No Center, No Centrists
“Centrism” is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.
There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought - call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I’ve called “biconceptuals”: progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don’t form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a “center.” Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.
The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment. Protection is far more than the military, police, and fire departments. It includes consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety; social security, and other safety nets. It also includes protection from the government itself, and hence a balance of powers, openness, fundamental rights, and so on.
Empowerment include roads and bridges; public education; government-developed communications like the internet and satellite communications systems; the banking system; the SEC and institutions that make a stock market possible, and the court system, mostly about contracts and corporate law. Progressive government makes business possible. No one makes any money in this country without the progressive empowerment by government. A progressive foreign policy is not based solely, or even mainly, on the state - about the “national interest” defined as our military strength and GDP. Progressive foreign policy focuses on individual people’s interests as well as national interests: on poverty, disease, refugees, education, women’s and children’s issues, public health, and so on.
These are simply American values. The progressive movement is a patriotic American movement. People who call themselves “centrists” share progressive views on important issue areas, but have conservative views on other major issue areas. The areas vary from person to person. There is no single moral perspective, no single set of agreed upon issues.
The very idea that there is a “center” marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term “center” suggests there is a “mainstream” where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false.
The fallacy matters in terms of Democratic electoral strategy. The Democratic base consists of people who are mostly or totally progressive, just as the Republican base consists of people who are mostly or totally conservative. How does the Democratic Party as a whole, and how do Democratic candidates in particular, speak to those who are biconceptual?
I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people’s brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals.
And of course, you don’t negate or argue against the other on their framing turf - remember Don’t Think of an Elephant!
That was the winning strategy of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown is a thoroughgoing progressive who never moved one inch to the right. He talked about the issues where he agreed with his Ohio audiences - and legitimately spoke for them.
Think about Barack Obama going to Rick Warren’s megachurch and getting a standing ovation from evangelicals because he talked about the places where he agreed with them, he activated his values in them (values they already had), he came across as a man of principle, and he didn’t get in their face about where he disagreed.
The losing strategy is to move to the right, to assume with Republicans that American values are mainly conservative and that the Democratic party has to move away from its base and adopt conservative values. When you do that, you help activate conservative values in people’s brains (thus helping the other side), you offend your base (thus hurting yourself), and you give the impression that you are expressing no consistent set of values, which is true! Why should the American people trust somebody who does not have clear values, and who may be trying to deceive them about the values he and his party’s base hold?
Harold Ford is a perfect example. He just wasn’t believable as a good ole boy Tennesseean when he took conservative positions. He just didn’t seem real. The “not a real Tennesseean” ad pointed up the discomfort that Ford’s overt appeal to the right aroused in Tennessee. It was perceived as sleazy, and the “Call me, Harold” ad pointed to it as well. The ads were racist in part, but they were more than just racist. It would be hard to imagine such ads directed at Barack Obama.
Which brings me to the DLC, which Harold Ford now heads.
My colleague, Glenn W. Smith, has pointed to the DLC strategy of getting as many “swing voters” as possible and the minimum number of base voters needed to win. That is why the DLC and Rahm Emanuel argued against Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy and for a swing-state alone strategy.
The DLC has concentrated on policy wonkishness (see their 100 new policy ideas on their website) rather than values. Their concentration on laundry lists of policies rather than vision, values, and passion has not helped the Democrats electorally.
The reason the DLC has been attacking progressives, Smith argues, is that DLC members have major conservative values and are threatened by the progressive base. Some of those values are financial: Wall Street, the HMO’s and drug companies, agribusiness, developers, the oil companies, and international corporations that benefit from trade agreements, outsourcing, cheap labor abroad, and practices that harm indigenous populations but bring profits. A powerful motivation for the party has been that, if they take such positions, they, like the Republicans, can get big money contributions from Wall Street.
But there is more involved here than money. The DLC seems also to share the foreign policy idea that we should be maximizing our “national interest” - our military strength, economic wealth (measured by GDP), and global political clout (presumably coming from economic and military clout). This is opposed to a foreign policy that maximizes the well-being of people, both at home and abroad.
But worst of all, the DLC has been cowed by the conservatives. They have drunk the conservative Kool-Aid. As Harold Ford intimated in his debate with Markos Moulitsas: To win you have be a hawk on foreign policy, a social conservative on abortion and gay marriage, and not raise taxes. Nonsense.
Even worse, Ford is suggesting that those in the party who don’t hold those views say that they do. There’s a name for someone who goes against his principles to pander for votes. It’s not a nice name.
In all the commentary about that debate, an important aspect has gone without comment. Markos certainly bested Ford. But to do so, he also had to best the moderator, David Gregory, who insisted on using the conservative-tainted word “liberal.” Over and over, Markos resisted Gregory’s frames. Gregory was not using Markos’ frames and Markos insisted on his own.
It is important to stand up to the DLC, and to the idea that there is a unitary mainstream center, that they are it, and that progressives are extremists and deserve to be marginalized.
George Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics, Don’t Think of an Elephant!, Whose Freedom?, and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.
Thanks Lakoff for the info on the false “center”. Myself living in red state America, I can tell you that even the supposedly liberal voters keep clinging to the notion that “it takes a centrist for Democrats to win” yet no Republican voter will ever say that “it takes a centrist for Republicans to win”. I especially went to a black neighborhood in Newport News, VA and after talking with folks who were in love with Clinton, I asked “So what has he really done for you economically speaking? Do you really think that his support of NAFTA, deregulation, welfare ‘reform’, union busting, Big Auto cave-in, China PNTR, etc … has really pulled you out of the slums?” Interestingly, the voters snap back calling me a “rightwing hack” !!! All I did was point out the flaw that a centrist “Democrat” is no different from most Republicans when all push comes to shove but they won’t LISTEN or LEARN ! It’s going to be a long road convincing Democratic voters to fight for a real deal and not a phony sellout.
By the way, SoDaker raised an interesting point in yesterday’s article when he pointed out how useless DLC hacks such as Tim Johnson were. For the most part, Tim’s voting record is no different from John Thune’s. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Johnson losing his seat come 2008.
The politics in this country have never been a straight line spectrum. They are more like a circle, with far left and far right meeting at the bottom. They even say remarkably the same things.
I wish Lakoff had referenced Jim Hightower’s book from 1998: “There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road But Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.” I believe I bought it and read it in 1999 and heartily agreed with his arguments.
My take on the “centrist” position is that the corporate elites, for whom the DLC and Republican politicians serve as stooges, are trying to confuse the voters to adopt the important corporate elite (fascist) policy positions. Those positions include increasing corporate power and wealth, further polarizing the income distribution, feeding the military industrial complex, limiting environmental regulations, limiting consumer protection and lawsuits, and an aggressive foreign policy to use the military to acquire access to resources for the corporations.
The unimportant positions, as far as the corporations are concerned, are the social issues, primarily abortion and gay marriage. The candidates who are liberal on these positions but who take the corporate position on all the important issues, generally the DLC candidates, are labeled “moderates” or “centrists” by the corporate media.
The corporate media, and the masters of Wall Street in general, want elections to be between candidates who all take the corporate position on issues important to the corporate elites, but who disagree on the unimportant issues (unimportant to the corporate elites). As a matter of fact, a few years ago I saw Russert make that outrageous claim on “Meet the Press.” I do not remember the exact quote, but he basically said that elections are about the social issues because everyone agrees on the economic issues.
I’ve come to many of these same conclusions myself. It’s clear that left/right was always a sham. There is only freedom vs. oppression, distant vs. local ownership, autocracy vs. democracy, etc. If we must resort to dualisms, let’s at least use some which are mutually exclusive and self-evident — not those which, in practice (like left/right), lack any sort of coherrence whatsoever.
This lack of coherrence has caused both “sides” to embrace bad ideas.
Bad ideas on the so-called left: restricting the second ammendment, subsidizing or bailing out corrupted/mismanaged/unsustainable industries, restricting personal freedoms via state monopoly on authority.
Bad ideas on the so-called right: high degree of corruption & cronyism, a wasteful military economy, optional wars, restricting personal freedoms via corporo-state hybrid authority (lack of money is the “fall guy” rationale as to why someone’s freedoms are limited), blending of church and state, life as war.
One could go on forever. The progressive bottom-line, as I see it, is to maximize personal freedoms and quality of life in a utilitarian way. Literally, to seek “progress” on the things that really matter: life expectancy, health care, safeguarding old growth, clean air & water, curbing sprawl, science, alternative energy, etc. In a nutshell, it’s about putting as much distance between us and the Dark Ages as possible.
The role of government is to protect such progress (and us) against threats. Or, positively stated, to nurture such progress along.
Interesting comment, Kivals, that elections are about the social issues because “everyone agrees on the economic issues.” I’ve heard similar comments from my conservative, Republican acquaintances, but they have a slightly different point of view.
What they say is that their affiliations with the Republican party stem from social issues because “all politicians are crooks and they are all in bed with big business.” These people actually believe that the social issues promoted by so-called conservatives, including gay marriage, abortion, gun “rights,” and religion put the Republican party a notch above their democratic rivals.
What’s even more stunning to me is that they don’t particularly care if the politician is a hypocrite personally. They care much more that the agenda includes preventing gay marriage and abortion and ensuring that they are permitted to keep assault rifles without restriction (even if they don’t actually own any firearms themselves). They assure me that religion intertwined with government is fine, as long as it’s not Islam or some “far out” form of Christianity like Mormanism, so they vote for nutjobs like Santorum and other Christofascists.
It’s dizzying to keep up with the convoluted thinking, but Lakoff is absolutely correct. It’s nearly impossible to make any headway by arguing with a conservative - or radical, as I like to call them - by attacking their beliefs. It’s much better to listen and respond positively whenever possible in order to find common ground and convince them that, in fact, you agree on some of the issues. Hard to do, but effective when you can.
Thanks once again to George, who has always the much needed knack of eloquently stating what exactly it is that every single one of us know deep down, but were never told to pay attention to. Centrism is nothing more than the latest propagandistic attempt by corporate American-sponsored politicians to keep the masses unaware of what is being done in their name. It is like a full time job staying in the “center” on every issue. Have you ever had a meaningful politically conversation with someone who says, “I’m right down the middle.” They take on this attitude that they are political mystics who have seen the light and can now never be swayed one way or the other; but really they are just co-opted by meaninglessness!
Finally, I think we should take what he has said here and apply it to our equally dreadful voting behaviors. The time has come for the voting public to pay no heed to the disastrous idea of “lesser of two evils”. Just because Barack and Hillary are the “front-runners” does not mean they are the best people for the job of President. Kucinich, far and away, most closely resembles the progressive will of the people that we all have way down deep inside, where it has been continuously shunned for decades, than any other candidate. Kucinich will unquestionably get my vote. There are only two things that can sway me: If Al Gore enters the race - in which case I think it should be a Gore/Kucinich ticket - he will get my vote. Or, if Barack Obama sees the light and drops all of his pandering to the imaginary middle and speaks truth to power at all costs, I might go his way.
I don’t think I am alone in my comments. Mr. Lakoff might not totally agree with my support of Kucinich, as it is clearly not a strategic position to be in, but I think the Kucinich case makes good use of the logic Lakoff has put forth.
Lakoff’s non-linear political spectrum is an intersting metric that’s explored more here, http://www.politicalcompass.org/
When taking the test, beware of “absolutes” in the questions; otherwise, it’s quite possible to choose an answer opposite of the way you actually feel regarding the question.
Further confirmation the Death Party is bipartisan, consisting of two factions, “The DLC seems also to share the foreign policy idea that we should be maximizing our “national interest” - our military strength, economic wealth (measured by GDP), and global political clout (presumably coming from economic and military clout). This is opposed to a foreign policy that maximizes the well-being of people, both at home and abroad.”
As the MSM adheres to its corporatized frames, progressives must constantly dismiss them, correct the “host,” and hammer the proper frames home. Those of us who regularly call Talk Radio shows need to be especially mindful of this.
Letters to the editor also are great opportunities to make the very case Lakoff does.
Although one may disagree with certain aspects of Libertarians, at least consistency of ideals and ideas isn’t one of their weak points. Too bad the powers that be tainted the Lib Party by focusing on fringe elements like LaRouche. Small and least intrusive government, no foreign entanglements, free market with a level playing field, criminals of all stripes held to account, no more phony wars on drugs and terror and sex and whatnot. How is that not a solid American platform we could all support?
If only there were a pill to break the “we’re a two-party system” brainwashing… PS: “But there is more involved here than money.” No, there really isn’t.
This essay is good as far as it goes. But the references to Obama are a bit disturbing to me for what they leave out and, therefore, what they suggest.
He says of Obama, “Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.”
and
“Think about Barack Obama going to Rick Warren’s megachurch and getting a standing ovation from evangelicals because he talked about the places where he agreed with them, he activated his values in them (values they already had), he came across as a man of principle, and he didn’t get in their face about where he disagreed.”
The key phrase here is “came across.”
Obama has some progressive domestic policies, but doesn’t advocate either progressive electoral policies like proportional representation or removing money from our electoral processes, or progressive foreign policies. In fact, Obama advocates corporate, conservative, criminal, militarist, genocidal foreign policies. (See Paul Street’s superb exposé of Obama’s militaristic policies at Znet.)
What disturbs me about the two positive references to Obama in Lakoff’s article is that he implies that Obama is one of us, a progressive. He isn’t. And also, by saying Obama “came across” as a man of principle in emphasizing his agreements with the evangelical group, Lakoff fails to warn us that he actually isn’t: Obama will speak deceptively to progressives about certain of his progressive domestic policies, and thereby attempt to come across as a man of progressive principles, while he co-opts “progressive” by calling himself progressive even as he advocates empire, militarism, war crimes (attacking Pakistan and Iran), ignoring international laws, and generally fully supporting the corporate, criminal, immoral foreign policies of the current corpocracy that rules America. Let us beware of biconceptuals posing as “total” (or “true”) progressives such as Obama. Let us beware of seeing Obama as a person of principle while he tries to co-opt our identity, having already commiting war crimes by verbally threatening the attack Iran with nuclear weapons, by saying “all options are on the table” to get rid of their (actually legal and commercial) nuclear program. Let us beware of the co-opters of our identity like Obama, Edwards, Clinton and Richardson. Let’s expose them as non-progressives. Let us recognize and support those *with* our values like Kucinich.
Lackoff is wrong about his framing, often, but here he has a point. though he always talks about it with such flowery rhetoric, that folks don’t get it.
anywayz.
I’d say there’s as much myth in the idea of so-called “main stream” media. I call “mainstream” a mythical body of water.
Oh and, yeah, um, the so-called free market libertarians are also mythical!
k
RE: I DON’T BUY IT
Lakoff means well, but I don’t buy it - mainly because I don’t think the right will buy it.
Too complicated, won’t persuade right wingers or right-leaning centrists - which I take to be the main tactical purpose of this attempt to repackage political descriptive labels.
This is like…a ‘progressive DLC’ strategy to shuck labels in order to pull in the center…
I mean…I guess the above is why I usually call myself ‘progressive’ instead of ‘left wing’ - but now I wonder if that’s a mistake. If you’re going to go down, better as what you are than in a watery morass of semantic redescription…
frank1569,
Are you aware of the free rider problem? That is the situation where the society is best off if everyone does X, but any individual A is best off if everyone else does X but A does not, i.e. A is a free rider. The problem is that B sees what A is doing, and copies A, and B improves B’s position too. Then C, D … copy A also, until even the free riders are worse off than everyone was when everyone was doing X, though they are better off than those still doing X.
The free rider problem is a serious challenge for libertarianism as it is never in anyone’s interest to preserve the integrity of the market or do anything in the interest of the common good. And you do not eliminate much of the corruption we have today, as you would still have the military, and military funding is the greatest source of corruption.
The other thing Professor Lakoff said that I question is this:
“American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit.”
This ignores the long list of policies that directly, deliberately, and blatently violate basic progressive foreign policies. A progressive foreign policy is both benevolent and embracing of the global rule of law. Such policies advocate the idea that we help ourselves just as we pursue the well-being of others; and that the treaties our nation has signed, and the criteria by which we have judged other nations and their leaders are criteria by which we judge and therefore limit ourselves.
The United States government has not embraced a progressive foreign policy since they gave it serious consideration during the great debate of 1819 in the House of Representatives over the invasion of Florida. After 12 days of debate the House voted 100 to 70, on 2-8-1819 not to eliminate presidential invasions of other lands. And we continued to engage in such invasions intermittantly up to WWII, and continuously since then. The last three years the US overthrew two foreign governments: Haiti and Somalia. And we all know about Afghanistan and Iraq.
So for George Lakoff to say that “American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas . . .” ignores the entire history of US foreign policy, which has been, on a regular basis, illegal, immoral, and has caused millions of deaths of innocents and 10s of millions of injuries and suffering.
We need to see that the progressive endeavor for a progressive foreign policy requires a departure from what have been militaristic (not progressive) “American ideas” towards something entirely new in our nation’s policies: a complete rejection of the criminal pursuit of win/lose, selfish national interests, and waging the so-called “global war on terror” and the subsequent adoption of win/win benevolence and the global rule of law.
karlof1: politicalcompass.org is not non-linear, more properly it is bi-axis. It still has the old left/right fossil on the horizontal axis.
Arguably the private/public dichotomy has always been a false one in practice, possibly universally since the dawn of so-called civilization. Governments are nothing if they are not the expression of private elite power practically everywhere you care to look historically. Strip away government, and you’ve only removed one power expression of many. So the American pro-capitalist Libertarian who advocates the removal of government from economics has advocated nothing. Command decision-making authority would still be made, with full coercive capability, in the boardrooms of the Fortune-500 (if they aren’t already). The Bush administration is, itself, a good example. They aren’t “government” in the ordinary sense. They’ve anti-governed just about everything, and run the White House like a sinking corporation.
So I would submit this question to any Libertarian:
Are you for or against the “socialized” legal/justice/enforcement system we currently have? That is, if we were abolish taxes, we’d also have to get rid of the concept of public justices, public courts, public defenders, public law enforcement, etc.
So, depending on how the pro-capitalist Liberarians answer this question, they either expose themselves as a “socialism for the rich, capitalism on the poor” sort of people — or else they’re basically anarchists.
If anarchists, then the next question is this. Lacking a public court, public law enforcement system, etc. then what legal justification would a landlord have for expelling a delinquient renter, or a bank for foreclosing? Wouldn’t the renter or borrower be equally justified in taking up arms, perhaps killing his aggressor outright, and taking the apartment complex, land title, etc. over for himself? Lack a social backdrop for the claim of ownership, title, etc. it really becomes every man to himself.
So which way do Libertarians ultimately go? Socialism for the wealthy, capitalism for the poor — or anarchy and force of arms?
RE: FAKE-PROGRESSIVE OBAMA IDEAS; RIGHT WING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
Earthian August 15th, 2007 5:30 pm
Good posts.
Yea - on how Lakoff ignores foreign policy history, I think you’ve gotta take a page from the right wing playbook here and say, ‘American values is as American values does.’
Lakoff wants to be ‘positive’ and ‘inclusive’ and ‘Americanist,’ evidently. But the US is not just a set of ideas, but a country of right wing people - regardless of “the ideas the country was founded on.”
Both sides are full of contradictions. From the right wing businessperson who says she wants free markets but demands protectionist legislation for HER products, to the left-wing professor that rails about the evil of the government- only to run down on Friday and cash his paycheck from this same government. Instead of worrying about the center, I say “protect us from the fringes”. In either direction, right or left.
The people that disgust me are the so called independents. Presumably they are independent of the two party system in this country. To me, they are messing up the works in search of the most lucrative deal for themselves. Selling their vote to the highest bidders. Politics is not like a Chinese menu, where you can pick one from column A and one from column B, it is a package deal. I urge all “independents” to pick a side and do it soon before it is too late and you will never have a chance to make that choice again.
Earthian, I contemplated citing the same sentence as you, then providing a short list of “values” such as a slave is 3/5s of a human, and Indians not even that, unless taxed. Like all too many, Lakoff’s American Exceptionalism clouds his reasoning and hence his validity.
Mr Bramscher, When I taught college-level polysci, one of my main points-of-emphasis was to show how wrong the doctrinally linear politcal spectrum is, and in its place I used a rudimentary form of politicalcompass’s matrix because it was and is a good two-dimensional tool for use in a classroom. A 3-D model would work best because real people don’t occupy a particular niche 24/7/365 as they react to different stimuli. Your question is good; if answered positively, the person is rejecting Self because the Self utterly relies on the Commons being rejected. This is why corporatists/imperialists are essentially parasites, and helps explain why the elite revolted–somewhat Christopher Lasch’s thesis.
I would be interested to see where the pollitical compass is of a self-labeled centrist like hallman.
sjc_1 As an Independent and Green, I have certainly chosen a side, and I hope it’s been made clear. I’ve voted since 1974 and have NEVER sold it.
The Republicans, the DLC, the Blue Dogs, and others may have corporate money, the M$M, and whoever whatever can be bought; but each one of us is a person who can hand out fliers and talk to people. There are more workers than ceo’s and more youtubers than tv stations.
Just get out there and support your candidate. If each one of us can just do that, I believe we will make a difference.
Baska and Karlof1, thanks for your supportive and affirming comments about my criticisms of a few of Professor Lakoff’s points. I appreciate your many contributions to this CD comment forum.
I’d add that I think laying out differences *and* common ground is the most honest thing to do, unlike what Lakoff praised in Obama’s behavior. I don’t think we build trust by only telling others where we agree with them. I think many people are suspicious of such a tactic that can be seen as pandering and even deception.
That said, I must reiterate, out of respect for Lakoff and his ideas, that I think he is essentially correct with his article. I think the rejection of the metaphor of a spectrum and instead conceiving of two sets of values that operate in varying contexts is a useful and accurate description of American politics. My trust in Obama is zero. And regardless of my differences with Lakoff, he is a progressive, a fine cognitive scientist, and has completely earned my trust.
Listen to COMMON SENSE with DAN CARLIN
If the Generation X age group (and younger) really is a mostly politically independent group (as polls seem to show) then Dan Carlin really might be “The voice of a new generation”.
The 40 year-old radio talk show host has been pushing the idea that the two main political parties are part of the problem, not the solution to our governmental and societal dilemmas for more than a dozen years.
In addition to pushing his “neo-prudentist” view of things, Carlin brings history into the mix and uses it to help analyze problems and craft solutions.
Carlin broke into the television news business in Los Angeles in the late 1980’s. He’s been a television news reporter, an author, a columnist and for the last dozen years, a radio talk show host. His programs provide deep, politically independent perspective on current events and history delivered in a style that is completely unique.
“You can’t take your ears off of him”
http://www.dancarlin.com/
sjc_1 - People like you who continue to perpetuate the corrupt, 1 party with two faces, system disgust me! The democrats that you support are as corrupt as the repugs, they are bought and paid for by the same corporate masters. Your favorite candidate for POTUS billary is the worst of the lot. I will not take “sides” when there are no real choices to be had, I will not compromise my principles to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. In 2000 the repugs were able to steal the election from the Goracle because he ran a crappy campaign, but people like you blame Nader, Ha! In 2004 people like you allowed the DLC and the MSM to name that pasty faced, lack luster, no conviction, looser John Kerry. I have picked a side, and it ain’t the same side as the DLC.
***********************************KUCINICH 08********************************************
*************************************NO FEAR*********************************************
I have claimed for some time that the supposed 50 -50 split in american politics is a sham, an artificial creation of pushypollsters. An evenly divided country plays only to election fraudists. They only have to eliminate %1 of the voters and they win. America never has been evenly divided on issues or candidates. If and when they ever truly get close to %50 we need to “evangelize” %40 of the other side.
“The progressive movement is a patriotic American movement.”
Amen. People need to know that, including certain people on the left also.
My favorites are the ones who say, “I’m neither liberal or conservative. It depends on the issue.”
Yeah whatever. Then they open their mouths and turn out to be conservatives.
Eh, I don’t completely toe the line either though. In fact, I myself am put off by the left at times. And then I remember that the right has nothing to offer me.
It’s funny because I get assailed by right-wingers who call me everything from stupid to insane to eevvviill. And then I get it sometimes from people on the left, for being either too far left or not left enough. The “too far left” thing really has really struck me since I started participating in these forums. Some people on here make me look moderate.
In fact, I’ve been offended myself by some people here. But then again, I don’t know what they’ve been through and how they got to be the way they are. Hell, many righties and middle-of-the-road people can’t figure out why I’m such a malcontented little worker bee.
I remember debating someone on this one political forum (a subforum on a heavy metal site) who was accusing me of being a spoiled rebellious rich kid, since you know, they’re all supposed to be liberals. This guy claimed he lived in a trailer, and I think we were debating capitalism. He was all for it. I had to give the guy my life story. It was cool though, because I reached out to him, and got him to see my side of things. He didn’t think I had a thing in common with him aside from musical tastes. That’s what we need to do as progressives and is why I dislike the bashing of America, religion, white guys, the South, etc. that rears its ugly head here and there. Let the right be the ones to put people off.
I mean, what is the right but elitist? Think about it. How many of us will ever get into that club, let alone want to be in it? Hey, wealth-building is great, if you can afford it. And how many people can afford it?
Progress is populism. I can’t think of anyone aside from perhaps wealthy people (don’t worry, we’re not going to raze your gated communities) that would be damaged by a progressive socialized democracy. I like to think that we have the correct blueprint.
All I can see in a right-wing world is inequality and resentment, and I dunno about everyone else, but I’m sick of resenting and being resented.
“The people that disgust me are the so called independents. Presumably they are independent of the two party system in this country. To me, they are messing up the works in search of the most lucrative deal for themselves.”
sjc_1,
I’ve heard this same claptrap from too many Democrats who need a scapegoat for their party’s miserable failures. What you don’t seem to have a clue about is what Lakoff is writing about: It’s how you frame the debate. If you want people (like me) to ever come back to your side, stop insulting us with sophomoric bullshit that has no basis in logic or reason. Oh, it’s also condescending as hell!
Party pundits love political taxonomies like medieval philosophers loved to classify angels but when push comes to shove politics isn’t a board game and think-tank labels don’t mean a thing.
*There are two systems of values and modes of thought - call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have).* This may have meaning within George Lakoff’s cognitive world, but it is little more than pop-psychology in the world of contemporary politics.
Our political world is defined by our foundational political documents, the Declaration and the Constitution. The Declaration declares the equality of all men and asserts their unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution in its preamble declares that its purpose is, among other noble intents, “to provide for the general Welfare.”
The Founders enshrined two primary political values - individual liberty and social justice, even though they were slave-holding oligarchs and the electoral system they described was designed to protect their establishment of the time.
For this reason, the Constitution was amended 17 times, not including the first 10. It never was holy writ.
But it is not just “a goddam piece of paper”, either.
And here’s the rub – the US Government bears little resemblance to the political entity described in the Constitution.
The US Government is a façade, a store front for the military/corporate/congressional complex, the MC3. The two party system of Democrats and Republicans, is actually a single agency that does recruitment and propaganda work for the MC3. Demopublicans serve the establishment. They contain and suppress all non-establishment political activity and act as gate keepers for those who aspire to power within the MC3.
And here’s the supreme irony – no candidate who champions the Constitution and the Declaration will be admitted to the realm of power.
Push has come to shove, Mr. Lakoff. You are busy trying to design a new badge for progressives to wear, but what you are actually doing is recruiting for the MC3. You are trying to resurrect a progressive movement within the Demopublican system, which is like trying to plant an apple tree in Death Valley. And liked your friend, Glenn Smith, you ponder the weighty question of why the politics of this country is so conservative.
There is no true conservative politics in this country. Conservative actually means “Constitutionalist”. It doesn’t mean “anal retentive”, “stingy”, “belligerent”, or “strict”. The label assumed by GW Bush and the corporatist/bible thumping peanut gallery is meaningless. Everything GWB touches turns to shit. But the US Government turned to shit long before Bush 41 or 43. It began to stink very badly under Woodrow Wilson about 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, which destroyed the possibility that economic justice ( providing for the general Welfare) would ever be achieved.
The point is that there is no way to transform the Demopublican system because there is no Constitutional government to work with. There is only the MC3 system, which has no constitution, and bears a striking resemblance to National Socialism. The Constitution is the basis for any progressive politics in the US, yet not once in your panegyric to progressivism do you mention the foundational documents of this country. This is because you have been co-opted by the MC3 and don’t know it.
The MC3 lives in fear and loathing of the Constitution and truly constitutionalist politics.
The only way the MC3 can be defeated is by the election of a principled Executive willing and able to dismantle the MC3 apparatus and return to Constitutional principles of government such as the separation of powers. Without such a candidate, the Congress will not reassert its Constitutional prerogatives, such as Art 1, Sect 8. Without a people-based financial system, government-created money, there is no progressive politics.
The national security state must be dismantled. The CIA eliminated. The Pentagon must drop its drawers for a full inspection, ever dime must be accounted for, and overseas bases closed. A government by and for the people is a transparent government.
You are either a servant of the Constitution or chattel of the MC3 national security state.
I’m very impressed with Lakoff and cruxpuppy. Very simply, return to the fundamental ideas of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and then express progressive ideas in a campaign for public office that everyone can share. It may be the only way to regain sanity and civility in a system gone very negative and divisive. Spectrum-descriptive political labels are a simplistic farce that obscure any common ground. And cruxpuppy is right on — our current government bears little resemblance to the one described in our foundational documents. A new constitution may be in order.
Hello cruxpuppy,
Your MC3 model is excellent. A reminder that the Constitution is amended by more than Amendments–SC decisions, and ratified treaties being primary; thus for example, constitutionally the Declaration of Human Rights further extends individual liberties and further defines the relation between the state and individual/groups, and the Geneva Conventions are (idealy/legally) fundamental standards of law.
During the polarization crisis preceding the US Civil War, the 1860 election saw the rise of the Contitutional-Union Party. What you espouse, and I second, is the explicit platform of such a party be to save the Constitution and our Union from the MC3. Real Patriots must step forward to oust the false-flag turncoats. The Declaration and Constitution are just as Radical now as then, but only if they’re used as the rallying standard.
Time for a new Frame I’d say.
I think alot of people here are unable to grasp completely what Lackoff is saying. This is a short article and if your not familiar with Lackoff’s work already it would be easy to take what he is saying the wrong way from such a short article. I personaly found his book Moral Politics to be an offering that really sheds alot of insight into how people think and why they think that way. Not the end all and be all of psychology and cognitive science by any means but the human mind is a complex monster to figure out, nevertheless his insights are both fantastic and so simple and fundamental that it leaves one thinking “My god, we’re all idiots - how did we not figure this stuff out and articulate it in ancient Rome or Greece instead of having to wait until the 21st century for someone to point it out.
Combine Lackoffs insights with those in Howard Bloom’s The Lucifer Principle and I think you probably have a better picture of human psychology than you could possibly scrape together from any other sources. I’ll admit however that I am no intensive student of psychology or cognative science by any means - too into everything to be a huge expert on anything if you know what I mean.
On the other hand I applaud those who point out that Obama is nothing but another corporate schill of the false left right dichotomy. Sorry George but the guy realy is just another poser trying to spout out what he thinks the mythical “center” wants to hear though I’ll admit the guy is occasionaly eloquent enough to talk a good game on some issues. Unfortunately just because someone speaks passionately and eloquently for a an ideal or two that you agree with doesn’t mean they aren’t talking out their ass just like most policians.
Republicrats and Democans are both fools. They really are a single corporatist party that will never ultimately do anything that their respective bases realy want unless it lines the pockets of their corporate masters at the same time.
Even if we did have a true two party system I don’t understand how anybody could possibly think that this is democratic enough by any stretch of the imagination. How dare anyone tell me to I have to think one way or the other but never a third or fourth way - or god fobid MY OWN UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL way. You retarded think like us or quit voting dems are destroying this nation just as surely as the repugs are. Get a clue and quit voting for bastards that are lying to you to fill their pockets anyway.
Personaly I wouldn’t mind seeing Ron Paul as president with Mike Gravel as VP and Kucinich as secretary of defense. I don’t agree fully with any of them but as far as I can tell they seem to be the only three candidates that actually speak with some degree of honesty and therefore have NO chance of winning a nomination. Believe it or not some of us realy are left leaning progressive libertarians, social anarchists who believe in some measure of capitalism, and several other admixtures of political thought that you probably can’t even comprehend. Quit joining the “popular kids” in the club dujour and give actual independant thought a try, you might actually like it.
If you can’t offer me a real choice don’t expect me to vote. More importantly if you can’t pay enough attention to smell a lying turd when it’s waived under you nose stay home on voting day and watch American dumbass idol on tivo instead of continueing to f_*k it up for all of us. Trust me, a turd is still a turd whether it’s painted red or Blue.
Let’s start by restoring the constitution. Without that all the bickering about the relatively unimportant left/right details is just a distraction leading to our ultimate destruction and enslavement.
Time to wake up or die America. If you don’t chose the first for yourself someone else will likely choose the second for you and likely very soon. Something drastic needs to be done and soon. I can’t pretend to know exactly what that is but for god’s sake quit bleating for the same ol lies and at least help us TRY to figure it out, please, pretty please, maybe, ya think?
cruxpuppy -
right on and well said. As I just said though I think maybe you need to read deeper into Lakoff’s work to get a better idea of where he is really comming from. If you’re basing your opinion solely on this article (which is certainly not his best or most explainatory of his views) you may want to give the guy a chance with some more reading. I think his theories are quite insightful and valuable in exploring the way we think about politics.
If you are familiar with his work at a deeper level then I guess I just respectfully disagree with that part but thanks for the great post. Sometimes i wish I would take the time to write a post as cohesive and well thought out but I mostly post spur of the moment and somewhat rambling rants for no other reason than to give myself a bit of a personal release valve.
Illustrative of this article is the demise of the term ‘liberal’. Targeted by talk radio hacks, it is fast acquiring a semi-perjoritive cast even in those who have always considered themselves to be liberals. Rather than attempt to rehabilitate the use of the word…we now see ‘progressive’ as the new alternative. On a historical note, back in the 60’s, many a ‘radical’ felt the term liberal was too mainstream conservative for their taste and the term progressive arose. Now those student radical types, were they to exist, would say that the ‘progressive’ is what the ‘liberal’ was in the sixties. But what’s in a name…but a frame…to be used in the game. The right successfully redefined the word liberal and so… ‘liberals’ have been framed (lol) by the new negative framing (redefinition) of the term. Enter the…progressive.
Americans in general ARE progressive …unless you call them that. Americans do share certain attitudes and beliefs unless you point that out to them that they do. Why? Because no one knows who they are anymore. We only know how an issue is framed and we accept it and line up to one side or another accordingly. Just like we accept that the dems are different than the repubs, simply because that is how THEY (both parties) frame it in that way, despite a woeful lack of evidence to support such a distinction.
Thus if americans are in the main progressive, why don’t the dems go for the ‘progressive’ support? It isn’t only that they want the big money interests finnancial support ala the DLC etc.! Oh boy do they.
Our politicians do NOT want to rely on an active populist support, they only want the votes. They have come to RELY on big money which is less risky than relying on popularism. The art of politicians is to say what is necessary in such a way as to guarrantee that they will not have to do anything about what they have said. And we are forced to accept it barring any other alternative. Whereas big money simply expects it.
Participatory democracy scares politicians. They want to be elected of course, but not to do what the people may want. Apparently voters are too demanding…lol. Answering to big money is much neater and easier than giving the voters what they want or what you promised them. Show me the poor or working class sitting congressman? We have billionaires in government (mayors, governors and what have you). One or two wealthy candidates might make something of a popularist appeal but I gather that is frowned on. Remember the Gracchi! Yeah sure we do. Lol.
Our politicians are becoming increasingly afraid of real democracy. Our old guard congress especially sees it as a threat. They know what they haven’t done for the voters and what they have done for the big interests and see no point in rocking that boat now that they are rowing it.
We need as many new people put into congress in 08 if our democracy is to remain viable. Not only global warming is reaching a tipping point. Our democracy is too.
Gore Vidal said it best; “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently… and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”
Its the reason I’m a card carrying member of the Green Party and I also support a more “True” Democractic U.S.A. (a good example is Switzerland).
I am taking issue with the following Lakoff statements, commentary following:
“American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas - the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit.”
Actually, the founders were self-serving members of a small, elite group. The Constitution was designed to shore up their privilege, protect their interests, etc. See Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. Read Howard Zinn’s People’s History, and Lundberg’s Cracks in the Constitution.
“These are simply American values. The progressive movement is a patriotic American movement.”
This kind of statement exhibits a deeply held, entrenched, psychological and cognitive commitment to the idea of American exceptionalism, as does the previous quote, which is now permanently embedded in American culture/thought. This is major aspect of the dismal performance of both parties, justifying American imperial foreign policies, one of the reasons a war with Iran is imminent. Lakoff, as well as probably the entire Democratic party-in-government, has bought into it. Thus the reason the DLC shares the idea of “maximizing our “national interest” - our military strength, economic wealth (measured by GDP), and global political clout (presumably coming from economic and military clout).”” Obama would be a war president, too.
Other than that, I kind of agree with Lakoff’s strategy of jettisoning the political ideology labels and calling things as they are. But I DON’T agree to pandering to audiences as Obama does, hiding the views with which your audience disagrees.
Why is the 2 party system sacrosanct in America?
Lackoff says, “But they don’t form a linear scale. They are all over the place…”
Huckleberry is wrong. There is a “…50 -50 split in american politics…” It’s caused by having only 2 choices. And the choices are non-choices since both parties are indistinguishable on many issues and only fringe, nonsensical issues differentiate the 2 candidates, such as, the amount paid for a hair cut, the amount cleavage shown, the extent of their religiosity, etc.
BugsBBunny is correct in saying that almost all 2-party politicians pander so “that they [get] want the big money interests finnancial support…” Further, “Participatory democracy scares politicians. They want to be elected of course, but not to do what the people may want.” They don’t need to be responsive to voters since voters have no choice but to elect them. What’s the re-election rate for incumbents?
Cruxpuppy has some keen insight. To him/her I would say, you’re absolutely correct in your MC3 viewpoint. Although I disagree that “The only way the MC3 can be defeated is by the election of a principled Executive willing and able to dismantle the MC3 apparatus and return to Constitutional principles of government such as the separation of powers.” This won’t happen in a 2-party system.
300 million people given voice by only 2 political parties – a receipt for controlled speech and policy.
America needs multiple political parties expressing multiple views. And let the people decide.
Ideally, we should aim for a post-partisan world. While there are disagreements, and multiple good responses to most problems, I see political parties as ultimately rooted in ruling familes/mobs, competing elite interests/blocs/factions, etc. and their very existence is counter-productive. If everyone is really on the up-and-up, then they should be part of the same goal-oriented group. (I’m basing these models on the free and open source software movement, and how the social dynamics are playing out there).
So, alas, I see partisan politicking to be a great evil of our time — it provides too much cover for gross incompetence, corruption, adoption of bad ideas, etc.
Center a Metaphorical Creation
How do metaphors create? Is this metaphorism, like solipsism?
I always believed that it was a divide of the House of Commons, with the center bench reserved for the government.
The ’round’ table was meant to deny preference to anyone seated.
Is Euclid’s ‘line’ a metaphor?
I guess I’m a non-ceptualist, without a metaphor.
I intensly dislike the term “progressive”. Progressives are people that lack the character and dare I say, guts, to call themselves liberal.
The story of America is a story of class struggle. Our division is bougois and proletariat. Have nots, haves, and have mores.
“I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people’s brains play a significant role in elections.” Notice he didn’t say minds.
What a strange political culture there is in the US! In the rest of the world, the struggle is between the haves and the have-nots. In the US, the struggle - according to Mr Lakoff - is between the “nurturant” and “strict”, of which the “nurturant” should be supported according to Mr Lakoff.
Personally, I think some strictness can be valuable sometimes, so what is so wrong with strictness? It seems to me that for example the financial moral among many US Government pillars should be much stricter than it is.
Perhaps the political climate in the US should be better than it is if there were some more class-consciousness, and the struggle was conceived as between the haves and have-nots even there?