...you are right: greed does have its upside. but it also has its downside. that where the govt comes in. why? because its a moral issue. its part of the social contract (reread locke). govt should promote AND protect the best of a market economy and protect against its most flagrant externalities. again, i know you want unfettered profit (and totalitarian capitalism) because you believe people are evil...but i dont believe people are evil (just some people).
    corrie: where is your belief in the human spirit? in the moral compass of man? in the power of BOTH the individual and the collective? how are so moved to defend palin and corporate capitalism, but not inclined to seek social justice for our most vulnerable brothers and sisters?
    now, importantly, us lefties are for progress, too. hence, the term progressives (as opposed to conservative...what could be more "complacent" than conservancy?). enjoy your life, your "me first," "profit over people" ethos. meanwhile, jabiz and i and everyone else will work toward collective, moral goals like reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere so your kids will have a future.
    your greed and egotism is only possible because of the morals and altruism of the very people and polices you detest.

    xoxo

    ReplyDelete
  21. Corrie10:03 AM

    Now that we're up to date on the comments, I'll pick up where Jabiz says (about to quote Lakoff), "The conservative thought, however, as we shall see, differs greatly:"

    Right off the bat Lakoff goes off the rails: "It begins with the notion that morality is obedience to authority..."

    No, no, and no. Again, no.

    Conservative thought is first and foremost predicated on the notion that man is free. Our Declaration of Independence puts it thusly: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That Man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution strictly limits the role of government, centralizing only those functions that are necessary to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." The Bill of Rights explicitly forbids the government to enjoin any individual's freedom to assemble, speak, write, publish, worship (or not), own weapons for self-defense, et cetera.

    In other words, the Founding Fathers gave the government absolutely as little authority as possible.

    Lakoff has made a fundamental error. He founds his argument on the false assertion that conservative thought is founded on obedience. It is not. Therefore, since his premise is false, the rest of his argument falls apart.

    But let's see what else Lakoff has to say, anyway...."Obedience to legitimate authority requires both personal responsibility and discipline, which are prime conservatives virtues. "

    I will grant that responsibility and discipline are indeed "prime conservative values" We can ignore the suppposed link from "responsibility and discipline are good" to "obedience to legitimate authority," since obedience to authority is not a fundamental conservative value.

    But this is interesting: Responsibility and discipline are prime values for the Right. They are not prime values for the Left. The prime value of the Left is empathy.

    Here's where things fall apart. Neither side *devalues* the prime values of the other. But both sides have a tendency to believe that the other side devalues their own prime value, and demonizes them for it.

    Conservatives do indeed have empathy. But empathy is not the primary driver of conservative action. We tend to urge responsibility and discipline first. If a person is truly not capable of responsibility and discipline (as opposed to just being lazy and immature), we are quite capable of empathy. (Bush was elected on a platform of "compassionate conservatism." It would have been interesting to see how that might have played out had 9/11 not intervened. And as previously stated, conservatives tend to give far more to charity.)

    Likewise, liberals do indeed value responsibility and discipline. How else would Bill Clinton and Barak Obama have gotten elected? (Some might quibble about "responsibility" vis a vis Bill's personal life, but let's not go there, ok?) But those are not the primary drivers of liberal action. Liberals lead with their hearts.

    But liberals tend to accuse conservatives of being heartless. Conservatives tend to accuse liberals of fostering irresponsibility.

    And having folks such as Lakoff equate "responsibility and discipline" with "obedience to authority" doesn't really help matters much.

    Jabiz summarized, "As the president of the Mormon church says: "Obedience leads to true freedom". The more we obey revealed truth, the more we become liberated. Not to be outdone here is Rudy Giuliani: "Freedom is about authority"."

    You left out "Arbeit Mact Frei," but I'm glad you did. :-D The president of the LDS and the former mayor of New York may speak for themselves, but don't assume that they speak for most or all conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Corrie10:04 AM

    Continuing...

    "Lakoff:

    In conservative thought, people are born bad-greedy and unscrupulous. To maximize their self-interest, they need to learn discipline, to follow rules and obey laws, and to seek wealth rationally. The market imposes discipline. It works rationally by rules and laws, and requires disciplined rational thinking. It rewards those who acquire such discipline and punishes those who do not. The market, from this perceptive, is fair and moral. "

    I like my eggs scrambled, not my logic. How do we even begin to pick this apart?

    "...people are greedy and unscrupulous" Well, yeah. That is self-evident to anyone who has spent more than a couple of hours with a toddler. You've heard the toddler's Rule of Possession, right? "If I want it, it's mine." We do indeed have to learn to share and take turns. That what Kindergarten is all about, right? - learning to get along with other people, to consider their needs as well as one's own.

    "To maximize their self-interest, they need to learn discipline," Umm, say what? B does not follow A.

    "The market imposes discipline. It works rationally by rules and laws, and requires disciplined rational thinking." Almost true. In theory, the market doesn't care whether you've had a bad day. In reality, it is driven by human emotion - fear and greed. (Not the most noble of drivers, one must admit. But fear and greed drive most human action.)

    "It rewards those who acquire such discipline and punishes those who do not." Yes. It's called natural consequences. Evolution works the same way, does it not? If you have what it takes to be successful (whatever that is) you are more likely to succeed.

    And then the car goes screaming off the rails once again: "The market, from this perceptive, is fair and moral." No, no, no, and again, no. The market is neither fair nor moral. The market often rewards those who are in the right place at the right time with the right idea: luck, if you'll have it. In the 1950's Ford pumped a zillion dollars into a new model - The Edsel. A fair market would have rewarded all that hard work. But people thought the car was ugly, and it became the 50's version of FAIL. And how can the market be moral? Morality is obedience to (or at least acknowledgement of ) an external, non-negotiable standard of right and wrong. The market obeys only the law of supply and demand, which has nought to do with right and wrong. It is completely a-moral.

    Reading a bit further, I see that Jabiz sees morality as, "our ability to feel and act on our natural empathetic tendencies". We'll discuss that in a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SqpUduG4EII/AAAAAAAACHY/J_K6No01mXk/s1600-h/tomorrow.png

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am not sure how wise it is to sit here and debate back and forth on the semantics of whether Jesus meant neighbor in a singular sense or a plural one. We could be here forever, because it is obvious that we view reality differently and see the function of government and society differently.

    Part of me is excited, because honestly, I have gained more respect for you and your views. I am impressed that you are able articulate your ideas so fluidly and with such a level head. I think the inability to present ideas in this fashion has been a determinant to both sides. I am surprised though, how someone who has obviously put a lot of thought into these ideas can take some one like Glenn Beck seriously, but I am sure you are saying the same thing about Bill Maher.

    So rather than try to hash it all out in this post, I hope we can continue to make each other think and follow each others Tweets and blog posts. I think knowing that we are both open to new ideas will help the next time we take up an issue.

    As we have done in the past, I hope we can maintain a jovial back and forth when either side posts an emotional or somewhat provocative link, and only choose the right times to delve deeper in places where we share common interests.

    I really like in the last set of comments where, it appeared that we both claimed we want our side to: believe in *equality of opportunity* - let's level the playing field,

    If we can agree that this simple act of creating opportunity for equal opportunity is a shared value, then we have a common goal. We can put every issue through this lens.

    I also think that for the sake of mutual respect it is a good idea if we start each conversation with a well-made point by the other side, as a sort of olive branch.

    I think you are right that it is detrimental to “gleeful savage George Bush, Sarah Palin, and just about any other public figure on the Right who is less than perfect.” The creation of hysteria that espouses that Conservatives are stupid and Liberals are elitist, does nothing to really address the issues of class in the US and we could be better served to stay away from these generalizations. (That is why I really think you would appreciate the book Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe Bangent) Although it can feel good and easy to rely on stereotype, let’s try for the sake of these deeper discussions not to do that. (I can’t make promises on Twitter, something I love to let off some steam and well…you know.)

    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  25. ...continued...

    Now I haven’t the energy to go through a point-by-point semantic analysis of your responses, but there were a few points that really got me thinking, so I will try to respond in the tersest way I can. Here we go:


    You said:

    If it's a "near-communist ideal" for a worker to say, "I work, so I get to keep the fruits of my labors" then how can it be wrong to say, "I provide the means to build businesses and create jobs, therefore I deserve a return on my investment as a reward for my risk-taking"? What is the difference between a "worker" and an entrepreneur who happens to have an idea so big he needs to create jobs for others beside himself in order to realize it?

    I like the idea of entrepreneurs being able to be rewarded for their risks. I agree that we are past the outdated Marxist model of physical labor as the only way to measure a person right to wealth. The problem I see is not in small business of people who need workers to realize their ideas, and who will hopefully share their profits with the people who helped them achieve their wealth, the problem as I see it is with the corporate take over of society which exploits labor as not only a by-product of wealth, but as its cause.

    I think we really examined the affects of corporations on all levels of American society; our politics would be closer than you think. The irony is that I am not a fan of Obama or the Democrats, because I see them as just another arm of the corporate state. For example I don’t think the Dems approach to a company like Monsanto, Dupont, or Pfizer will differ much from Bush. So I agree promoting small business is a valuable factor of a healthy capitalist society, but that is not the system we are involved with. We are mired in a monopolistic age of huge conglomerations of industry that not only control our governments, but all our major industries: health, media, agricultural, etc….We have privatized our lives to corporations that only respond to stock holder profits. So where do we find accountability when we as a society are wronged? I agree with you it isnot government, because through lobbying and money even our government both Dem and Rep is under the control of profit.

    So when you say: What is the difference between a "worker" and an entrepreneur who happens to have an idea so big he needs to create jobs for others beside himself. I say nothing, but my question to you is: How can workers or entrepreneurs survive and profit in a system that is designed to exploit them for wealth creation of others?

    "liberal cruelty" - The welfare policies of the Left, begun by FDR and expanded by LBJ, have created a permanent underclass of fatherless black males. There are more black males in prison than there are in school, and that is a direct result of Liberal welfare policies that rewarded women for not working, for being single, and for having more children.


    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  26. ...continued...
    As regards the teachings of Jesus...

    Funny, you said this sounds nonsensical, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

    "we-all-of-us should treat all-of-us as well as we-all treat all-of-us"

    You also said that : Jesus didn't make us-them discriminations. He came to serve all of humanity. He treated people as individuals, not as groups. Great. I am on board, I agree don’t separate people into groups serve all of humanity. Another place we agree.

    It seems to me that it's liberals who divide people into groups. Identity politics. Blacks, women, gays, workers, etc., all are maintained as special interest groups, and the Left has a vested interest in keeping things that way.

    I also agree that identity politic is a weakness of the Left. I don’t think we have a vested interests because it splinters are messages and our narratives. Simply put we want to serve all of humanity and create equal opportunity for all. Sounds quite American and Christian doesn’t it?

    Where as this type of thinking, “

    Make sure that people see themselves as part of a put-down group, an oppressed minority, under the thumb of The Man.(Insert Obama) Sounds like the tea-baggers and the Glenn Beck crowd.

    Look how easy it is to change a few words around….


    You said:

    If they ever start thinking as individuals(tea baggers and fox news crowd), they may realize that it's the policies of the Right that are keeping them down.


    You said: The promise I found false and empty was the idea that people are inherently good and selfless. We aren't.

    This is where we disagree. I think we are, or can at least evolve to be. I agree that alpha male mentality has been evolutionary successful for many species, but that is because they compete within the confines of their environments. Man has taken himself away from the interdependence where most life resides. (Partly due to religion)

    But we can by building communities based on love, trust, and empathy realize that we have more to gain by cooperating than competing.

    You said:

    Complacency never resulted in progress. Bet your definition of progress probably differs greatly from mine, and besides I don’t see the antonym of competition to be complacency, I see it as cooperation.


    You said:

    Right off the bat Lakoff goes off the rails: "It begins with the notion that morality is obedience to authority..."

    And we could split hairs here till the end of time.

    When you say:


    Conservative thought is first and foremost predicated on the notion that man is free.


    I can come right back and say:

    Progressive thought is first and foremost predicated on the notion that man is free.

    We seem to be arguing the same ideas. I am not sure how you are defining conservatism, and this could be our problem, buy you cannot argue that the majority of what is labeled as right wing conservative thought in America is not based on obedience to authority. I mean Bush call himself the Decider, and the bible is filled with passages about obedience to god, to your father etc…You may not agree, but it would not be fair of you to say that the argument Lakoff says about the idea of authority being a central tenet of conservatism is wrong.

    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  27. ...continued...



    You said:
    Lakoff has made a fundamental error. He founds his argument on the false assertion that conservative thought is founded on obedience. It is not. Therefore, since his premise is false, the rest of his argument falls apart.

    So what is it based on? If you say freedom, then we can argue that progressives hold claim to that value as well.

    I love this part of your comment:

    But this is interesting: Responsibility and discipline are prime values for the Right. They are not prime values for the Left. The prime value of the Left is empathy. (as you see it. The same way you feel that Lakoff is wrong to put too much weight in authority, I feel it is wrong to say that Progressives do not value Responsibility and discipline, we simply do not see the lack of discipline as a moral deficit.)

    YES YES YES>>>>>This is our problem on both sides:

    Here's where things fall apart. Neither side *devalues* the prime values of the other. But both sides have a tendency to believe that the other side devalues their own prime value, and demonizes them for it.

    It is here where are work must begin and continue. We must identify our prime values and work together to strengthen the ones we share and compromise on the ones we don’t!


    I have cut out the semantics and cut to the chase:

    Conservatives do indeed have empathy.
    Likewise, liberals do indeed value responsibility and discipline.
    But liberals tend to accuse conservatives of being heartless. Conservatives tend to accuse liberals of fostering irresponsibility.

    I will leave the morality of the market and inherent human greed for another discussion. I think we have made great progress here.

    Correct me if I am wrong.

    We agree that:

    Both Progressives and conservatives believe in *equality of opportunity* - let's level the playing field, and we also understand that Conservatives do indeed have empathy.
    Likewise, liberals do indeed value responsibility and discipline.

    So let us look at other issues through these lenses.

    I am very glad we are having this talk. I hope it helps you and others who may be reading. Feel free to offer a rebuttal to these comments, but I will most likely not respond as I want to move on from this post. I am sure our heads will but down the line.


    done. for now.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey Manic sorry, I didn;t respond to your comment. I am a bit fried, but I hope you will come back and read regularly at this blog so we can continue the conversation.

    In the meantime, this clip may shed some light on your comment:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaFM9CvWm-g

    ReplyDelete
  29. Corrie9:28 AM

    Glad to see that we're thrashing toward common ground. As I said to @cathycrea on Twitter, let's find a foundation we can share, so that we can build together.

    It appears that Lackoff's ideas have become moot. I reject his premises, so lets move on from our own understanding, eh?

    And I agree with the idea of "pop-corning" on the big ideas and stand-out quotes rather than creating an ever-more disjointed thread of interlinear quotes and rebuttals (been there, done that).

    When did I EVER say that I took Glenn Beck seriously? Or Rush Limbaugh? They are showmen and entertainers, and Limbaugh at least does not pretend otherwise. He's got three hours a day of airtime to fill, and he's made a mint by creating a sticky audience. He created the niche of conservative talk radio, and Beck is merely trying to follow in his footsteps. Or perhaps, be the anti-Olbermann or anti-Matthews, seeing as how they have made small fortunes by being outrageous lefties. People need to be able to see past the media, the overblown rhetoric, the "if it bleeds it leads" ratings race.

    Regarding huge multinational corps vs small businesses. I'm very glad that you support small businesses. They are real engine of the economy. They create the vast majority of jobs, worldwide.

    Regarding Big Business, I'm decidedly of two minds

    On hte one hand, my father-in-law is a GM retiree. He was never anything other than a cog in a machine. His medical benefits were cut off last year, just as he reached age 70. Nice, eh.

    On the other hand, my dad was an IBM lifer. He, too, was a cog in a machine (or perhaps more accurately, a circuit board.) Whenver the company moved us, they paid the freight. My sister got a free college education courtesy of the company (she won a national award that qualified her for a full-ride scholarship). When my mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer, Dad's boss called him in and said, "Take as much time off as you need - with pay. And, I know that you're going to have a lot of expenses." He then took out a corporate checkbook and wrote Dad out a check for ten thousand dollars - in 1964 dollars. "This is a no-interest loan. Pay it back as you can." Dad told me that story when I asked him why he had worked so hard for an impersonal Big Company.

    I fully realize my father-in-law's experience is probably more typical than my Dad's. (I wonder, though, if there might be some correlation with the fact that GM has to deal with the UAW, and IBM does not.) But Big Comanies are owned by shareholders. Anyone with the cash to spare can buy stock in any publicly-traded company (workers owing the means of production?). And yes, an individual shareholder isn't likely to effect a change in corporate policy, unless he's Warren Buffet.

    But I'm not willing to make a blanket statement that Big Corporations are Bad.

    Regarding *equality of opportunity,* here's a question that may be illuminating...

    Given the fact that some people have natural advantages due to having successful parents, is it fair for the government to take resources away from them and give those resources to persons whose parents made poor life choices?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am not sure that Lakoff’s ideas have become moot just because you reject them, but I agree that we have moved beyond those ideas. I think we are now trying to define conservative and progressive values as we see them in an attempt to find a foundation we can share, so that we can build together. Which is no small feat.

    I am excited to see that you do not take Glenn Beck seriously. I could have sworn I have see Tweets about him from you, but I could be wrong. I gained a lot of respect for you after you said:

    They are showmen and entertainers, and Limbaugh at least does not pretend otherwise. He's got three hours a day of airtime to fill, and he's made a mint by creating a sticky audience. He created the niche of conservative talk radio, and Beck is merely trying to follow in his footsteps. People need to be able to see past the media, the overblown rhetoric, the "if it bleeds it leads" ratings race.

    So the question is why aren’t more republicans denouncing these types of people who are starting to symbolize the GOP? Curious do you see Fox as Fair and Balanced? What other news outlets do you look at for news?

    See once we start talking, we really do have more in common than the big media issues. Yes, I really do support small business and agree with you when you say:

    They are real engine of the economy. They create the vast majority of jobs, worldwide.

    Absolutely, the problem is I have rarely seen republican do more than pay lip service to these business. There is simply too much money behind bigger corproartions. Don’t get me wrong, I am not defending Democrats. They are the same. I am not a democrat. I am a supporter of a third party that doesn’t exists yet. I am looking for a party that will level the playing field and put the power back in the hands of the people away from government that is controlled by corporate money.
    To be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  31. continued:


    You said,

    Big Companies are owned by shareholders. Anyone with the cash to spare can buy stock in any publicly-traded company (workers owing the means of production?). And yes, an individual shareholder isn't likely to effect a change in corporate policy, unless he's Warren Buffet.

    What you are saying is true, but in a very simplistic way. Sure anyone can buy shares in stock and in our perfect world of leveled playing fields where things like class, race, sex, etc.. play no part maybe they could, but realistically workers are put into positions of slave wages, where they much work several jobs to keep their heads above water. I am not talking victim identity politics here, I am talking about your average Joe Plumber.

    I have a lot more to say about this, but I will save it for a post.

    To be continued...I can respect the idea of not saying:

    That Big Corporations are Bad.

    But I think any talk of politics in America must include the role that major corporations play in shaping our thoughts and ideas about the society which for all intents and purposes they control.

    The problem with privatizing everything is that these companies cannot be held accountable to anyone but their stockholders. I am sure you will say that a company that denies sick people care would go out of business and the market would make sure that polluters would be run out of town, but history has show us that companies meant to make money will do just that with impunity.

    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  32. Final:


    Quick answer for now:

    Given the fact that some people have natural advantages due to having successful parents, is it fair for the government to take resources away from them and give those resources to persons whose parents made poor life choices?

    I think your terms are loaded: What do you mean by “natural advantages” and “poor life choices.” Seems like you are guiding the question to claim that wealthy people have had natural advantages and the poor have been lazy and made bad choices.

    I don’t think the government should ever “take” any resources from anyone and give them to others. But the government does have a duty to make sure that various members of society who can afford to pay their share of taxes to help empower and protect the weakest members of society. We are all in it together! Kids going to school in inner cities should not be held accountable for the “choices” their parents made. (Although growing up in a ghetto in Baltimore has not been a choice for over 200 years now.

    The wealthier members of society have an empathetic duty to make sure that the weakest members of our society have a chance to participate in America. Yes, I know this thought is anti-evolutionary (survival of the fittest) and more Christian in nature, but what can I say. Maybe we are trading roles.

    Peace to you corrie, let’s continue this conversation…

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Moved beyond" Laskoff is a good way to put it.

    I don't watch Fox, either. (Don't watch any broadcast or cable TV, actually. Huge waste of time IMO.) I get my local news from two local papers, and national and international headlines online.

    Huge transnational corporations are a fact of life. They're not going away. Thankfully, the corporate dystopia of "Rollerball" does not appear to be imminent. We still maintain some shreds of individuality despite our daily consumption of Monsanto, RJR Reynolds, Nestle', and Nike. Big corporations are amoral, yes. They exist to return value to their investors. Many of them also see tangible benefits in giving back to their communities in various ways.


    Taxes ARE a form of taking, sorry. They are not voluntary contributions. They are a penalty imposed on success. The only thing that makes them acceptable is the fact that they are voted on by a Congress which is at least somewhat responsive to the will of the people.



    I don't think that "natural advantges" and "poor life choices" are loaded terms. They're descriptive. If your parents went to Ivy League schools, pull down six-or seven-figure incomes, and have high-level political connections, doors will be held open for you.

    If you blow off school, burn out your brain cells, have a Platinum frequent-guest card with the criminal justice system, doors will be slammed in your face. Doors with bars, more than likely.

    Now then, there's a whole lot of folks in the middle. Folks that want to do better, but have a hard time getting out of the rut. Folks like Barry Obama, Billy Clinton, Colin Powell. They had ambitions beyond their modest upbringings, and strove to excel.

    Folks like my wife's buddy "Lisa." Her husband walked out leaving her with three kids. She was workig nights as a stocker in WalMart for seven bucks an hour, living in a ratty apartment in a lousy part of town. She went back to school, got an Associates degree, and is now a medical professional making more than three times what she did at WalMart. She's moved into her own home.

    Yes, she had help. Student loans and grants, scholarships funded by private donations, work-study programs. We took her grocery shopping a few times, too. :-)

    But those weren't hand-outs. They were a hand UP, and Lisa will be able to pay it forward.

    I haven't been all that happy with the GOP of late. I've been thinking about a third party, and one appears to be forming - the Tea Party. Individual liberty, government limited to its proper role, strong families, strong communities. What's not to like? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Enjoyed the post a great deal, and enjoying the back-and-forth between you and Corrie.

    The main thing that struck me about Lakoff's characterization of the conservative and progressive worldviews/mindsets/metaphorical vocabularies is that this is very old. Hobbes versus Locke would be a good way to look at this, perhaps. The US Constitution was designed to Lockean specifications, not Hobbesian ones. And yet US society has emerged as home to some powerfully Hobbesian forces, the ones that think fear is the only way to produce cooperative behaviour in society. How that happened I would love to see explained.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This may seem random, but I think it relates to the question of bad choices people's parents made....

    One perspective that has helped me hugely in my understanding of how opportunities or lack thereof shape people's realities is Ruby Payne's book Understanding Poverty. She takes a look at how generational poverty carries with it cultural differences that make it very difficult for some people to make progress in their lives.

    And a different topic: in the not-too-distant future I will post my own take on what freedom means to me. (Sounds like a bad elementary school essay assignment, doesn't it?)

    ReplyDelete