EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Shock Doctrines' Show the Way to Resist
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Palin Choice
The Reality of the Political Mind
This election matters because of realities-the realities of global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform.
Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.
The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be taken with the utmost seriousness.
The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.
All true, so far as we can tell.
But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of the political mind.
The Obama campaign has done this very well so far. The convention events and speeches were orchestrated both to cast light on external realities, traditional political themes, and to focus on values at once classically American and progressive: empathy, responsibility both for oneself and others, and aspiration to make things better both for oneself and the world. Obama did all this masterfully in his nomination speech, while replying to, and undercutting, the main Republican attacks.
But the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the "issues," and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind-the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.
Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with family values at the center of our discourse. There is a reason why Obama and Biden spoke so much about the family, the nurturant family, with caring fathers and the family values that Obama put front and center in his Father's day speech: empathy, responsibility and aspiration. Obama's reference in the nomination speech to "The American Family" was hardly accidental, nor were the references to the Obama and Biden families as living and fulfilling the American Dream. Real nurturance requires strength and toughness, which Obama displayed in body language and voice in his responses to McCain. The strength of the Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic thought.
The Republican strength has been mostly symbolic. The McCain campaign is well aware of how Reagan and W won-running on character: values, communication, (apparent) authenticity, trust, and identity - not issues and policies. That is how campaigns work, and symbolism is central.
Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin.
Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan's morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she is running for Sweetheart of the West.
And Palin, a member of Feminists For Life, is at the heart of the conservative feminist movement, which Ronee Schreiber has written about in her recent book, Righting Feminism. It is a powerful and growing movement that Democrats have barely paid attention to.
At the same time, Palin is masterful at the Republican game of taking the Democrats' language and reframing it-putting conservative frames to progressive words: Reform, prosperity, peace. She is also masterful at using the progressive narratives: she's from the working class, working her way up from hockey mom and the PTA to Mayor, Governor, and VP candidate. Her husband is a union member. She can say to the conservative populists that she is one of them-all the things that Obama and Biden have been saying. Bottom-up, not top-down.
Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so good at marketing. Just arguing the realities, the issues, the hard truths should be enough in times this bad, but the political mind and its response to symbolism cannot be ignored. The initial Democratic response to Palin - the response based on realities alone - indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years.
They have not learned the nature of conservative populism. A great many working-class folks are what I call "bi-conceptual," that is, they are split between conservative and progressive modes of thought. Conservative on patriotism and certain social and family issues, which they have been led to see as "moral", progressive in loving the land, living in communities of care, and practical kitchen table issues like mortgages, health care, wages, retirement, and so on.
Conservative theorists won them over in two ways: Inventing and promulgating the idea of "liberal elite" and focusing campaigns on social and family issues. They have been doing this for many years and have changed a lot of brains through repetition. Palin will appeal strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism.
What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about each other and working together for a better future-empathy, responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration. These lead to a concept of government based on protection (environmental, consumer, worker, health care, and retirement protection) and empowerment (through infrastructure, public education, the banking system, the stock market, and the courts). Nobody can achieve the American Dream or live an American lifestyle without protection and empowerment by the government. The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That is not what American democracy has ever been about.
What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values.
Our job is to bring external realities together with the reality of the political mind. Don't ignore the cognitive dimension. It is through cultural narratives, metaphors, and frames that we understand and express our ideals.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
141 Comments so far
Show AllIf Joe Biden is politically savvy and the true public servant we'd like to think he is, he will resign from the ticket as soon as Republicans nominate Sarah----saying to the world in the announcement he is doing so because it is UNFAIR to women everywhere for the "glass ceiling" election to take place without Hillary Clinton in it on one side---and he wants Barack to nominate her immediately for Democratic VP. Women deserve a choice, not merely a GOP "trick". C'mon Joe. Show us what you're made of. (You still can be a "senior" Senator)
this limited view of Palin in terms of Hillary seems typical of the so called "problem" Hillary supporters, and this article does a fair job of re-framing her selection. if a glass ceiling is what you're after you've got a great choice on two fronts in McKinney.
I disagree with Palin on nearly everything. But I am sick to death of the rampant sexism that I was not aware was still out here! Would you be asking about her "figure"and her births, etc. or if she could "take care of htekids" if she was a male?? Dont bother to post me hate mail--I've learned better than to come back with all you cowardly macho guys in here!The NEO_CONS do thsi stuff, stupidasses! Now, congratulations--youve become the neo=-liberals. What a huge disappointment
i don't get this. where is the fire?
Wiser choices for the Democrats would be Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Sen. Patty Murray, congressowoman Barbara Lee; in other words more PROGRESSIVE leftward liberal feminist women. While I disagreed with Hillary Clinton on foreign policies, I did prefer her domestic agenda to his and she would have been a brilliant tactical choice that might have led to his election (not worth much, just sayin' - a few better things on the margins but the same old same old at the right of center).
I know people that know Sarah Palin personally and she is loved by the Majority of Alaskans and according to some has around a 90% approval rating. I guess that is all you need to know about her. She may share values that are antithetical to our democracy, but unfortunately----so do many,many Americans.
Alaska has a very small population that for various reasons is not very representative of the general population.
Not to say your point is off, merely that her popularity among Alaskans is not a very strong pillar for that point to stand on.
Excellent point Matti: with every Alaskan getting around $3200.00, each in oil royalties Alaska is probably not even close to being representative of the general population.
Alaskans are a bunch of welfare queens that suck at the teat of federal funds and oil company money. Far more federal money gets spent in Alaska than is paid in taxes and then you all run around and thump your chests and declare what he-men, and ur-women you are. Sara Palin is popular because oil prices doubled and increased the fat welfare checks everyone got.
Fighting the forces of rather dim lighting wherever they may be found!!
It's more like 65%. This info is not hard to get. The majority of Americans favor health care for everybody. The majority of Americans don't favor the cops telling women what they can do with their bodies. The majority of Americans understand that the science that does such amazing things (not all positive for sure, but pretty damn effective) is the same science basically that says the earth is 4 billion years old, and dinosaurs disappeared hundreds of millions of years ago, and this majority understands that the notion that the earth was created 6000 years ago is as likely as is the existence of Santa Claus. Palin is a typical ambitious opportunist. She's just exactly where the action is these days in the Repugnacan party: extremist bible thumping nutcase, and Big Oil ass-licker.
Yeah,but that is what makes her so dangerous!
"Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism."
Did the author get that from some Democratic Party handbook of talking points? It is pure garbage. What Democrats do is look to the Republicans, and adopt their program - just look at Barack "I want to expand the war in Afghanistan" Obama's, and the Palestine hater Biden's campaign.
You have to give where credit is due - The Republicans responded clearly to their base's clamoring, the Democrats also responded to the Republican's base.
But that base (and here the article is correct) is not unswayable - and if Obama, instead of, taking on the Republican mantle of more and more war, kill more people, and screw the Palestinian. If they had taken a real patriotic stand of tying the economic down turn to the war, and the billions of $$$ going to aid nefarious regimes such as the zionist entity - they may have won over a significant enough section of that base to win the elections.
Now things are up in the air, with a good chance that the McCain/Palin ticket will demolish the old boys network of Biden/Obama. In fact, if one looks at things, it is McCain/Palin ticket that will *appear* to be a move towards change, because they *appear* and will market themselves breaking with the old boys network, while the Obama ("kill more people in Afghanistan")/Biden (more hate for Palestinians) represents a move towards more of the same.
The problem is not so much with the Democrats, as it is with the horribly short sighted liberal/progressive crowd that refuses to build any real power through voting for people with integrity, such as Nader or McKinney. And instead keep giving their hard earned money to war mongers such as Kerry and Obama. The Republican base was clear, the McCain campaign, if they did not do as demanded would not get the $$$ - and large sections of the party supporters were not going to attend the convention. But the liberals, all they care about is that they call themselves Democrats.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Thank you so much for your brilliantly articulated comment!!! (: I agree completely with you. It made my day to read such an intelligent post! (:
Namaste
another thing that the Palin choice shows is the Republican Party is not so D(umb) that they would take their christian conservative base for granted.
Governor Palin called the "left wing" reports of her faking a 2 month pregnancy while governor "lewd and utterly false".
How did the governor have a baby at age 44? How come the governor looks so trim? How come the governor lied at first about the whole incident? These three things I can see with my own eyes.
The Daily Kos goes much farther. Bristol dropped out of school for 7 straight months before the baby was due. The governor looked fit and trim until announcing 7 months into her "pregnancy" that she was pregnant. She ran "gut-wrenching" wind sprints (the governor's words). He lists evidence that goes on and on that she garnered great public adulation for carrying her fifth baby while governor, without the trouble of actually carrying the baby.
I don't care what Governor Palin calls people who question her honesty. Her vitriol is her trademark. The same goes for her troll friends.
People will say that this post is vitriol. Unfortunately it is not.
Anyone with half a brain would conclude that Palin's behavior while supposedly in her last trimester of a pregnancy that is high risk on at least two fronts (matenal age and special needs baby) is completely over the top and any doctor who would sign off on the activities she engaged in would be totally exposing him or herself to major malpractice lawsuits.
I don't for a minute believe that Bristol is pregnant now. Here is what seems to me the most logical sequence of events :
Bristol gets pregnant last fall. When her parents find out she is pulled out of school with 'mono' and a quiet, private adoption is arranged. BUT the adoptee parents want testing done on the fetus. When the tests came back showing Trisomy 21 chromosomal patterns, the adoptee parents opted out.
The decision was made to fake it. This would have been in early March, when Sarah astonished EVERYONE by announcing that she was SEVEN MONTHS pregnant and due in May. (Baby's actual due date, but teenagers are often wrong as lots of times they don't have regular periods). Her own staff was flabbergasted.
Sarah keeps running around and flying hither and yon like SuperMom.
The baby comes early and it is imperative for Sarah to return immediately from Dallas. This story is both well known and documented -- if her version of the story is true, it is hardly any better because it shows such poor judgement, not to mention risking two entire commercial flights full of people (American Airlines from Dallas to Seattle and Alaska Airlines from Seattle to Anchorage) in the event she went into delivery mode and an emergency landing had to be made someplace.
The daughter looks like a different person at the RNC in a frumpy black old ladies' frock at what should be a gala event.
She does not look like a pregnant teenager, she looks like someone who has been in hiding, had a baby, and has not yet lost the baby fat (no disrespect intended, do not know another more politically correct term). Sarah on the other hand looks as slim and glamorous as ever, not at all like a breastfeeding mother of a special needs child . . .
Please don't slam me, it's just that as a mother myself all this seems like surreal posturing to me.
And yes, it is important. Another example of our true situation :
we live in a "What you see and what you know are two different things" reality.
Give us an example of her "vitriol", please.
By the way, that photo on Daily Kos is dated wrong, it is from a year before...
This article should be required reading for every Democrat, and especially for every so-called progressive anti-Obama poster here on CD. So many anti-Obama/pro-Nader posters here, as well as mainstream Dems, utterly fail to take into account what Lakoff has written about. Elections aren't about the nitty gritty details of this policy or that. They're about symbolism and mindsets. You may not like that, but it IS true. I'd also recommend reading Thom Hartman's Cracking the Code...makes a very similar point.
The irony here is that real progressives such as Nader and McKinney ARE talking about exactly these ideas but money is more important in a corporately controlled election environment. American voters are not getting to hear all the points of view. Symbolism and mindset politics can be fine but too often it keeps a regressive insane system firmly locked in place, tyrannizing our lives, and literally ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings through pro-war policies.
The point many of us on here make is that we need to start putting together the slow work towards re-teaching american voters a different set of values that are truly empathetic, peaceful, and take down the stranglehold that money has on our politics and our lives.
Again, if every real progressive would abandon Obama and vote for McKinney or Nader who lives in a state that is not a battleground state true progressive policies would get increasingly heard and we could start to grow a movement away from the corruption and insanity of the Republican and Democratic parties.
I think you're totally right. If it looks like Obama's got a lock on my state, I will vote for Nader.
And another good idea is to change your party registration from Democrat to Independent.
Who are Mckinney and Nader running with?
Seems like this would be important to know at this point.
Nader/Gonzales... votenader.org
McKinney/Clemente gp.org
You might wish to link to the sites and read the platforms as well....Alas initiative seems on its death bed.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Nader is running with Matt Gonzalez
http://www.votenader.org/about/matt-gonzalez/
Matt Gonzalez was born in McAllen, Texas in 1965. He received a BA degree from Columbia College, Columbia University, 1987, and a JD from Stanford Law School in 1990. He worked as a deputy public defender in San Francisco from 1991-2000. In 2000 he was elected to the 11-member San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which supervises a city with a budget of $6 billion.
He is best known for having led the effort to implement Instant Run-off Voting, also known as Rank Choice Voting, in San Francisco, where it has been successfully implemented to obtain a majority outcome without the need for costly run-off elections. (It is often promoted as a solution to the “spoiler” claim.)
Additionally, Gonzalez fought to create a minimum wage in San Francisco which includes a mechanism for yearly cost of living adjustments. (Considered the highest in the country, currently the wage is $9.36 per hour)
He fought successfully to allow neighborhoods to ban chain stores through Formula Retail Legislation and supported local ethics reforms. He also led a successful ballot measure to ban the sale of naming rights to Candlestick Park (although the city sold the rights before the voters could weigh in).
In 2003 Gonzalez was elected president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. This was particularly noteworthy as he was the sole Green Party member.
In 2003, despite being outspent 8-to-1, Gonzalez came within a few per cent of being elected as Mayor of San Francisco in a close contest against Democrat Gavin Newsom, losing 53 to 47 per cent. (Only 3 per cent of San Francisco voters were registered with the Green Party at the time, and Gonzalez had to campaign against former President Bill Clinton and former vice-president Al Gore, who both made trips to San Francisco to assist Newsom.)
Gonzalez is an experienced politician who represented a district of 80,000. He was president of the Board of Supervisors during the last year of Mayor Willie Brown’s term, and served a year during Mayor Newsom’s term.
He was awarded the “Premio Bert Corona” by the California Mexican-American Political Association in 2004 and has given numerous public addresses including the Commencement Address at the San Francisco Law School in 2003; The Raven Lecture at Boalt Law School in 2004; and the Commencement Address at New College of California Law School in 2005.
Gonzalez has previously taught “Evidence” at New College of California and “Art and Politics” at the San Francisco Art Institute.
Since leaving office, Gonzalez has been practicing law in San Francisco focused mostly on defending civil rights.
-----------------------------
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Elections are what people make out of it --- Nader consistently polls 5-6% and more in some states - if the progressive activists actually moved to gain power, instead of wining about people's critique about the Obama"kill more in Afghanistan" and Biden - the anti-Palestinian dude, instead of wining, they actually organized support for Nader and/or McKinney --- the elections would very much become about issues.
It would become about - NO war in Iraq, out now - why? Because we don't like to use our tax money to kill people (period).
It would be about - Out of Afghanistan NOW - no expansion of the war, why? Because we don't want our tax money used to kill people.
It would be about End the zionist occupation of Palestine - why? Because we don't want our tax money to be given to regimes that kill and occupy people.
And we want health care, education, and more. This is the real sentiment of a very large segment of US society, the problem is that the liberals are in cahoots with the imperialist Democratic Party, and will not learn to take a stand, instead will come up with useless excuses and half baked notions to vote for a war monger.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
Right-on musawwir. Nice analysis on your website too.
Hey! Lakoff: Palin did not REFUSE to have an abortion. She CHOSE not to have an abortion. Wait, nevermind. I just read it again and realize you "framed" it the conservative way.
During the reign of Bush, everyone (Repugs and Dems) all looked and acted Republican to me. What makes anybody think it’s gonna be different after the election? On top of that, almost all politicians lie to get the votes anyway.
Long live AIPAC, the power mover. Long live military-industrial-Congress complex. Long live the Diebold machines and the fake democracy. The show must go on. Whether you want it or not, one of the two they have selected for you to VOTE (!) would get the White House, and as always, there just ain’t nothing you can do about it. Truer words were never spoken.
The symbolism that you say Palin represents doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Skinning animals doesn't necessarily mean you are tough. It could mean you'll do anything to please males, including entering beauty contests and having more children than you can care for.
Her Evangelical roots also point in the direction of having others do her thinking for her.
It seems to me that having two teenage pregnancies in the family is evidence of carelessness and neglect.
The hollow symbolism that Palin represents could easily collapse if the Democrats took time out from stuffing their own pockets and launched a reality campaign. Instead they constantly cave in to the manufactured reality of the GOP and try and beat them on their own shaky ground.
Truth has a resonance that transcends hypocrisy and self serving pandering. Sadly, neither Party is offering any.
I'm not sure where this skinning her kill bigotism comes in, but if you who are disturbed by this are meat eaters and let the skinning happen in the mega slaughter houses, or by paying your local organic meat grower to slaughter and skin for the meat you eat, i'd say you've done a good job of letting someone else do the dirty work for you while you live in your ivory tower, unstained by blood.
If these comments are coming from vegetarians and vegans, well I'm sorry but for those of us who choose meat as a food source, skinning animals is par for the course, I'm not sure if this ongoing attack against meat eaters who know what it takes to eat meat by the well meaning left is very tactful, or what it's intent is.
This is an excellent article. Palin is in every way an ideologue and should be exposed for the dangerous reproduction of the Bush/Cheney model that she and John McCain are.
Of course!
In the above article George Lakoff writes:
"The (Democratic) convention events and speeches were orchestrated both to cast light on external realities, traditional political themes, and to focus on values at once classically American and progressive: empathy, responsibility both for oneself and others, and aspiration to make things better both for oneself and the world. Obama did all this masterfully in his nomination speech, while replying to, and undercutting, the main Republican attacks."
Mr. Lakoff seems to have forgotten that during the primaries Obama ran as a peace candidate, only to have lurched to the right immediately after he captured the nomination from Hillary Clinton.
Then, trailing in the polls, he quickly "tacked left,” realizing that he had, as the expression goes, "alienated his base."
This may be smart on Obama's part, it may be "realpolitik," i.e., the way the game is played -- but it's also an indication that Obama, if elected, won't do anything fundamental to reform an essentially corrupt political system.
Move to the left, then move to the right, then move back to the left. … This may be "politically astute," but it's also ethically bankrupt. It simply guarantees more of the same.
Moreover, how do we know that Obama, if elected, won't move back to the right?
"This may be smart on Obama's part, it may be "realpolitik," i.e., the way the game is played -- but it's also an indication that Obama, if elected, won't do anything fundamental to reform an essentially corrupt political system.
Move to the left, then move to the right, then move back to the left. … This may be "politically astute," but it's also ethically bankrupt. It simply guarantees more of the same.
Moreover, how do we know that Obama, if elected, won't move back to the right?"
No one can know with certainty what he'll do when he gets in.
You offer a lot of criticism but little else. What would you have us do?
who was it that commented 'you gotta dance with who brung ya'?
I think we might expect a very bizarre contortion from left to right, right to left,
If things continue on as they are, very exhausting, minus much accomplishment, I feel sorry for him if this is the case, and am sure he will deserve a long vacation, golfing or something to recover if he becomes our next president.
In the above article, Mr. Lakoff writes: "What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities."
Are you serious? Ideals?!
-- Is Mr. Lakoff aware of Obama's willingness to invade Pakistan, invade Iran, escalate the war in Afghanistan, and keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely? … With no weapons "off the table" – meaning, the possible use of nuclear weapons.
-- Is Mr. Lakoff aware that the Iraqi War is costing the American public $15 billion dollars a month, and the Iraqi people over 1 million lives. See the following http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/
-- Is Mr. Lakoff aware that Barack Obama wants to *increase* the Pentagon budget -- a budget now totaling over $500 billion a year?
-- Is Mr. Lakoff aware that in 2006 Obama went out of his way to campaign for Joe Lieberman -- favoring Lieberman over the liberal Democrat, Ned Lamont?
-- Is Mr. Lakoff aware that Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $450 billion. See http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
-- Is Mr. Lakoff aware that Obama voted to confirm Condeleeeza Rice, as well as a host of other Bush nominees?
-- Is Mr. Lakoff aware that Obama voted for the F.I.S.A. bill – after vowing not to?
-- Is Mr. Lakoff aware that Obama voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act?
-- Is Mr. Lakoff aware that many right-wing supporters were *delighted* with Barack Obama’s post-primary lurch to the right. So delighted was the "Wall Street Journal" -- whose editorial board generally reflects not just the right-wing but the right-wing within the Bush administration -- so delighted was the "Wall Street Journal"with Obama's lurch to the right that on July 2, 2008, they published an editorial entitled "Bush's Third Term." In it, they gloatingly stated: "“Maybe he (Obama) is worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate running for it (Bush's third term).”
Ideals? Ideals??? ... Yeah, corporate ideals. ... Imperialist ideals. ... Duopolistic ideals. ... Politically opportunistic ideals. ... Wall Street Journal ideals.
But then again, all those phrases are oxymorons, aren't they?
How clever Barack Obama is that there are people out there who actually believe he's a progressive. What a politician! He's the envy of every corporate-financed, corporate-owned political hack in the country. One can see them literally *drooling* over his uncanny ability to fool the public.
The truth is: Barack Obama is *not* a progressive. So get over it, Obama-rationalizers. Barack Obama has more corporate money behind him than McCain does and than Hillary did. Do you think he got all those corporate millions because he's a political idealist; or do you think Corporate America "made an investment in him" -- this Slick Willie clone, this smooth-talking corporate mouthpiece who ... plays the game so well.
Since when does Corporate America back progressive ideals and political idealists? Come on, Obama-rationalizers, cut the crap. Reality beckons.
To reiterate what Mr. Lakoff wrote in the above article: "What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities."
By all means, Mr. Lakoff, vote your ideals. Vote for progressive ideals and vote for meaningful changes. ... In short, vote your conscience. ... But, please, don't pretend that progressive ideals and meaningful change are compatible with what Barack Obama stands for. Barack Obama isn't part of the solution, he's part of the problem.
And no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
You are speaking on the subject of reason and truth.
Mr. Lakoff is speaking on political manipulation of reason for personal agenda's and bending the truth to meet these ends.
Mr. Lakoff is also trying to manipulate the readers reason and bend the truth for the the party he champions and believes is the good against evil party of the day that seems to be his super frame of thought.
I don't think he does very well, especially considering his super frame, though I think that the winner of the day will be the group that does the best in this arena.
Well said wsws.org.
The dems are now heading into yet another ugly defeat.
Wow. Its really unbelievable.
I'm seriously (really, seriously) wondering if its what they really want. (?)
Or are they just that incompetent?
Their congress chose not to react to what the people wanted (out of Iraq) and simply supported GWB at every turn. Every single one.
Obama lured the left and then turned and shouted "GOTCHA NOW!" & proceeded to stick us directly in the back with FISA and plans for more Warmongering.
Wow. This is incredible.
To tell you the truth I really think you're not looking at the reality that one of these two corporate party men is going to the white house.Your points are well taken but which one is closer to your ideals? whom do you totally abhor and are fearful of? do you really believe there is no difference? Is there not one ounce of feeling for this African American man who has risen so far. Did he not touch your heart at any moment of this campaign? I thought his speech at the Democratic convention was very moving. I happen to think there's a world of difference between the two. but that's just me.
So basically the author is saying you have to dumb down your political comments so the great stinking unwashed masses can understand it?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Shorten that.
Americans are idiots that have voted three times in the last thirty years for verifiable cretins. Ronald Reagan's second term and Bush twice. Even assuming the elections were stolen they calmly accepted the theft.
Victory requires that you treat them like children.
Fighting the forces of rather dim lighting wherever they may be found!!
John McCain finished fourth from the bottom in a class of about 600 at Annapolis. It would be fair to say he's not much more intelligent than George Wanker Bush. That partially explains his weird and hopefully disastrous pick for vice president. Remember that photo of McCain shamelessly embracing The Wanker at some Repimplican hoo-hah as if Bush were The Golden Prostitute who could give him four orgasms an hour? This not too many years after The Wanker dishonored both McCain and his family in 2000 in the vilest possible manner. When McCain blathers on about honor, it makes you want to hurl. Couldn't happen to a nicer gang of Repimplican wretches, pirates and killers.
It was 895 out of 899. He then wrecked three aircraft in suspicious crashes, including one which hit power lines buzzing a beach. He is as much a child of privilege as GWB, maybe even more. He would never have received flight assignments with his grades and tendencies had not his dad and grand-dad both been Admirals. He collaborated with the Viet Cong for better POW treatment, and was on Hanoi radio so often his fellow POWs called him "Songbird". He once said that he regretted this collaboration, but you'll find no evidence of it in his current propaganda, which weighs heavily on his "POW-war-hero" hype. Nor will you find how he ditched first wife for the younger and far richer Cindy. The man is egotistical, amoral, lying scum.
Quoting from an article by Donna Volatie entitled "The Obama Construct," http://www.counterpunch.org/volatile08282008.html
"McCain is a war mongering bully who is in your face; Obama, on the other hand, is a smooth talker, whose own Foreign policy positions aren't too far removed from McCain's and one has to wonder which is worse, or indeed if there really is any difference at all. (The idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, McCain being the more evil, according to Obama supporters, seems ludicrous given that both of these candidates will ultimately do the bidding of their masters and the master plan is the same for both parties. This should be quite apparent by now and if it isn't, well, by all means vote for Obama and reap your just rewards...Do you really think 'Obomba's' idea of war will be kinder and gentler than McCain's?...)
"Obama supporters will tell you “but he's honest and so sincere”, and “he's run a clean campaign” or “he's one of us” (that one always gets me) but they remain blinded to what is obvious to many on the radical left and many on the traditional conservative/libertarian right: Obama is a player and he is playing the game of the global elitists.
"Since he has all but secured his party's nomination, he's becoming more militaristic by the minute, in both tone and by his stance on several key Foreign policy issues.
"Obama and his VP Choice, Senator Biden, however, are not the crux of the problem but rather the mainstream voters are the problem as they continue to enable the corrupt two party system by consistently supporting the candidates being foisted upon them by controllers who select them in the first place and who are reinforced by the mainstream media machine in the second. These are not choices, these are lack of choices and if voters continue to participate in this sham, then they truly get what they deserve!
"With Obama supporters, the phrase “blinded by the light” takes on a whole new meaning. What part don't you get?! (This is the party threatening to place demonstrators at the DNC in recently erected detention camps and the party whose House majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, ridicules the anti-war movement and the homeless: “If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they'd be arrested for loitering but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment.” Funny how both parties get upset over that whole free speech thing...)
"What is most stunning about delusional Obama supporters is, when confronted by the aforementioned facts about Obama, they counter with this inane idea that Obama is only “saying” these things, he doesn't really mean them, it's only to get elected and once he gets elected the true altruistic essence of the man will save us all from tyranny! (Can we say reality check?!)
"Their indefensible support of this double talker is beyond comprehension. ...
"If you want to help put a stop to the rigged election game, if you really want to make a difference and you want your voice of disapproval to be heard, then VOTE! Vote for ANYBODY but the two buffoons, who have been pre-selected for you by the global elitist machine. Send a message, loud and clear: We refuse your choices.
"Vote Nader, vote McKinney, vote Ron Paul, vote Bob Barr, write in a vote, do whatever but don't support the corrupt system. Commit to a protest vote. Vote your conscience, do not vote under the “lesser of two-evils” threat because then YOU are part of the problem, not part of the possible solution. (We've been on this trip too many times before...From “hope and help is on the way” Kerry to Obama's constant harping on “Change We Can Believe In”, you have been sold a bill of goods from first to last. For all of Obama's talk of change, his words and actions show quite clearly, he means more of the same...)
"For those die hard Obama supporters who refuse to see the hand writing on the wall... YOU are the problem...For those die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters, promising to vote for McCain because your war-monger wasn't the chosen one, seek psychiatric help immediately.
"And one more thing... Evil is evil, bad is bad, wrong is wrong regardless of sex, race, creed or color.
"And another thing... If you vote for Obama, you are neither liberal nor are you progressive, so let's get that straight. If you vote for Obama, you are a neoliberal, so get use to it.
"Stop making excuses, there are none and time is running out as an even larger war may be in the making.
"Get those blinders off!
"This is your wake up call!"
nice passion wsws, thank you.
keep up the work
"Obama is a player and he is playing the game of the global elitists."
True enough, but who of us in America is not? We are all complicit in our global empire. Every time you fill up your tank, or go to the mall, you're buying into the American myth. We all carry innocent blood on our hands, just by being American.
I have proudly called myself a socialist for over 30 years. And I get the criticisms of Obama, but I will support him without hesitation. There is a difference, as there are an infinite number of degrees of evil and an infinite number of degrees of danger. McCain appears to be significantly more dangerous to the future of the human race and the future of the residents of the US.
McCain and Obama are not identical computer programs. They are flesh and blood human beings, and the winner will have some input into the policies implemented and the actions taken. There is not one monolithic "they" who will be pulling the strings. Just as you know there are calculating cold-blooded creeps influencing events, you should know that such creeps also calculate in their struggles with each other, in a mess of inter-relationships, alliances, and plots of unbounded complexity.
McCain and Obama both have cold warriors giving them advice and urging confrontation with Russia. McCain also is completely in line with AIPAC, though Obama is not, maybe only 70 or 80 percent AIPAC compliant (one of his primary advisors is Brzezinski, who is an enemy of AIPAC). McCain is completely in line with the MIC, again Obama is probably 70 or 80 percent compliant. On domestic policy there are clear differences, where McCain would not only destroy SS and Medicare and what is left of the safety net, but would likely launch an all-out attack on education and try to shut down the use of the Internet for political purposes as well as ramp up domestic spying, further gutting the Bill of Rights.
But the really big difference is that McCain is an unstable, capricious, impulsive lunatic, who even frightens his Republican Senate colleagues. Long-time Republican Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi has said about McCain: "He is erratic. He is hot-headed. He loses his temper and he worries me." Given that McCain loves war and all that is attached to war (one of the few Republicans supporting Clinton in his actions against Serbia, McCain's only criticism was that Clinton was not more aggressive), and he is "erratic" and "hot-headed," how much more likely is it that he will start unnecessary wars, in which real people will die, mostly innocent people in foreign lands?
By voting for Obama one no more "feeds the beast" than by not voting for Obama, as McCain and the most degenerate elements in the Republican Party and the corporate oligarchy would not only engorge themselves on a McCain victory, but would be further empowered to corrupt the electoral process.
By golly, if we have socialists joining with liberals there may indeed be a chance to pull things out.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You have spoken what I have tried to for months now but more thoughtfully.
Vote Nader, Vote McKinney, Vote Tazak, the little green alien and have a ball but enjoy the McCain win that you fought so hard for.
"whose own Foreign policy positions aren't too far removed from McCain's"
obama voted against the Iraq war since its inception. thats pretty freakin' far in my book. i think some folks on the left should be taking some blinders off. one of those two men from the corporate party is going to occupy the House on Penn Avenue. Which one is closer to your way of thinking? Lets get really real folks.
Nope. He spoke against the war , wasn't in the senate, no vote.............lizard