Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Obama Code
In the wake of President Obama's address to the joint session of Congress, what can we expect to hear?
The pundits will stress the nuts-and-bolts policy issues: the banking system, education, energy, health care. But beyond policy, there will be a vision of America--a moral vision and a view of unity that the pundits often miss.
What they miss is the Obama Code. For the sake of unity, the President tends to express his moral vision indirectly. Like other self-aware and highly articulate speakers, he connects with his audience using what cognitive scientists call the "cognitive unconscious." Speaking naturally, he lets his deepest ideas simply structure what he is saying. If you follow him, the deep ideas are communicated unconsciously and automatically. " The Code is his most effective way to bring the country together around fundamental American values.
For supporters of the President, it is crucial to understand the Code in order to talk overtly about the old values our new president is communicating. It is necessary because tens of millions of Americans--both conservatives and progressives--don't yet perceive the vital sea change that Obama is bringing about.
The word "code" can refer to a system of either communication or morality. President Obama has integrated the two. The Obama Code is both moral and linguistic at once. The President is using his enormous skills as a communicator to express a moral system. As he has said, budgets are moral documents. His economic program is tied to his moral system and is discussed in the Code, as are just about all of his other policies.
Behind the Obama Code are seven crucial intellectual moves that I believe are historically, practically, and cognitively appropriate, as well as politically astute. They are not all obvious, and jointly they may seem mysterious. That is why it is worth sorting them out one-by-one.
1. Values Over Programs
The first move is to distinguish programs from the value systems they represent. Every policy has a material aspect--the nuts and bolts of how it works-- plus a typically implicit cognitive aspect that represents the values and ideas behind the nuts and bolts. The President knows the difference. He understands that those who see themselves as "progressive" or "conservative" all too often define those words in terms of programs rather than values. Even the programs championed by progressives may not fit what the President sees as the fundamental values of the country. He is seeking to align the programs of his administration with those values.
The potential pushback will come not just from conservatives who do not share his values, but just as much from progressives who make the mistake of thinking that programs are values and that progressivism is defined by a list of programs. When some of those programs are cut as economically secondary or as unessential, their defenders will inevitably see this as a conservative move rather than a move within an overall moral vision they share with the President.
This separation between values and programs lies behind the president's pledge to cut programs that don't serve those values and support those that do -- no matter whether they are proposed by Republicans or Democrats. The President's idealistic question is, what policies serve what values? -- not what political interests?
2. Progressive Values are American Values
President Obama's second intellectual move concerns what the fundamental American values are. In Moral Politics, I described what I found to be the implicit, often unconscious, value systems behind progressive and conservative thought. Progressive thought rests, first, on the value of empathy--putting oneself in other people's shoes, seeing the world through their eyes, and therefore caring about them. The second principle is acting on that care, taking responsibility both for oneself and others, social as well as individual responsibility. The third is acting to make oneself, the country, and the world better--what Obama has called an "ethic of excellence" toward creating "a more perfect union" politically.
Historian Lynn Hunt, in Inventing Human Rights, has shown that those values, beginning with empathy, lie historically behind the human rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Obama, in various interviews and speeches, has provided the logical link. Empathy is not mere sympathy. Putting oneself in the shoes of others brings with it the responsibility to act on that empathy--to be "our brother's keeper and our sister's keeper"--and to act to improve ourselves, our country, and the world.
The logic is simple: Empathy is why we have the values of freedom, fairness, and equality -- for everyone, not just for certain individuals. If we put ourselves in the shoes of others, we will want them to be free and treated fairly. Empathy with all leads to equality: no one should be treated worse than anyone else. Empathy leads us to democracy: to avoid being subject indefinitely to the whims of an oppressive and unfair ruler, we need to be able to choose who governs us and we need a government of laws.
Obama has consistently maintained that what I, in my writings, have called "progressive" values are fundamental American values. From his perspective, he is not a progressive; he is just an American. That is a crucial intellectual move.
Those empathy-based moral values are the opposite of the conservative focus on individual responsibility without social responsibility. They make it intolerable to tolerate a president who is The Decider--who gets to decide without caring about or listening to anybody. Empathy-based values are opposed to the pure self-interest of a laissez-faire "free market," which assumes that greed is good and that seeking self-interest will magically maximize everyone's interests. They oppose a purely self-interested view of America in foreign policy. Obama's foreign policy is empathy-based, concerned with people as well as states--with poverty, education, disease, water, the rights of women and children, ethnic cleansing, and so on around the world.
How are such values expressed? Take a look at the inaugural speech. Empathy: "the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job, the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child..." Responsibility to ourselves and others: "We have duties to ourselves, the nation, and the world." The ethic of excellence: "there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of character, than giving our all to a difficult task." They define our democracy: "This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed."
The same values apply to foreign policy: "To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and make clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds." And to religion as well: By quoting language like "our brother's keeper," he is communicating that mere individual responsibility will not get you into Heaven, that social responsibility and making the world better is required.
3. Biconceptualism and the New Bipartisanship
The third crucial idea behind the Obama Code is biconceptualism, the knowledge that a great many people who identify themselves ideologically as conservatives, or politically as Republicans or Independents, share those fundamental American values--at least on certain issues. Most "conservatives" are not thoroughgoing movement conservatives, but are what I have called "partial progressives" sharing Obama's American values on many issues. Where such folks agree with him on values, Obama tries, and will continue to try, to work with them on those issues if not others. And, he assumes, correctly believe, that the more they come to think in terms of those American values, the less they will think in terms of opposing conservative values.
Biconceptualism lay behind his invitation to Rick Warren to speak at the inaugural. Warren is a biconceptual, like many younger evangelicals. He shares Obama's views of the environment, poverty, health, and social responsibility, though he is otherwise a conservative. Biconceptualism is behind his "courting" of Republican members of Congress. The idea is not to accept conservative moral views, but to find those issues where individual Republicans already share what he sees as fundamentally American values. He has "reached across the aisle" to Richard Luger on nuclear proliferation, but not on economics.
Biconceptualism is central to Obama's attempts to achieve unity --a unity based on his understanding of American values. The current economic failure gives him an opening to speak about the economy in terms of those ideals: caring about all, prosperity for all, responsibility for all by all, and good jobs for all who want to work.
I think Obama is correct about biconceptualism of this sort -- at least where the overwhelming proportion of Americans is concerned. When the President spoke at the Lincoln Day dinner recently about sensible Midwestern Republicans, he meant biconceptual Republicans, who are progressive and/or pragmatic on many issues.
But hardcore movement conservatives tend to be more ideological and less biconceptual than their constituents. In the recent stimulus vote, the hardcore movement conservatives kept party discipline (except for three Senate votes) by threatening to run opposition candidates against anyone who broke ranks. They were able to enforce this because the conservative message machine is strong in their districts and there is no nationwide progressive message machine operating in those districts. The effectiveness of the conservative message machine led to Obama making a rare mistake in communication, the mistake of saying out loud in Florida not to think of Rush Limbaugh, thus violating the first rule of framing and giving Rush Limbaugh even greater power.
Biconceptual, partly progressive, Republicans do exist in Congress, and the president is not going to give up on them. But as long as the conservative message machine can activate its values virtually unopposed in conservative districts, movement conservatives can continue to pressure biconceptual Republicans and keep them from voting their conscience on many issues. This is why a nationwide progressive message machine needs to be organized if the president is to achieve unity through biconceptualism.
4. Protection and Empowerment
The fourth idea behind the Obama Code is the President's understanding of government--"not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." This depends on what "works" means. The word sounds purely pragmatic, but it is moral in operation.
The idea is that government has twin moral missions: protection and empowerment. Protection includes not just military and police protection, but protections for the environment, consumers, workers, pensioners, disaster victims, and investors.
Empowerment is what his stimulus package is about: it includes education and other forms of infrastructure--roads, bridges, communications, energy supply, the banking system and stock market. The moral mission of government is simple: no one can earn a living in America or live an American life without protection and empowerment by the government. The stimulus package is basically an empowerment package. Taxes are what you pay for living in America, rather than in Congo or Bangladesh. And the more money you make from government protection and empowerment, the more you owe in return. Progressive taxation is a matter of moral accounting. Tax cuts for the middle class mean that the middle class hasn't been getting as much as it has been contributing to the nation's productivity for many years.
This view of government meshes with our national ideal of equality. There needs to be moral equality: equal protection and equal empowerment. We all deserve health care protection, retirement protection, worker protection, employment protection, protection of our civil liberties, and investment protection. Protection and empowerment. That's what "works" means--"whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."
5. Morality and Economics Fit Together
Crises are times of opportunity. Budgets are moral statements. President Obama has put these ideas together. His economic program is a moral program and conversely. Why the quartet of leading economic issues--education, energy, health, banking? Because they are at the heart of government's moral mission of protection and empowerment, and correspondingly, they are what is needed to act on empathy, social and personal responsibility, and making the future better. The economic crisis is also an opportunity. It requires him to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the right things to do.
6. Systemic Causation and Systemic Risk
Conservatives tend to think in terms of direct causation. The overwhelming moral value of individual, not social, responsibility requires that causation be local and direct. For each individual to be entirely responsible for the consequences of his or her actions, those actions must be the direct causes of those consequences. If systemic causation is real, then the most fundamental of conservative moral--and economic--values is fallacious.
Global ecology and global economics are prime examples of systemic causation. Global warming is fundamentally a system phenomenon. That is why the very idea threatens conservative thinking. And the global economic collapse is also systemic in nature. That is at the heart of the death of the conservative principle of the laissez-faire free market, where individual short-term self-interest was supposed to be natural, moral, and the best for everybody. The reality of systemic causation has left conservatism without any real ideas to address global warming and the global economic crisis.
With systemic causation goes systemic risk. The old rational actor model taught in economics and political science ignored systemic risk. Risk was seen as local and governed by direct causation, that is, buy short-term individual decisions. The investment banks acted on their own short-term risk, based on short-term assumptions, for example, that housing prices would continue to rise or that bundles of mortgages once secure for the short term would continue to be "secure" and could be traded as "securities."
The systemic nature of ecological and economic causation and risk have resulted in the twin disasters of global warming and global economic breakdown. Both must be dealt with on a systematic, global, long-term basis. Regulating risk is global and long-term, and so what are required are world-wide institutions that carry out that regulation in systematic way and that monitor causation and risk systemically, not just locally.
President Obama understands this, though much of the country does not. Part of his challenge will be to formulate policies that carry out these ideas and to communicate these ideas as well as possible to the public.
7. Contested Concepts and Patriotic Language
As President, Barack Obama must speak in patriotic language. But all patriot language in this country is "contested." Every major patriotic term has a core meaning that we all understand the same way. But that common core meaning is very limited in its application. Most uses of patriotic language are extended from the core on the basis of either conservative or progressive values to produce meanings that are often opposite from each other.
I've written a whole book, Whose Freedom?, on the word "freedom" as used by conservatives and progressives. In his second inaugural, George W. Bush used "freedom," "free," and "liberty" over and over--first, with its common meaning, then shifting to its conservative meaning: defending "freedom" as including domestic spying, torture and rendition, denial of habeus corpus, invading a country that posed no threat to us, a "free market" based on greed and short-term profits for the wealthy, denying sex education and access to women's health facilities, denying health care to the poor, and leading to the killing and maiming of innocent civilians in Iraq by the hundreds of thousands, all in the name of "freedom." It was anything but a progressive's view of freedom--and anything but the view intended in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.
For forty years, from the late 1960's through 2008, conservatives managed, through their extensive message machine, to reframe much of our political discourse to fit their worldview. President Obama is reclaiming our patriotic language after decades of conservative dominance, to fit what he has correctly seen as the ideals behind the founding of our country.
"Freedom" will no longer mean what George W. Bush meant by it. Guantanamo will be closed, torture outlawed, the market regulated. Obama's inaugural address was filled with framings of patriotic concepts to fit those ideals. Not just the concept of freedom, but also equality, prosperity, unity, security, interests, challenges, courage, purpose, loyalty, patriotism, virtue, character, and grace. Look at these words in his inaugural address and you will see how Obama has situated their meaning within his view of fundamental American values: empathy, social and well as personal responsibility, improving yourself and your country. We can expect further reclaiming of patriotic language throughout his administration.
All this is what "change" means. In his policy proposals the President is trying to align his administration's policies with the fundamental values of the Framers of our Constitution. In seeking "bipartisan" support, he is looking beyond political affiliations to those who share those values on particular issues. In his economic policy, he is realigning our economy with the moral missions of government: protection and empowerment for all.
It's Us, Not Just Him
The president is the best political communicator of our age. He has the bully pulpit. He gets media attention from the press. His website is running a permanent campaign, Organizing for Obama, run by his campaign manager David Plouffe. It seeks issue-by-issue support from his huge mailing list. There are plenty of progressive blogs. MoveOn.org now has over five million members. And yet that is nowhere near enough.
The conservative message machine is huge and still going. There are dozens of conservative think tanks, many with very large communications budgets. The conservative leadership institutes are continuing to turn out thousands of trained conservative spokespeople every year. The conservative apparatus for language creation is still functioning. Conservative talking points are still going out to their network of spokespeople, who still being booked on tv and radio around the country. About 80% of the talking heads on tv are conservatives. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are as strong as ever. There are now progressive voices on MSNBC, Comedy Central, and Air America, but they are still overwhelmed by Right's enormous megaphone. Republicans in Congress can count on overwhelming message support in their home districts and homes states. That is one reason why they were able to stonewall on the President's stimulus package. They had no serious media competition at home pounding out the Obama vision day after day.
Such national, day-by-day media competition is necessary. Democrats need to build it. Democratic think tanks are strong on policy and programs, but weak on values and vision. Without the moral arguments based on the Obama values and vision, the policymakers most likely be unable to regularly address both independent voters and the Limbaugh-FoxNews audiences in conservative Republican strongholds.
The president and his administration cannot build such a communication system, nor can the Democrats in Congress. The DNC does not have the resources. It will be up to supporters of the Obama values, not just supporters on the issues, to put such a system in place. Despite all the organizing strength of Obama supporters, no such organizing effort is now going on. If none is put together, the movement conservatives will face few challenges of fundamental values in their home constituencies and will be able to go on stonewalling with impunity. That will make the president's vision that much harder to carry out.
Summary
The Obama Code is based on seven deep, insightful, and subtle intellectual moves. What President Obama has been attempting in his speeches is a return to the original frames of the Framers, reconstituting what it means to be an American, to be patriotic, to be a citizen and to share in both the sacrifices and the glories of our country. In seeking "bipartisan" support, he is looking beyond political affiliations to those who share those values on particular issues. In his economic plan, he is attempting to realign our economy with the moral missions of government: protection and empowerment for all.
The president hasn't fooled the radical ideological conservatives in Congress. They know progressive values when they see them -- and they see them in their own colleagues and constituents too often for comfort. The radical conservatives are aware that this economic crisis threatens not only their political support, but the very underpinnings of conservative ideology itself. Nonetheless, their brains have not been changed by facts. Movement conservatives are not fading away. They think their conservative values are the real American values. They still have their message machine and they are going to make the most of it. The ratings for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are rising. Without a countervailing communications system on the Democratic side, they can create a lot of trouble, not just for the president, not just for the nation, but on a global scale, for the environmental and economic future of the world.
- Posted in




114 Comments so far
Show AllAnd where does JUSTICE fit in??
Apparently the overseas gulags like Baghram.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
Good...would make a fine residence for the past admin and the way things are going, for the new one, also.
Man, talk about gobbely gook rationale...there is a sucker born every minute.
When Lakoff's name started getting thrown around a couple of years ago, I was intrigued. It's certainly true that the semiotics and psychodynamics of political life are under-appreciated or taken for granted without much examination. Back in my college days in the Pleistocene Era, I studied interpersonal communications, which gave me a background suitable for Lakoff's perspective.
But after reading a few of his pieces here and on other sites over the months, I concluded that there's less to him that meets the eye. I notice that his enthusiasts have an incipient "cult" tendency, which also gets my crap detectors beeping.
There IS a high "gobbledegook" coefficient in his writings. And this article is the icing on the cake.
· Yr Obd't Servant
The 'Obama Code' is even simpler:
1) Tell the rabble what they want to hear. Talk about 'change' and 'hope'
2) Do what the corporations tell him to, including protecting the remains of Bushco, moving torture to CIA black sites still in operation, handing out trillions in fiat money to failing banks, and pretty much keepin' on keepin' on with the failed staus quo.
Walk in peace.
Gobbly-do-gook? I would say reasoned and thoughtful analysis. Much of our current confusion about what to do to help America recover comes from the very split Mr. Lakoff describes. For eight years we have endured government by (and corporate management and financial services and foreign trade policy and defense and so much else) those who think everything is okay as long as they get theirs.
Many still cling to what in the 19th Century was called Social Darwinism. God rewards virtue. If you are rich, it must be because you are "good" and God has blessed you for your goodness. If you are poor, disabled or otherwise suffering from physical illness or limitations, it must mean you are not good and therefore not worthy of being rewarded. Lost your job? Your home? Your health insurance and then your health? Obviously, it is your own fault, right, so why should we, the "good," help you out now?
At last, we will see government recognize the essential goodness, the potential for achievement and for kindness in every human being and work to facilitate their development. Huzzah.
One would not have to try very hard to look better by comparison with Bush--as if that was the entirity of it. If that is your measure--than by all means, Obama succeeds brilliantly with no effort on his part. But, so much for style--what of substance? The first time I saw Obama perform at Kerry's reporting for duty burlesque in '04, I admit it was impressive. But then, it doesn't take much to upstage Kerry. Since then, every speech, with the possible exception of Philadelphia, has been a replay--and it never sounds authentic to me. It always sounds like he is playing a role that he imagined--not what the times call for. So aside from the elegant smoothness of his performance--what about the fact that torture continues offshored? Or that he turned away and was silent of the unspeakable suffering of the Palestinians. Or that he has surrounded himself with the status quo players that created the economic disaster to begin with--and seems intent on subsidizing their bonuses while talking about personal accounts for social security, or that he will reduce troops in Iraq only to increase them in Afghanistan. I say, can you hear me shouting in your ear or is it just a whisper still? I can feel the outrage growing as I type this--from disappointment to betrayal Sooner or later, the chorus will grow louder and the discontent will spread...and those so easily impressed will at last see the writing on the wall--just like the finally did with Bush.
We are going down--but there is always some sucker with a smiley face button who knows what was but is blind to what is.
Yes, exactly. Finally, a thoughtful article praising Obama!
At long last, we have a progressive President, and for some reason, none of the progressives even care.
Joehope, until I came across your post, I've been reading what seemed like mostly nitpicking negativism from people who have become so accustomed to criticize that they wouldn't recognize a positive thought before it fried the synapses of their self-important little minds. Thank you for speaking up.
This afternoon, I challenged a skeptical and mostly well informed friend with the question: "If by some magic you were suddenly placed in Barak Obama's place and knowing what you do about the state of things, the power configurations, the MIC, the banksters and their handlers, understanding the uninformed, pathetically undereducated nature of the general American public, what would YOU be doing right now? Assuming that you don't want to sell out and that you want to turn this ship around without sinking it and without suffering the fate of JFK, MLK and others".
I asked him to start by giving me the big picture of his strategy first to avoid the risk of getting bogged down in the nitty gritty of whom to prosecute first and where to place the wind turbines.
Clearly, this was a challenge he had not considered and he asked for time to think about it.
As for me, I feel like the guy who fell overboard in the middle of the ocean. Reason tells me that I'm toast, but I've decided to swim for as long as I can - and if there happens to be a plank floating by I'll grab it, nails and splinters and all - at least until a better float comes along.
NorthWind: good point, and it's one that I've thought about. I can see the crux of the problem -- how does one bring about change without committing suicide? Within this parameter, one can see that Obama can be read in two ways: (1) he actually is aware of the major change that is needed, and wants to bring it about (without committing suicide and possibly bringing about a civil war), in the smoothest transition possible (that is, with causing the least pain and suffering: or (2) he is simply a very glib tool of of the status quo.
Well, the interpretation can go either way, but since I haven't seen a bare hint of actual "progressivism" (except for some of the easier stuff), I have to "guess" that he's really #2. One can always "hope" that President Obama is #1, but without any evidence, interpretation #2 has the slightly stronger edge of believability, in part because it fits better with my experience of human behavior and history (I feel that some "skepticism" is "healthy", and "balanced").
Lakoff (and others who seem to be wishful thinkers) seem to think that Obama is a superperson, without any evidence except oratorical ability (and the choosing of some words that we can actually get behind). If President Obama is hiding his "true identity", he is doing a very good job of it, indeed.
The "problem" you pose is still valid, though, and I (personally) don't have any clear solutions for it.
I guess that what disturbs me quite a bit is the appointments that President Obama has made. I would much prefer that he surround himself with (mostly) credible Progressives, and then announce policy based on "recommendations of his advisers" (in order to shunt the wrath away from his own person to some degree). I think that he should continue to somewhat "preach" about humanistic morals/values, and a vision of a better world, but allow that the policy decisions are derived from the vision (that so many people agree with -- "it's the people's vision") AND his advisers.
Along that same line, many people seem to think that Obama can maintain a Progressive outlook even when completely surrounded by mainstream/rightest folk, when (in fact) it would take a superperson to maintain such an independent mindset -- not very believable, in my opinion.
I can see your point, also, about clinging to any "hope" that floats your way, but such an attitude also implies a sort of "personal helplessness" that is very dependent on that "hope". My personal make-up is such that I "must" shun the seeking of any "savior", and be critically reserved about any and all leaders. I can only support President Obama in the matters that deserve it, and NOT in any blanket manner. "Support the President", as a plea and cry, comes off much similar to the rather mindless/heedless "support our troops" (I'm sorry to say). At least you have some awareness of your psychological "need to cling", NorthWind.
Hi again, fishmael. It seems that we're actually 'processing' some thoughts. I like that.
Let me start with your last comment. I'm not much of a 'believer' or a follower. I much prefer to lead or at least do my own thing. But I also know the value of co-operation and teamwork. Any functioning team usually has a leader, a 'primus enter pares' (first among equals) so to speak.
I'm with you when you write that you can only "support President Obama in the matters that (in your view) deserve it". I'd be less inclined to co-operate with his stated vision if he were the 'Decider' kind of leader. He has demonstrated that he isn't.
Where I disagree with him, I'll argue my point, but it will take more than a difference in views on some detail or procedure to make me 'quit the team'.
I don't have a 'psychological need to cling' in the way you phrase it. I consider myself more of a pragmatist. As others have pointed out our situation globally is pretty desperate if not terminal, what with climate change, over population and all that. No matter how much we understand this, no matter how pure our intentions, by ourselves as individuals we're pretty ineffective or worse. That's where I mentioned the analogy of floating in the middle of the ocean. My instincts cause me to fight the fate of drowning for as long as I can, futile as it may seem. Along comes a branch or a board that promises to help me stay afloat a little longer, maybe long enough for wind and current and the kicking of my legs to move me to a distant shore.
Now to bring this back to our current exercise in processing: To do nothing is against human nature. We can probably agree that to reject the board that comes floating by because I think it isn't good enough (Obama isn't perfect) would be foolish. So I grab the board and swim with it because it improves my chances of survival and by implication, that of my children and grand children.
I really have to get to work, having spent far too much time here, again. I've addressed the point about president Obama's choice of staff and advisers in another post on this thread. Perhaps you can look for it and let me know what you think.
Your choice of #1 or #2. In my mind, what speaks against #2 is his background as a person who cares, married to a wife who has demonstrated as well that she cares, coming from a family that cares. Even if cynics are right and he won't do it for 'us', he'll do his very best to do right for the future of his two daughters.
People argue that things aren't always what they seem to be. True, but that argument cuts both ways. That's why I'm inclined to take his immediate actions with a (positive) grain of salt.
Take it from whence it comes.
On Democracy Now last night, Stiglitz stated that had the same amount that disappeared into the banking hole been used to fill the "hole" in Social Security -it would've been solvent for as far as the eye can see--yet Obama, the so-called progressive talks about adressing the problems of Social Security with private accounts.
People said they would support Obama on the condition that he would be held accountable, but some seem content that he is simply not Bush or define him as "progressive" as if it were an arbitrary thing and the reality of things doesn't matter---and this drags us all down.
So true.
I'd say give the man a chance. He's inherited a mess that was decades, if not centuries, in the making and his inauguration didn't come with a magic wand.
For him to do all the 'right' things at once, as expected but not coherently defined by present company, would be instantly suicidal for him, the nation, and the world.
Wouldn't this venue be so much more productive if one could engage in a constructive exchange of ideas that might result in a holistic concept towards a solution of our problems? A concept, a set of strategies, and concrete actions that take into account the present state of the world as we understand it.
We all know the problems (they've been posted ad nauseam), why not move on and work on solutions?
Oregoncharles
"Give the man a chance.."
What about giving a chance to those who suffer from the USA's imperial agenda. You're talking about giving Obama "a chance," when he's about to increase troops in Afghanistan by 50%. More terror from the USA.
I don't want to give Obama a chance to kill and maim even more people! Do you have children? Do you know what it's like to lose your child to a war? The "war on terror" is out of lust for power - like all wars - nothing else.
Obama must have resistance to these brutal policies, not obsequious nonsense and fantasy. This is unbelievable. Orwellian.
Yes, I know, the people Obama is targeting are far, far away, ... and "foreign" - but they do feel pain, you know, and they bleed, just like you do.
Get it?
Oregoncharles, I very much understand and share your frustration, but I'd like to remind you that the imperial agenda has been around much longer than the mere five weeks of Barak Obama's presidency. Let me also remind you that a significant majority of your compatriots have been standing on the sidelines chanting their righteousness like a Greek choir for the past decade while this imperial agenda ran amok and brought death and untold suffering to millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere.
While you're at it, maybe you should remember the 40-some percent of your fellow citizens, the Zionists, the frothing 'Christian' radicals, the mall-addicted SUV moms, and not least of all the racist scum in your midst who spend millions and much energy doing just what you're suggesting - resisting change, sabotaging anything this new administration is trying to do.
It is true that an additional 17,000 troops have been assigned to Afghanistan. You may also have heard Mr. Obama say that within the next few weeks, he expects to obtain advice that will contribute to formulating a long term plan for the US involvement in Afghanistan. Why not contribute your ideas and concerns here? Why not add your voice to those who tell Mr. Obama that the 'war' in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily and that the US has no business being there in the first place?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Yes, Oregoncharles, I have children and grandchildren. But you are right, I do not know what it is like to lose a child to war. I do know firsthand, however, the terror a child experiences in war, having spent the first two years of my life in and out of cellars while Allied bombers rained phosphorus bombs indiscriminately on the houses in the neighborhood. My subconscious memory still makes me cringe at the sound of firecrackers and gunfire. Believe me, my heart cries at the thought of the children of which you speak.
Your chance to resist the brutal policies of imperial domination expired when GWB boarded his helicopter a few weeks ago. My argument is that now is the time to make a positive, constructive contribution to the effort for change. At the risk of sounding trite, I'll say that Rome wasn't built in a day and a moving ship can't turn on a dime.
Your president has made it clear on many occasions that he is willing and eager to listen. He has asked for your input and your help. What's stopping you?
And... yes, I do get it. Do you?
Nordwind;
I think I know how you feel. I was born in England during WW2. Decades later, living in the USA, I shocked friends when we were out walking and I froze and cringed when I heard certain tone of gasoline-fueled airplane engine go overhead.
Rainborowe
No one, and certainly no child should have to experience that. Ever.
Lakoff wrote:
"Conservatives tend to think in terms of direct causation... For each individual to be entirely responsible for the consequences of his or her actions, those actions must be the direct causes of those consequences."
I think he meant that conservatives, including most Democrats, believe that for an "individual to be entirely responsible" that individual must not have the sophistication or the economic resources to hide behind a corporation or a team of well-paid attorneys. I believe that may be the most fundamental of American beliefs.
It is necessary because tens of millions of Americans--both conservatives and progressives--don't yet perceive the vital sea change that Obama is bringing about.
Well, I've certainly missed something. Exactly what is it? "Sea change" is a euphemism for revolution, a complete change. Certainly no one thinks Obama is going to subvert the very system he serves and that pays him handsomely.
"The same values apply to foreign policy"
Except where Palestinians are concerned . . .
The Jaded Prole
Exactly. Or committing more troops to Afghanistan??? Where the heck is the change there? How about Dennis Ross as envoy to Iran? Seems more of the same to me. Endless war so that we can continue our quest with Israel to control the MidEast!!!
PS - I heard this morning on NPR that Obama's goal of getting combat troops out of Iraq has now been extended to 19 months and get this, includes keeping 30-40 thousand troops there for security purposes. This is change?
I guess it figures that a specialist in "framing" would be good at obfuscation.
Please start over, George: "decode" Mr. Obama for us: did he really say anything, and what was it?
Speaking in code is for demagogues.
Oregoncharles
This piece is nothing more than a rationalization for some pretty ugly behavior. The false dichotmy between "values" and "programs" is the core of the problem.
Values are irrelevant if they do not result in behaviors that reflect them. In Western philosophy and in the development of Western societies, there has long been a tradition of separating the mind/body/spirit and in separating individuals from society and the human community.
That tradition results in a kind of political, economic, cultural and intellectual schizophrenia that is evidenced by this piece.
Too bad Lackoff uses so many words to say his piece, but I guess that's how you get to distinguished professor status in this Alice-In-Wonderland place we call America.
TJ your formulation is precise, and, in my view, accurate.
I would like Dr. Lakoff, whom I respect greatly, to at least point out the obvious contradictions between progressive values and behaviors, decisions and actions that fail to reflect them.
This article, like Obama's speech, is a good antidote for insomnia.
America The Stupid got what it deserves: President George W. Brown.
Or worse: if McCain was going to be Bush's 3rd term, Obama's Cheney's first.
The left has, indeed, splintered since the 1960s into a cornucopia of causes and focus groups since there has been no umbrella cause like civil rights or the draft to unite it. The fundamental reason is that the left does not agree on a "vision" like, say, the Bible serves for conservatism. Once upon a time Marx served that purpose for many and somehow, some such form of vision must return if there is to be a meaningful opposition to the monolithic conservative media machine.
"The fundamental reason is that the left does not agree on a "vision"... some such form of vision must return if there is to be a meaningful opposition to the monolithic conservative media machine."
Good point.
Finding and communicating that common thread that's fit for us and the times is no easy trick.
"What Emerson refered to as becoming "strong with the current of events" had as its enabling source within Lincoln not political office but intellect, moral insight, and superior language skills. They were in the service of a vision more than an election campaign."
-Lincoln: The Biography of a Writer, by Fred Kaplan p246
The above writers who are critical of Obama's actual decisions and Lakoff's piece are engaged in some effective critical thinking. Bravo. The way science and scientific thinking work is by putting forth a hypothesis or general statement that can be falsified or tested with evidence. (Karl Popper wrote eloquently about this process.) And then looking for contradictions.
To put forth that Obama embodies, believes, and is advocating progressive values (which Obama frames as American values) is a testable hypothesis. One fact can prove that hypothesis wrong.
Lakoff says:
"When some of those programs are cut as economically secondary or as unessential, their defenders will inevitably see this as a conservative move rather than a move within an overall moral vision they share with the President."
So Lakoff maintains that obvious contradictions to his hypothesis are not conservative moves but mere judgments about priority (secondary or as unessential) within a progressive moral vision. Hmmm . . . So the problem of "liberating" the Afghan and Pakistani civilians' souls from their bodies is not conservative, but just a low priority. The policy of refraining from the illegal aggression of attacking other sovereign nations is not conservative, but just an unessential program. Refraining from killing innocent civilians is not state terror but a mere move within an overall [progressive] moral vision. So is failing to investigate and prosecute obvious war crimes, violations of privacy via illegal spying, continuing with illegal kidnapping, failing to advocate single-payer universal health care which the majority of Americans desire, etc.
So Dr. Lakoff, what good is a progressive moral vision if it includes obvious conservative polices, policies that include state terror, illegal aggression, murder and other crimes absolutely forbidden by international law and our Constitution (via Article 6 (2))? Can you not have empathy for those family members of the victims of Obama's illegal aggression in his drone attacks? For his indifference to suffering of innocents in Gaza? Does your large moral vision focus on the body of an innocent child Obama killed? Or the grief of family members at 300 funerals for children in Gaza? Or are these mere low priorities, lost amid the bright and phosphorus-like-shining progressive glory of Obama's moral vision?
Dr. Lakoff, as a leader who brought about the rise of cognitive linguistics as a field, you have a demonstrated capacity for critical, scientific thought. How do you explain the contradictions I and others are noting in reference to your article?
VERY well said, Earthian -- thanks much for saying what I would like to say (but am unable to put it together so well).
I tend to operate out of a sort of "intuition" of things (and can't call up many specifics in my defense). I intuit that Mr. Lakoff is agog with President Obama, and this essay was a sort of paean to that effect. It reminds me of someone giving an interpretation to a poem that someone else wrote, and constructing the result to fit ones own biased and framework -- there seems to be overmuch "projection" here, to be called "clear analysis".
Thanks Fishmael. Let's keep our thinking hats on when it comes to Obama. His charisma can deceive if we aren't careful.
Were this the 60's and were Progressives (rather than corporate fascists mistakenly called "Conservative")seeking to rebuild their influence and political clout George's article would be quite appropriate. However, (to borrow as phrase from Dr. King's speech against the Vietnam war), "we are faced with the fierce urgency of now".
FDR in 1933 did not have the luxury of time to reach across the aisle as he and even his political opposition knew that the desperation of the country was very near the exploding point. An explosion which would have meant a possible overthrow of the constitutional government that had run the country for the previous 145 years.
Today we are faced with just as potentially dire circumstances as was the world of the 1930's but we are also confronted with how much smaller we are as a world than we were then. There comes a time when Rodney King styled political discourse ("can't we all just get along") must give way to firm, decisive, and unappologetic action. The longer we wait the greater will be the consequences of such delay.
The torch carrying mobs have yet to storm the gated communities of privillige to avenge their torment, but the rags, kerosene, and matches are at the ready just waiting for that one spark on the dry tinder of their rage that will inflame insurrection. It is time we stop rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and either get very busy stopping the leaks or get very busy abandoning a sinking ship.
President Obama on the strength of his recent address to a joint session of Congress still doesn't get it.
Poet
I agree with much of what you're saying, Poet.
But have you considered that maybe, just maybe, it's us that don't get it? And we're part of the intellectual minority, seeing that at least we can read...
A good fighter never announces his next punch.
Two words, "Fashionable Nonsense."
For my money, Lakoff had one extremely valuable idea about the difference between conservative and liberal "values" when he compared them to two styles of child-rearing: the "strict father" who demands responsibility and punishes children who don't live up to it (it's called discipline); and the "nurturing parent" who loves the child and is more interested in the child's happiness and development than in its "good behavior." Great, so conservatives are "strict fathers," liberals are "nurturant parents," and the latter does seem to be a workable "code" for a progressive vision of caring about and nurturing people both within our country and outside it. We CARE about unwed mothers, and juvenile delinquents, the immigrant, the black, and we care about suffering HIV patients in Africa, hunger and ignorance everywhere in the world, and the plight of people like those of Gaza, the West Bank and Iraq who are victims of uncaring aggressors against themselves. So here comes Mr. Wall Street-selected and Chicago politics-groomed Mr. Obama, who appoints uncaring neo-liberal economists, bean-counting "educators" and nail-biting militarists to his cabinet, tells blacks in effect that they we are "beyond racism" so shut up and act "responsibly" (one of the biggest rounds of applause he got last night was when he said parents must take responsibility for their kids: "code" words if I ever heard them for condemning those irresponsible welfare mothers and poor black folks---you know the folks with those "entitlements", and if the daddy is dead on drug addiction or in jail for trafficking it, well...) I'm sorry to say this, but the more I see of Obama the more I feel that he only "cares" about his own ego, which he nourishes daily by going before various adoring and screaming crowds, like the one last night on Capitol Hill. He says everyone in the current crisis (even himself!) must sacrifice and he wound up his speech with some "inspiring" stories of self-sacrificing people. But we can be sure, I think, that he and his cronies will not sacrifice but that he, at least, will feast on the gullibility of people who will welcome him as a "savior" when, in fact, the only thing he is going to save is the rotten system that got them into their current mess. That's a helluva lot of cramming of uncaring behavior into a liberal/progressive "nurturant" frame, and give Lakoff credit for trying to do the seemingly impossible.
Hilarious yet apt depiction of most of the appointees...!
lakoffian cognitive linguistics: see obama for who you want him to be, not for who he is.
I don't think Obama is with Lakoff on point #6 at all. Obama calls for individual responsibiity. And these issues ARE ones of individual responsibility (e.g., corporate CEOs) in addition to being potentially subject to systemic forces and pressures (such as governmental or international regulation).
I am with you, Dave. This had to be said loudly and clearly.
Well stated.
FWIW, I find the overall presentation of such speeches cringe-inducingly repugnant. Yes, it's a good old-fashioned political melodrama and farce, the secular equivalent of High Mass.
But there's something demeaning and atavistic about all of these bought-and-paid-for canned hams bobbing and smiling and nodding and leaping up on cue with compulsory mad applause. Gotta support the team!
Those in attendance display an obsequiousness and servitude appropriate to courtiers and monarchs. And I believe that this custom is indeed rooted in the royalism still firmly embedded in the Amerikan political process.
I realize that hardly anyone takes much notice of this, or is bothered by it. In my view, it makes a mockery of the gravitas to which this degraded group pretends.
· Yr Obd't Servant
...they were a bunch of OLD white folks mostly... like aging tomatoes... still edible... but would have tasted better a day or two ago...
Don't know about the edible part ... but isn't it, what -- funny? sad? pathetic? --that the main GOP response to Obama is to find some black guys to front for them on TV, as if this is just all about race and not about their failed policies and bankrupt ideas? First, Republicans gave us their new chairman, Michael Steele, and then the other night we saw Bobby Jindal. Talk about clueless! (Talk about classless.)
It's tough for the Republicans to differentiate themselves from a party that is a mirror image of themselves.
As classless and crass it is... Beyond the "smoke and mirrors" of the Maharaja mentality and "house negro" or token Asian/Latino... It is really a facade... It matters not if they are a pro nuke head of DofE, pro torture head of Justice, or pro preemptive strike on Pakistani wedding parties by a POTUS... It is all about class... Mr Bo Jangles is a Grover Norquist (waterboard Gov't) Governor...
They were stuck with Jindal because Palin was busy in Alaska.
Sioux Rose
SQUIDD: Good one, I'm still laughing... we're lucky to have such a diverse bunch of wits and intellects in this forum.
Sioux Rose
O.S. I noticed and respond to the pageantry as you do, but you sure defined the scenario astutely, with a writer's choice of fine words... uncorked like a decent wine. Good brew...
Well said, DaveBronstein. The truth spoken and heard has it's own power. All social change started with small groups of people willing to share the truth. The truth looks to the survival of all. The lie looks after itself at the expense of others. Obama is a liar.
Professor Lakoff has appointed himself to being the privileged decoder of presidential utterances. He is going to disclose for us the moral and unitary vision latent in the President's discourse, a vision that pundits largely overlook.
Operative behind the overt utterances of the President, we are told, are seven "intellectual moves," or "ideas," as Lakoff also calls them. I am not going to rehearse those here. However, I note that, in the gloss on the second move, we are told that empathy for others is a central component of the moral and unitary vision.
Funny, though, I did not see any empathy in this article being expressed for the immense psychic pain that suffuses Iraq, the pain of the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered by the violence unleashed by the U.S. occupation of their country, for the millions of Iraqis forced into exile by the U.S. occupation, for the Afghanis routinely murdered by U.S. air raids, for the Pakistanis being killed by U.S. robot aircraft, for the folks being held for years without being charged in U.S. concentration camps, etc. Nor did I see Lakoff show any disapproval for the troop surge in Afghanistan.
I suppose all of this is in accord with "American" values, for I do not detect in Lakoff's hermeneutical exegesis any remark on the incompatibility of "American" values and U.S. imperialism. I suppose that the concept of U.S. imperialism is not a respectable category of "cognitive science and linguistics."
The short way of phrasing my point, and, thereby, of bypassing all of Lakoff's belabored prose, is this: Lakoff's cognition is selectively empathetic, and that, I suppose, is, if not an "American" value, at least an imperial one.