Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe 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.
114 Comments so far
Show AllOdd reasoning, Mr. Lakoff. Programs are the expression of a nation's values. An example of government that separates programs from human and moral values: Nazi Germany.
Cutting to the chase, Lakoff is extolling words over actions. Idle liberals are soooooo gullible!
How Many Souls Is Enough?
If our wise ones are so godly, colorblind even,
Shouldn’t our God, too, be gender-blind,
Nation-blind,
Politics-blind
EVEN RELIGION-BLIND?
If layers upon layers upon layers of lies divide humankind,
How many souls could we save by freein’ our minds?
53,000 parents watched their children die today,
And hardly one “important” person blinked their way.
26,500 poor kids buckled under the strain,
How many children could “brake” a free market train?
26,500 lives were cut short on this very day,
Still our newspapers push fashion in the free market way.
26,500 babies died in their mother’s arms, be aware!
I explained this to the president’s men, but did they care?
Every day the “important ones” sacrifice 26,500 children on the alter of greed!
Then, they expect us to nod when they teach their moral creed?
More than eight 911’s a day proves WE DON’T SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN,
Foreign Aid for dictators keeps our addiction alive, no joke.
While our first world weapons trade keeps the third class yoked.
26,500 souls departed just now!
And God’s “chosen” helpers did nothing.
Because tomorrow 26,500 more will die, how many is enough?
26,500 children gave up the ghost for poverty’s sake just today.
And I went shopping for a new cell phone,
Wanna see it?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
I would ask ONE simple thing from Obama that may to some degree validate the sincerity of his intentions ....CREATE AN INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE PARTIALLY COMPOSED OF AVERAGE JOES AND JANES TO RE-INVESTIGATE 9/11.
my first comment here, someone linked me to this page since usually post the fact that democrats simply do not know how to frame the debate
I really wish obama understoud that;“we will pay for health care by raising taxes on the wealthy” is neither accurate nor productive.
better;
“we intend on eliminating the tax gifts that were given to the wealthy at the expense of our nations economic security”
Of course re-worded to work with Mr. Obama’s pattern but that’s the general idea.
or;
“lowering taxes for the wealthy has not improved our economy, it has not improved manufacturing and it has not created quality jobs, the practice has eliminated jobs.
what we were left with amounted to giving middle class assets to the wealthy.
we intend on reclaiming those assets and giving them back to our infrastructure and our economic security”.
proper framing puts it in the right perspective
Quite so.
You're framing the objective much more succinctly.
If President Obama were to use anything like your suggested wording, I have a feeling that 95% of Americans would say: "Duhh, what's he talking about? Pass the peanuts!"
OBAMA WON'T SOCIALIZE AND WON'T DEMOCRATIZE USA.
WHAT AMERICANS NEED IS A SOCIALIST-GOVERNMENT, NOT A CAPITALIST-GOVERNMENT, AND OBAMA IS A CAPITALIST. AND AS LONG AS THE US GOVERNMENT IS CAPITALIST, USA WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ISRAEL.
Capitalism in the U.S. consists of large Corps which outsource, leaving unemployed and struggling, while the owners and bankers become wealthier riding the stock market. And in foreign policy, exploiting the weaker nations for cheap labor and ownership of natural resources.
Republican Bush II cut off almost 1 million families from unemployment insurance benefits, leaving 8 million in 2003 both unemployed and in debt, unable to find jobs, without health and child care. 43.6 billion without health care. In 2002, 34.6 million, 1 in 6, were earning below the poverty level with denial of welfare from bureaucracy, while Rep Bush spends over 30 million in program for "healthier marriage education." Democrat Party Bill Clinton abolished the federal main welfare program to help the poor, removing 54 billion in over 6 years for those who earn less than 7 dollars an hour. Under Clinton there was a back lash against gays in the military and affirmative action, regression of gay sexual relations as a crime and the 2 millionth prisoner incarceration of U.S. citizens, mostly minorities.
In the U.S., the small super rich own 1 percent earned what 40 percent earn annually and exploitation in foreign policy, Bush's Iraq never turned back into "normal," with continual death, poverty and destruction, while the years of Clinton's sanctions and bombings have killed an untold number of innocent men, women and children, making not much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, as the U.S. has had a hand in almost every foreign war and civil war, employing both military and economic imperialism, a system of exploitation, as in McDonalds and now Wall Mart, the IMF, WTO, controlling loans and aid, outsourcing cheap labor, misery and suffering, all for the profit of the wealthy and privileged few.
And so the Socialistic solution is that for free universal education and health care, the end of the ownership of companies by the minority wealthy class to that of equalitarian of democratic (not limited representative) which are not run by elaborate bureaucracies and the means for profit driven motives. The end of over production, layoffs and wasteful spending to increase profit for the owners denying the underpaid proletariat, government run from the bottom-up. Each ordinary person having a democratic voice and partially held responsibility. "To each according to their ability, to each according to their need." The critics who claim no incentive, all refusing to work or take on the menial easy to do jobs, fail to recognize the human drive in passion to work in a field that truly interests them, while equalitarian economically, awarded with various honors and prestige.
How can we create socialism within this capitalistic system, if our so-called democracy is based on electoral votes designed to keep third and leftist (all other) political parties out of the race? This along with the voting fraud of the 2000 presidential election. The entire process of both the Democrats and the Republicans are run by wealthy and corporate campaign donations buying tax breaks and deregulation's - "corporate welfare." This is because it costs millions of dollars to run for the Senate, the House and the presidency - Only 5% donations are from the unions, while 75% are from the wealthy and large corporation. So the politician, both Dems and Reps, needing votes, must then commit fraud and lie to the people as their representative, while catering to the wealthy. This is capitalism.
Both parties in capitalism are corrupt in favor of the rich, as its not just the fanatic Right Wing Bush, as Clinton the Democrat broke a string of promises failing to: end gay discrimination in the military, to grant asylum to Haitians in Guantanamo Bay, to stop scabs crossing strikers picket lines and to bring health care reform. Instead he expanding the death penalty, prisons and police power and eliminate most of the welfare for the poor. With all this, the labor parties supported him because he was a Democrat - an illusion that Dems are for the people which came from Roosevelt's New Deal, which real reason was to prevent a possible socialistic revolution, a concession from people's pressure and still keep the wealthy protected capitalism. The same can be said in Kennedy's and Johnson's Civil Rights amendments; only from the pressure of the working person's protests. To vote Dem or the lesser evil principle is not a real choice! Both parties have shifted to Right. And the judicial system is not an election from the people or popular vote. Reforms are not from the White House but those voices in the streets, the factories and the work places. Capitalism cannot be reformed, it is always designed to protect the rich and ruling class. No president has the power to go against the demands of the large Corps, who threaten to take their money out of the U.S., removing their obligation to pay taxes. And when foreign governments turn socialistic and equalitarian, the mighty U.S. comes in and destroys them either, set up coos and doctoral regimes to protect U.S. wealthy and corporate economic interests, all under the false disguise of democracy. And while reforms are beneficial and are supported by socialists, they recognize it is only by revolution, by force, that this injustice of wealth, poverty, inequality, imperialism, consumerism, lack of health care, aid and homelessness can this be changed.
Lakoff is bullshit.
Obama is a decent man. He will do much good. He will fail to do much good. He has already made progress. Some but not enough.
So besides criticizing life from a computer terminal, which accomplishes nothing, have any here been out organizing, working for change, knocking on doors getting people together to work as one?
Anyone who thinks a 3rd party candidate will be real in '12 better be part of an active campaign to organize beginning now. Or it is just bs. Has been and will be again. Because waiting until election year then criticizing the Dem's while supporting someone with zero chance who did zero organizing is ZERO nothing wasted nothingness which shockingly, many seemed to puff themselves up upon. And are again. You want Nader in '12, how many hours were you on the street today telling people about him? Hmmmm, all that support from 'progressives' on line, and less than a million votes. Nice "work" nice organizing. That's because Nader lovers spent all their time criticizing BO, not getting out and working for RN. I mean, how may votes???? Whoah....
Yuk & Yikes. Organize not Criticize. Joe.
Excellent point, azjoe.
I'd just like to suggest that since you're kinda stuck with Mr. Obama for the next 4 to 8 years, why not (also) invest your constructive energies in helping him do the right things?
It will be hard - and dangerous - enough for him to stand up against the GOP, Wall Street, the religious nuts, and the rest of the bovine masses who will be doing all they can to make sure he fails.
Hi NorthWind, oh yes. I'm organizing my county into a chapter of the Progressive Democrats of America. Another threader, pragmaticliberal pointed me to them, now I'm on point where I live. Actually, I was just able to make an anouncement on KVMR letting people know where we'll be meeting. Karen Bernal the Northern California coordinator is coming to speak. If enough people commit to attend, KB says Normon Solomon might even come up from Marin.
Now I'm networking, working with the paper and just plain talking to people-2 I met walking my dog.
PDA members include John Conyers, Mimi Kennedy and Cindy Sheehan. Norman Solomon calls himself "an ally of the PDA". They seek single payer health care and withdrawal from Iraq and fair elections. They seek to move legislation to the left.
Of course we'll hear you can't change the system if you are part of it...and true the PDA ain't revolutionary. Off the top of my head though, most of these voices go on to laud Nader or the 3rd party concept, off the top of my head, just how darn far outside of the system do they think they are????
And most importantly, I ask these vociferous critics,how many hours have they spent this week organizing for their candidate and 2012? Just a few short dozen+ months hence.
To the NorthWinds of change, Joe.
Thanks, Joe, for your message. And kudos and congratulations for all you're actually doing!
When it comes to changing the system while being part of it, what comes to mind is that we're all part of the system every time we go to a mall, drive a car, etc. Does that mean we can't work to change it? Of course not!
When President Obama started to select some of his team, I was puzzled at first, thinking like many here on CD and elsewhere that he had sold out, he was showing his true colors. Then I looked at his background, his family and I watched closely how he interacted with his wife Michele and his two daughters. His family demonstrated as a dominant trait a strong commitment to tolerance and a desire to help those less fortunate. His wife, Michele, clearly loves and respects him as do his daughters. How many politicians can one find who deserve and receive this measure of solidarity from those who know him best? So, I believe he's sincere.
Is he smart? Well, his academic achievements speak for themselves.
Is he a good team leader? If nothing else, his work in Chicago would have honed those skills while working with volunteers.
So, what's up with the Summers and the Clintons and the Emanuels of his team? Then I asked myself, what if I had a bank that needed to be secured against the most clever burglars. who would I hire for help and advice? My local clergyman or someone who really knows the trade? Precisely !
Wish I could do more to help, but I'm the envious NorthWind :-)
Lakoff is continuing his linguistic thesis on political communication. However, just because Obama may be able to hit some emotional high notes that resonate with the progressive base, it doesn't mean that his actions are progressive at all.
So, Lakoff's argument really only works like Machiavelli's arguments to the prince. That is, it's all about controlling perceptions rather than the substance of actual policies.
Unfortunately, Lakoff's focus on the abstract goes to absurd proportions when he writes the following:
"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."
Well, that's how government works, George - through programs. If Obama's programs aren't progressive, then his administration isn't progressive, despite the values he may carry in his rhetoric.
In fact, we really don't care what he says. It's what he does that's important. And so far, what he's been doing has been a right-wing dream come true.
At the end of his essay, Lakoff rues the strength of Rush Limbaugh in keeping the right wing "values" going. However, Lakoff misses the irony there as Limbaugh has praised things like Obama's cabinet picks. Does that mean Obama is being successful with his messaging, or does it mean he's lost his base?
-TIA
Sioux Rose
THOUGHTS: Very powerful point about "perception control" as opposed to PROOF of progressive ideals as seen in the implementation of REAL policy changes and timely innovations.
Thoughts into Action writes:
"If Obama's programs aren't progressive, then his administration isn't progressive, despite the values he may carry in his rhetoric."
Deeds, of course, should be the last arbiter whether Obama is progressive or not. Naturally, that means programs and other actions. They alone will tell us whether Obama has progressive, compassionate, egalitarian, non-imperialistic values. Everything else is wishful thinking, and can be committed to the dustbin of history.
What Lakoff does is that he shifts the emphasis away from concrete actions to the ideal, i.e., values. That is, of course, typical of a university professor with a cushy job, a nice pension before him, and good health coverage. Progressive values as ideals do not compensate for programs that do nothing to ameliorate our current predicament, which is only growing worse by the day.
Lakoff's tortured gloss on his oddly named notion of "biconceptualism" -- which might more aptly be called 'bipoliticalism' -- is about the fact that Obama's unitary vision and the moral values that it embodies will rally many conservatives, as countless many of them are now conservative, now progressive or pragmatic. Lakoff does not see, however, that Obama's desire for unity stands in contradiction to his endorsement of capitalism and the free-market. Let me explain.
Obama yearns for the common good, as he repeatedly states in "The Audacity of Hope," for that which is common to the citizenry, for commonality, for the unity that will overcome the strife of recent decades in the Union, and make the Union a concrete reality, not merely an ideal. Obama wants to overcome conflict in the political sphere in order to rally the citizenry around the common good.
Capitalism and its attendant market, however, are essentially characterized by competition between enterprising individuals seeking to satisfy their interests. This competition among self-interested individuals inevitably gives rise to strife among competitors, and between the few who succeed in amassing large amounts of wealth and the many who toil in the production of the wealth. Capitalism is essentially strife ladden and divisive; in other words, it actively militates against the common good, as this nation is once again painfully having to learn.
Lakoff does not even graze this little problem at the heart of Obama's moral, political, and economic universe.
and finally... i give the whole damn system 6months... after that... either things start reviving or the wheels come completely of the cart...
too bad... listening to Mr. Obama is great... if you're into language and speeches and all... but.. at some point... there's gotta be cash in the pockets...
i gotta get some sleep... great postings all around... if nothing else lakoff got the discussions revved up... love it...
1. Values over programs: Lakoff takes it as a given that only Obama knows what true progressive "values" are, though it isn't worth going into what in fact those values are. Any mere programs he chooses to cut are therefore irrelevant to the sacred idealistic values of which he alone is the true keeper. The rest of us are hung up on the nuts and bolts of pedestrian programs, as if that has anything to do with the visionary in chief and his mastery of the values. We only get confused trying to criticize the great and powerful values wizard, Obama.
2. Progressive values are American values: Obama is the very soul of empathy, as only a master of decoding can truly see. But curiously, "putting oneself in others' shoes" doesn't really extend to Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Iranians or anyone else standing in the way of American Imperialism, which of course can't be mentioned because it can't be allowed to exist in the narrow world of the political decoder. American values alone are true values, and Obama empathetically embodies them. He's Lincoln all over again, for Chrissakes. The world can't help getting better under Obama's transcendent leadershhip, as he embodies "the ethic of excellence." Lakoff is sending up the egregious Tom Peters here.
3. Biconceptualism and the New Bipartisanship: Sounds like bisexualism but not nearly as exciting. But on this point Lakoff's code reading seems clear and accurate. The problem is, he thinks this is shrewd politics because American values can always be boiled down into a digestible soup we all can equally appreciate, left or right. Biconceptual bipartisanship assumes conservative ideologues are a rarity in Washington, far outnumbered by wishy-washy conservatives who embrace all the same core values Obama does and will respond to his overtures to work together exactly as he has planned. It flies in the face of all evidence to date, but Lakoff must think this will change soon. The Republicans and Democrats will soon join forces and begin enacting policies we can all support. No more petty and distracting divisions. Biconceptualism will win the day because Barack Obama is just too damn brilliant and magnetic a personality for it not to. Tell that to Mitch McConnell. All progressives need is a "message machine" to make it all work. We're on the verge of Progressive Paradise here.
That's 1 thru 3. I'm tired.
Sioux Rose
EPHRAIM: I think Lakoff is lost in his own frame, that of the "democrats being the good guys." As a result of viewing the field of U.S. politics and policies through this prism, Lakoff LOOKS for evidence in support of Obama being this Cornucopia of feel-good progressive empathy. As if his appointed cabinet members show any iota of progressive values, as if handing the bankers all that money and promising to yet again (I mean in our presidents' mantras) up the ante on a war that we have no right to be in in the first place, and on and on. Grotesque theater of the absurd to analyze language for the semblance of things that matter, when actual policy-making departs so vastly from the necessary measures the times so poignantly call for.
if you need a cognitive psychologist or linguist or whatever to decode obama's progressivism....uh, he ain't a progressive. but good luck jakoff turning that crap to gold.
oops. meant lakoff ;)
An honest Freudian slip...
Walk in peace.
President Obama's explanation of "how we got into this economic/financial mess" is frighteningly primitive. He merely (and blithely) parrots the canards of "housing bubble" and "bank failures". As I said, that is frighteningly primitive.
The truth is that the rot began long before "housing bubble" and "bank failures".
During several recent years inflation rose considerably faster than the median income of our so-called "middle class" (which I call "working class"). It is well known that this divergence can continue for a while without dire consequences for the economy. It is also well known that a "tipping point" is eventually reached when the "middle class" panics and the economy tanks. The "housing bubble" and "bank failures" are not the cause of our problems, they have merely exacerbated the collapse after the "tipping point". I firmly believe that the "tipping point" happened early in 2008.
Mr. Obama brags that he will "create" or "preserve" 3.5 to 4 million jobs. Firstly: how can one count the jobs "preserved"? That is a topic for endless lies and fudging for him to look good. Secondly: if the median income of his "new" and "old" jobs is the same or even lower than they were in early 2008, the recession/depression will not go away. It will merely be anesthetized temporarily. The "Great Depression" of the 30's was only permanently overcome when wages had risen significantly during and immediately after the war. That was the "golden" era of the "Levitt Towns" and the stupendous purchasing binge of cars and household appliances because the money was available in the "middle class.
The Republican politicians are just as idiotic, if not more so on this point. It is OK when "small business" creates more jobs with tax breaks, but once again, if the median wages of these new jobs are not higher than in early 2008, the result will be worthless.
There are several additional reasons why the current crisis is more dangerous than that of the "Great Depression". Firstly, the Obama cabinet is filled mostly with old hags. Contrast this with the FDR cabinets with their innovative thinkers (which is the main reason why the comparison of Obama to FDR is ridiculous). Secondly, there is in our country a massive group of relatively poorly educated workers who cannot possibly qualify for well-paying jobs. Thirdly, and most alarmingly, there is not a fighting labor movement today. The current labor movement is pathetically weak and is hogtied to corrupt politicians. Fourthly: most employers have not the slightest intention to increase the wages of their workers.
President Obama asks the American people to save capitalism at all costs. Is it really worth saving?
Not true on your first point. Obama explicity said last night that our economic problems are not the mere result of the housing bubble and bank failures. He cited the short-term corporate thinking (greed) and consumers living beyond their means, and he is advocating middle class tax cuts (and tax increases for the very wealthy) to address the very income imbalance you cite.
I agree with you about the lack of a labor movement, though, and am still waiting for Obama to take up the cause of workers' rights, globally and here in the US. Doing so would put some of our adversarties on the defensive and demonstrate much-needed US moral leadership. But we have to begin at home, I think. Until we treat our workers fairly we will not have a strong economy. Simple as that.
In his February 19th press conference in Ottawa, Canada Obama said that worker and environmental rights should not be in an unenforceable side agreement to NAFTA but need to be brought into the main agreement.
Such a renegotiation would fulfill his campaign promise regarding worker rights.
I did not hear him mention worker's rights in his address to Congress, and I would very much like to see him put some pressure on US firms operating in China to meet even basic safety standards.
This morning on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" I heard syndicated columnist Cal Thomas say that taxes and government regulation are the reasons US companies move business overseas. What nonsense! The reason is obviously lower labor costs. And one reason the labor costs are so much lower overseas, in many cases, is that workers are not treated in fundamentally fair and decent ways.
Not only does he need to call out US companies that fail to honor their fundamental oligations to fund worker pensions, President Obama needs to advocate changes in the laws so that workers are no longer unfairly disadvantaged when companies go bankrupt.
"...Until we treat our workers fairly we will not have a strong economy. Simple as that."
- It isn't really "as simple as that." In the late 1970's, a corporate offensive against workers began, that was incredibly effective & to this day still hasn't ceased. Workers have been treated worse & worse, losing much of what they'd gained from 1935-70. After inflation, wages for the bottom 90% of the population were no better in 2006 than in 1976, & union membership has been decimated. For most Americans, overall living standards are lower now than they were during the Carter administration.
Nonetheless, over most of this same time period (say 1982-2007), the US economy was widely seen as being "strong." Corporate profits were never higher, GDP was never higher, & the stock market boomed, until the "sub-prime mortage crisis" hit in fall of 2007. During most of this time, official unemployment figures were not too high, & inflation was under control.
When people say the economy is "strong," this term usually means, at least tacitly, "from the viewpoint of employers, not workers." You can screw the workers for a long, long time -- and despite this (or rather, to a significant extent BECAUSE of it) the economy can look very strong (in terms of the Dow, GDP, & corporate profits).
"Can look very strong" is of course not the same as being very strong. I stand by my comment. Reality still counts, as we can see all around us today.
Nice points, and an excellent example of "decoding" that clears away all the obfuscating talk, be it Obama's or Lakoff's.
Only time will tell how Obama's doing and only one month of the four years have passed by.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I just hope that it is not going to seem like 8 years.
Obama's speeches can be decoded, and they reveal a right-winger. Historically, words like moderation, bipartisanship, centrism, and pragmatism all have been used as stand-ins for "more of the same." "Not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works," is an example of this kind of speech. (Of course, its not about size, but about whose interests it serves, which if Obama said it, would be the opposite type of speech). Obama's speechs are littered with similar "don't rock the boat" ideas. Obama does not just advocate policies that are anti-change, he speaks in code against change while repeating the word "change."
One thing Lakoff did not address was Obama's vow in his Inaugural Address not to apologize for the American "way of life." Historically, America has often (always?) gone to war with (or sought to overthrow the government of) countries that have nationalized US industries, presumably because nationalization is seen as theft and as an attack on the freedom of our free enterprise system. Does anybody know what are Obama's views on such matters? Do we need a national discussion of such issues?
"not to apologize for the American 'way of life.' "
I suspect that this was pure rhetoric meant to reassure the bovine masses.
Freefallen:
It's true that the US has a sorry history of invading (or creating coups) in countries that nationalize US companies (and also those who nationalize their own resources, like Iran in the 1950s) but I think that Obama's "vow . . . not to apologize for the American way of life" was aimed at militant Muslim enemies. They see the USA as the Great Satan whose greedy, selfish and profligate lifestyle corrupts the morals of the world, especially the Islamic world and, most especially, from Osama's angle, the morals of the Saudi princes who are supported and encouraged in their excesses by the US.
Rainborowe
I think what really upset Osama was seeing US bombs killing so many civilian Arabs and Muslims in Iraq. And Iran is a good example of where US support of a very repressive government led even the moderate middle-class to eventually support a revolution led by fundamentalists. In other words, I don't think our enemies would mind our corrupt morals (or those of their US-backed governemnts) so much if we left just them alone. They may not have liked what they have been seeing on their TVs and DVDs, but I do not think that is what troubled them to the point of such militancy.
Freefallen:
What Osama himself said he wanted from the US was to close down their base(s) in the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia, epecially the monster base established after the first Gulf War. We did as he demanded, with no fanfare but then decided to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq anyway just so GWB could be a "War President" with a license to loot.
Now, about the American lifestyle: Osama bin Laden's political position was built upon the Muslim Brotherhood in its post-WW2 manifestation in Egypt (his right-hand man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri is a former Egyptian Muslim Brother). The intellectual founder of this contemporary Muslim Brotherhood was Sa'id Al-Qutb who spent time as a student in the US (Denver, if my memory serves) and was shocked by the dissolute culture of Americans: their suggestive sexuality in clothing, dancing, promiscuity and on TV; their material greed, their waste, their salacious TV programs and so on. He returned to Egypt and proposed the blueprint ("Islamic Social Justice") for a state based on social and economic justice, modest and abstemious behavior and adherence to the Faith as was believed to be practised by Mohammed and his "4 righteous Khalifas [Successors]." It was, in fact, extraordinarily similar to the political philosophy of the Puritans of English/American history. Qutb was hanged by Nasser for sedition and, naturally, his work became as influential as most martyrs' works.
Not all Brothers are violent; I've known several, from university professors to car mechanics and they were notable for their dedication to hard work, fair pricing for their work, religious devotion, kindness and a sense of humor. Then there are the others who, like Zawahiri, gravitate toward xenophobia, religious hatred and violence. This was the branch that infected some groups in Egypt (they who assassinated Sadat, for example) and, via the Afghan resistance against the Soviets, spread to Saudi Arabia, Yemen and various other places. Osama bin Laden came out of that school.
Rainborowe
I logged in to see if I could bust apart this log jam of negativity. While I see great value in holding Obama's feet to the fire, I daresay his highwire act is a tricky one, down right dangerous.
Rebuilding America's moral vision is damned important and it is not going to be accomplished by a bunch of whining, sarcastic demands to transform the world immediately. When frustrated by the difficulties of reform I often find comfort in the MLK saying that went somthing like, "The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice." It doesn't bend 180 degrees overnight. Obama has been in office how long? Reading the above comments I get the sense that many progressives are impatient, self important, sarcastic, holier-than-thou lurkers who have become addicted to complaining.
If progressives can reframe our sense of national morality and purpose in a manner that is atractive to progressive republicans we will continue to win elections. If we don't win elections America will very quickly become a lost cause. These are dangerous times as well as times of great opportunity. Someone once said, "Nothing great is ever accomplished without enthusiasm." I hope all those complaining in previous comments are acturally doing something positive with the rest of their activism.
vote at www.vote.org
Thank you, georip, for speaking truth to the choir.
I am really getting tired of all this nitpicking negativity.
We're all a bunch of touch-up artists arguing over the flower arrangements on the Titanic. Pardon the mixed metaphor.
I think president Obama's vision is pretty good. Why can't we help him formulate a comprehensive and realistic plan? Why can't we help implement the many steps it will take to get moving on a new and responsible course?
MLK also spoke of the "fierce urgency of now"-I don't know how old you are but in my 54 years I have never witnessed a more urgent time than now.
Do you have the luxury of waiting while the bottom continues to fall away?
Interesting that demanding accountability is framed as whining, complaining, unreasonable negativity, but finding common ground with the totally discredited and repudiated Right is to be embraced. The majority supports progressive policies from healthcare to foreign policy but it is not reflected in our political class---so stop buying into that lie.
Sioux Rose
VERN: Right on!
Georip observes:
"Rebuilding America's moral vision is damned important and it is not going to be accomplished by a bunch of whining, sarcastic demands to transform the world immediately."
********************
Results do take time, but intent is immediately evident. This is how FDR got re-elected to the presidency more times than any other person who held that office. A clear-headed and sober analysis of many of his new deal initiatives shows that, in retrospect, they did not accomplish what they were intended to do.
What his words (coupled by his appointments and then his actions) did do was show the interest of someone who turned his back on his own priviliged upbringing and cared enough to reach out to those in need. This is the plain and evident legacy to which even contemporary crtitics of FDR are blind.
Like Cain, these critics mocingly ask, "Am I my brother's keeper?" and because they never did care a whit about the rest of us in the first place and still do not, they resoundingly answer (by the intent of the very question they ask apart from anything they do or do not do) that their answer is, "Hell no!".
It is not Barack Obama's lack of results that is so dismaying thus far in his presidency, it is his evident lack of intent (based on his own choice of words--rather than anything he has done or not done) that is such a discouragement thus far in his administration.
Poet
Sioux Rose
POET: Excellent observation (and hello from California)
Yeah, I've been listening to some of JFK's speeches. Great words, great intent, lots of progressive truths... then Dallas. Is that what you want?
There has to be a better way. A good chess player does not announce his moves.
"A good chess player does not announce his moves."
Right. That was Stalin's philosophy, too. And Hitler's.
But we are supposed to live in a "free country." We didn't elect a chessplayer or a dictator. We elected a fellow citizen, someone we expected to adhere to basic democratic American values, like: we don't torture people (U.S. Constitution, Article #5 and #8); we don't wiretap our fellow citizens without a warrant (U.S. Constitution Article #4); we don't imprison people without due process (Article 5 & 6).
We didn't elect someone we wanted to keep us in the dark. Now, of all times, we've tried that and we didn't like it.
Rainborowe
Never let facts get in the way of a good argument, Rainborowe.
Hitler, for one, never made a secret of his intentions. Maybe you should read "Mein Kampf" and note when it was written and published. Or even Mao's "Little Red Book".
If you didn't want someone with the intelligence of a good chess player to stand up for you against Wall St. and the MIC, maybe you should have voted for a naive idealist like Kuchinicz or Nader or Paul. Come to think of it, maybe you did.
JFK did keep WWIII from happening at least twice over Cuba (Bay of Pigs and then the missle crisis). He also opened up a personal correspondence with the bumptious blowhard Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev which eventually led to a nuclear test-ban treaty when both men realized that their own military could very easily overthrow them in coup-de-tats.
JFK was also a philandering, sex-obsessed, playboy, a nasty and bitter political in-fighter (primarily through daddy's big bucks and Bobby's dirty tricks) as well as someone who only reluctantly came around late in the game (June '63) to endorse civil rights legislation badly in need of passage.
Despite all the ugly revelations about him in the years since his death, he still holds a warm spot in the hearts of most Americans who were alive at the time of his presidency beyond the tragic nature of its termination.
He too was a child of wealth and privilige whose words reached out and touched the better angels in all Americans and whose actions (peace corps, space program, and the New Frontier to name but three examples) inspired more young people to get involved in government. So yes, minus the sexual promiscuity, dirty tricks, and of course the tragic betrayal by his very own Secret Service detail, that is exactly what I would want to see--another FDR or JFK in intent.
Poet
We really can't judge President Obama's intent - yet.
He's probably too intelligent to tempt fate by announcing his intent explicitly.
What you say is true--but this is also true:
"We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Beyond Vietnam--A Call to Conscience
04-04-67
You may say, "yeah, he got blown away too"--and that is correct, but he spoke the truth to power and his birthday is a holiday and more importantly his words have lived on to inform and inspire us into the future. What do you remember from LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, or any of the rest of the pack of jackals who either pursued or covered up the proper investigation of his assassination.
After seeing 8 years frittered away, by a worthy successor to both Caligula and Nero, it is very discouraging to watch more time and resources being wasted.
Poet
A very good point and quote, Poet.
The 'doing' part is really up to us, I think. Consider FDR's words: "What you say is good. Now go out and make me do it." President Obama has made a similar appeal and he's gone several steps further by maintaining a website dedicated to gathering input from the public.
I'm very much aware of the 'too little, too late' aspect of our problems, but do we really need another martyr, another national holiday? Wouldn't it benefit us more if we were to actively help him help us? Americans should accept his invitation.
And if it turns out that Americans aren't happy with Mr. Obama's performance, you could always send him to Canada. We would love to have a real leader with a vision for a change.
True, JFK was all that and possibly more.
My point was that by even speaking up against big money and the MIC in public, supporting civil rights etc. etc, he probably triggered what later happened in Dallas.
You are probably correct and it is a debatable point whether anyone has a right to ask such a sacrifice of others or themselves--but that is the kind of courage and possible sacrifice that these times demand.
Poet
Dead men make lousy presidents.
["Be respectful and kind" -- my personal reminder/mantra -- something to aim for.]
Hi, Cousin NorthWind. (The appellation "cousin" is also something that I'm working on.] I have had another thought about your concerns for President Obama's safety (even as well-founded as they seem to be).
I still appreciate your perspective, to some degree, but I have to come down a little differently in the end.
I'm sorry if the following analogy seems insensitive on my part (but my sensitivity and diplomacy are somewhat limited), but your argument leaves me with a similar feeling that I get when someone argues that U.S. troops must remain in country X (no matter that the initial putting them there was totally wrong), because now that the damage has been done, and the pot stirred up, the really, really messy stuff would happen if the troops were pulled out. THERE IS A TRUTH THERE, THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, BUT THE CONCLUSION "FEELS WRONG". A wise and civilized (in the best sense) community really ought to come up with a better solution than the two distasteful alternatives.
The problem of Obama's safety is that, if "that" is the overriding principle for what "actions" should be undertaken by the President, President Obama could NEVER make even the slightest Progressive overtures, as such would endanger him.
So, I turn the debate back to you, to address the dilemma/conundrum that you point out. Are you then suggesting that President Obama always make his personal safety first, in making any decisions? How could any President, ever, make any Progressive proposals, if there is the fear of rightwing reprisals? How small must the increments of change be, and how far apart must they be spaced, to make them seem "okay" to the nutcases?
Further, since most of us here on this board feel that we need emergency, major change, just in order to avoid multiple catastrophes, how does that square with a supposedly Progressive President being timid for his own welfare?
[On a different subject: ] There is ever the complaint that people are chattering away on a board such as this, instead of taking real "action". This has been said of late about some of our supposed "whining" and "complaining". Well, first, it is a baseless assumption that people who use these boards are otherwise "inactive" in politics, and this may especially be the case for people who are skeptical (distinct from cynical) of any and all "leaders". "Discussion" (or "processing" -- a term I often use, for "thinking together") is an important activity in its own right, but most of us are likely to be otherwise engaged in other ways.
Hi cousin fishmael (East or West coast?)
There once was a president who said "Read my lips ...!" and people were gullible enough to watch his lips instead of his hands.
Then there's President Obama. Based on his speeches, some call him a closet Conservative. And then he went on to surprise a lot of us when his bail out package turned out to be a lot greener and a lot more accountable than they had expected. Perfect? Probably not. Doable? Probably.
When it comes to the pullout from Iraq, I agree with you: there ought to be a better solution. Nineteen months and 50,000 permanent troops doesn't seem to indicate a lot of progress. Can anyone here make a reasoned and detailed argument for a better plan?
On the point of personal safety, you're choosing to frame the problem in black and white. If you were to apply that kind of logic to your own life and the way you use your car, you would have to say that either you don't drive at all (that won't get you anywhere fast), or you insist on driving as fast as your car will go regardless of traffic and road conditions, and that may not get you very far either. So, being the reasonable person that you surely are, you will adjust your speed and go as fast as you can, traffic and road allowing.
And if you feel that time is of the essence - and most of us do, who do you think would carry on his mission and do a better job if he were to risk sacrificing himself recklessly? Even if one could get Nader elected by 2020, how much good would that do, speaking of too little too late. I strongly feel that Barak Obama is our last best chance and we had better help him help us.
[On a different subject] I've been looking for an alternative to the term "Discussing". "Processing" is much more constructive. Thank you for the pointer.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Poet
One of my favorite quotes.
It is actually a motto on my website.
let me squeeze in here too...
obama's plan last night was a vision for the future...
he is also going to pursue "his" legacy... regardless what it is decoded as... he has to... unless he is completely devoting "himself" to the greater good he speaks to often... and "his legacy" is not said as a bad thing... but the individual drive has to exist... regardless of the public drive...
two sour notes... he 'did' say... [...homeowners bought too much house...]... SOME did... "I" did NOT... bought below market w/ DP, income, 30Y fixed, to LIVE in... and I'm taking a bath... on value...
and 2nd... sour note... we had for a long time had a - i don't know the exact percent - of wage earners with nothing more than HS ed who screwed on headlights at a Ford plant for 30 years... and live and retired quite well.. until asia and china and india dropped socialism and made avaialble a billion workers with NO education and willing to screw on headlights for $3 / day... as mccain said... those jobs aren't coming back... and obama knows that...
so... obama's blueprint is a blueprint for the future... not for the lazy or faint of heart... at least he's promoting some things to give greater access vs. the "you're on your own"... and he won't get anywhere with a strict "progressive" "program" based agenda...
Why are we all talking about 'bringing jobs back'? Most of these jobs are obsolete in the context of climate change and Peak Oil. Why does everyone obsess about fixing roads and bridges when we know that most of them will be deserted in a few years?
Why not seize the opportunity for a fresh start? Forget big companies and an hydrocarbon economy. Think creatively about jobs of the future. Low tech renewable energy, a revival of artisan based small business, re-localizing the production of essential foods, implements and supplies.
Big business, big finance, big agriculture, fragmentized mass production (screwing headlights) got us to where we are now. May they RIP.
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.
Abendland -Excellent. Simply excellent. Your paragraph three mirrored my own immediate thoughts; your entire piece is far more eloquently written than I could manage.
I think I will file Professor Lakoff in the pompous fluff bin.
Beautifully stated, Abendland! I couldn't agree more.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Very well said. You've nailed a lot of Lakoff's sophistry and drivel, posing as political wizardry. The guy is really insufferable. But he has almost as many groupies as Obama!
I think maybe George was spoiled by parents who were too permissive? His academic emphasis on messaging ignores the political reality of redistricting and safe congressional seats. He misquoted Obama on Limbaugh, besides which I think Lakoff was wrong (and Obama was right) tactically as well. Limbaugh, who just like Wall Street will obviously say and do whatever he can get away with, NEEDS to be challenged, if for no other reason than to make journalists think twice about taking Limbaugh seriously.
Here are a few examples of things Obama said last night that are flat-out lies. Bush or McCain would have said the same things, had they been at the podium.
"It's not about helping banks—it's about helping people."
- Horse pucky. Every move Obama has made in the financial arena is about helping banks, & banksters.
"...we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away..."
- Actually, the WoT has nothing to do with keeping Americans safe. Like the word "Communism", the word "terrorism" has become a catch-all term simply meaning "anyone resisting the grasping paws of American Empire."
"To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend – because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America..."
- The troops are there to secure oil & geostrategic advantage. It has nothing to do with moral "values."
"And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture..."
- A technical evasion. Obama has refused to halt extraordinary rendition, via which we out-source the physical acts.
The whole speech was suffused with a disgusting & dangerous undercurrent of flag-waving nationalism, constantly invoking America's supposed "greatness" as a society. At the same time, the monstrous crimes of the Bush administration are being quietly & gently flushed down the Memory Hole.
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.
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
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...
...they were a bunch of OLD white folks mostly... like aging tomatoes... still edible... but would have tasted better a day or two ago...
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.
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.)
They were stuck with Jindal because Palin was busy in Alaska.
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...
It's tough for the Republicans to differentiate themselves from a party that is a mirror image of themselves.
I am with you, Dave. This had to be said loudly and clearly.
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).
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...!
Two words, "Fashionable Nonsense."
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.
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.
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
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.
This article, like Obama's speech, is a good antidote for insomnia.
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.
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
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
And 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.