Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Progressive Tribe and Improving the World
The world is in need of some serious change. We all know this. And many people have taken the call personally and seriously. I encourage you to do the same. You can be an engine of creativity. You can be a catalyst for positive change in the world.
It all starts when you see yourself as part of something bigger. And it helps to have a way to connect to the community you find yourself in. One key element of this is having a name that reflects your tribe - the particular group that you resonate deeply with. In the political world, this is the label that captures your identity. In recent decades our labels have been conflated and, in many cases, attacked viciously as part of public relations campaigns. One casualty of this intensely polarized struggle was the word liberal. That label means something very different today than it did a few years ago.
The newly popular label progressive has taken the political world by storm. The cynical among us treat this as nothing more than a massage of the battered liberal, and yet it is this provocative term that feeds a movement inspiring millions of people -including the supposedly disaffected youth - to rally together for a better world. Why is this word so powerful? It seems like there is more happening than mere wordplay.
Something Deeper is Going On
I am a student of language and thought (In techno-jargon, I study cognitive linguistics.) And I apply this powerful new field of inquiry to the world of political and social change. Insights about the deeper concepts underlying our political labels can help clarify just why the word progressive is so powerful as a motivator of social change. This allows us to gain new perspectives about ourselves, emboldening us to take steps in our own lives to make the world a better place.
An important starting point is knowing that brain function is at the heart of thought. The minds we have are fundamentally shaped by the way our brains operate. A major feature of brain function is that "higher" (i.e. more complex) thought processes are built on "lower" functions that work in combination. For example, in order to make sense of our lives throughout the day, our brains need to be able to construct stories that organize our experience into coherent patterns. This is a very complex process that builds upon something much more basic - the coordination of simple body movements into a choreographed sequence. So when you pick up a glass to drink from, your brain puts together arm extension, opening and closing of fingers, rotation, and many small motions of your head, neck and throat in a dance of complexity that you are scarcely aware of while you are doing it.
It is this ability to choreograph movement that makes storytelling possible. Every story is structured with a beginning, middle, and end that is motivated by some relevant purpose. The same is true for taking a drink of water.
The take-home message from this insight is that much of what your brain is doing on your behalf happens outside conscious awareness. So for movement, also for thought.
Political Labels Tell Stories
What does this have to do with politics? Everything! When you hear the word progressive, many things are happening in your brain that never arrive as conscious thoughts. The part of this having to do with concepts and meaning is what George Lakoff calls a "frame." A frame is the hidden conceptual structure that organizes your thoughts into something meaningful. The Progressive Frame is the pattern of information that arises when you think about the word progressive.
The Progressive Frame is very different from the Liberal Frame. People who haven't studied cognitive linguistics fail to realize this when they assert that the two words are interchangeable. What makes them different? Simply put, they tell different stories. (Actually, there's a lot more going on that I won't go into here.) The Progressive Frame activates a narrative about progress. This narrative has a beginning in some troubled world, then moves through an unspecified series of events to arrive at a better one. The story of progress is about improvement as understood by the storyteller.
By contrast, the Liberal Frame tells a story of liberty. In particular, it is a story about individual freedom against oppression. Historically, this has been applied to issues like self-rule (injustices of monarchy), civil liberties (the right to vote), and equality (empowered citizenship in the face of oppression). The Liberty Story is often told as one of progress from a condition of less freedom to a condition of more freedom. This is when it is most persuasive and inspirational. The power of the Liberal Frame, before it was tainted by an intentional process of radicalization by its opponents, resides in the Progressive Frame that is evoked when telling a story of progress.
The two frames are interconnected, which partly explains the confusion about their political meanings. But it has always been the Progressive Frame that compelled people to join movements. Don't believe me? Ask yourself whether you would ever join a political struggle that DOESN'T involve some kind of progress.
Ironically, the Progressive Frame lies at the heart of Conservative Populism too. The Conservative Frame underlies the powerful label conservative for people seeking to restore what they believe to be traditional values that have eroded away. This is also a story of progress, albeit one that presumes some kind of fall from grace as a pretext to the current situation. The existence of a progress story in conservative thought is what makes possible Obama's appeals to historically conservative citizens. Deep down we all want progress. It is our different notions of what we consider progress to be that leads to so much quarreling.
Declare Your Tribe and Improve the World!
Now that we have greater clarity about the concepts behind important political labels, a landscape of possibilities for actually improving the world appears before us. Political labels matter because of the stories they tell. Furthermore, the stories told by the opposition about our labels can be harmful to us. The word liberal is severely contentious now because it was targeted by a series of smear campaigns in the past (which are ongoing via conservative media outlets like Fox News and talk radio).
At the same time, we can use the power of progress to unite people. This is the great potential of knowing your frames... you can apply them clearly and powerfully when you know how they work. (Or you can habitually activate them without knowing they are there!) The essential idea is that everyone wants progress. So the label progressive has potential as a unifying force that brings together people who are tired of the push and pull of liberal versus conservative.
Tribes Will Transform the World
Why chose a label? Because it identifies you as part of a tribe. Seth Godin, the marketing guru who popularized the concept of an idea virus, makes a compelling argument that it is tribes, not money or factories, that will change the world. This TED Talk makes the case:
We all want to make the world a better place. By implication, we are all out to get the status quo. In spite of this the status quo has proven to be quite resilient. What's going on here? I would argue that two key obstacles stand in our way.
First, most people don't understand what is happening below the surface of their awareness - making it easy to sow distrust through manipulative practices (a problem I'm exploring solutions for). This can be addressed by expanding citizen education about the workings of our minds - what I call revealing the Great Political Blind Spot.
Second, we remain divided and disorganized as world-changers. The secret behind social change is Godin's observation about tribes. Margaret Mead famously declared that it is always a small group of like-minded people who change the world. Emphasis should be squarely placed on the small group part of her observation. Like-minded people can unite with existing communications technologies in ways that couldn't have been dreamed of a few short years ago. We have outlets like the blogosphere, YouTube, facebook, and Twitter at our fingertips to organize and get the word out about our activities.
Now is the time to get organized. I encourage you to watch Godin's talk and take his closing remarks seriously. He boldly calls upon the audience to start a movement within 24 hours. All you need is to reach a critical threshold of people, each of whom is engaged in other existing networks that they can reach out to and spread ideas around.
This isn't as hard as it seems. First you have to believe that you can make a difference. Second, start thinking about things you'd like to see improved. Third, look for people who share one of your passions who also want to make progress on the same issue. For example, you might really be into cycling and want to see parents spending more time with their kids. Put the two together and you've got a recipe for Bike-A-Child as a catchy theme for a Saturday afternoon. Cyclist moms and dads can have some fun and teach their kids the importance of good exercise at the same time.
For too long politics has been about preserving our differences. I think its time to change the name of the game. Politics in the 21st Century is going to be built with affinity groups - people who come together around shared interests. Social change is going to arise from a thousand little groundswells of people making a difference in their peer networks. A thousand ripples combined can quickly become a sea change!
Rather than letting elite communications teams (marketing and PR firms) define the labels of our politics, let's claim them for ourselves. We can be progressives because we want to see real progress toward a better world. This may not lead to a vision shared by the masses, but it does allow for communities to grow around visions of our own.
Of course, the concerned reader will quickly point out that one person's vision can be another's nightmare. True enough. But until the visions come from within us, instead of from message architects in the mass media, the only progress to be made will be further entrenchment in the status quo. We've seen where this leads... the largest wealth inequalities in human history and intensely corrupt economic and political systems.
I say, "No more!"
The issue I'm concerned about is manipulation of the populace. If you don't have a movement of your own to start (or even if you do), feel free to get involved in mine. In the days ahead, I want to lay a foundation for new practices in the political and social change arenas based on insights about the mind. This is not something one person can do on his (or her!) own. It is going to take thousands of us coming together and establishing a different set of social norms for political engagement.
If we work together as a progressive tribe, we really can improve the world.
- Posted in
43 Comments so far
Show AllIf working together means paying homage to Obama and his corrupt Administration, and then continuing destructive policies like "clean coal" or the endless occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; or covert strikes that murder innocent children and other non-combatants; or sniffing AIPAC's rectum; or usurping our rights under FISA; or the continued fleecing of our Treasury on behalf of the wealthy elites under TARP; or suppressing Bush era crimes and providing cover for the Dems who supported it, then perhaps you better go back to the drawing board.
I never voted Republican in my life, and I stopped voting for the Dems in 1972 for the same reason: our representatives are all bought and paid for - owned by the military industrial establishment, and the banking industry. Power represents the enfranchised elites. The rest of us are nothing more than a disturbing necessity they are required to deal with every four years.
I am not now, nor have a ever been, a frigging liberal. If I was, I would still be voting for the pond scum you support. If you require a label to understand what it means to think outside your 'box' by 'reframing' an issue, then I would call myself a post, post-modernist.
Furthermore, I am working with a "tribe." It is called the Green Party. You are welcome to join us, assuming you are tired of the status quo tripe that fills these pages. And I also take umbrage with your own 'manipulations' noting that "we all want a better world." For Christ sake, Osama Bin Laden wants a better world, and so did the 911 highjackers, but achieving a better world is not going to happen under the current administration which is owned by a pack of elites running the global show.
When the superstructure comes crashing down, perhaps we will finally have a wake up call of an order of magnitude leading to authentic planetary transformation. The matrix for change is not going to happen under our current political structure regardless of your reframing. Your time would be better spent building third parties and working for Instant Runoff Voitng. Anything less, is nothing more than lip service for the rest of the herd.
Elohim,
You start with "If working together means paying homage to Obama and his corrupt Administration, and then continuing...". Why is that? I can tell by the nature of your post that you are pretty angry about the political system. I can understand this, having experienced the extensive corruption of elite interests throughout my lifetime. The part that is confusing to me is that I don't suggest that we should follow Obama in this article. Instead, I suggest that each of us should explore within ourselves the meaning of progress - which includes considering what we believe the world should be like - and then go out and find like-minded people who share our vision.
While your anger is understandable, it won't be very productive for you if you lash out at people from the get-go. My initial reaction to your post was to get angry myself and then become defensive. I realized right away that this is counter-productive so I looked deeper at your comment to see what bothered me about it. What I found was a kind of cynicism that makes me think you have been betrayed in the past. This is very hard to deal with. I know from my own experiences. But you are going to have to learn to trust again if you want to help improve the situation. Even if you don't trust me, which is understandable since we don't know each other, you will need to find your own tribe (which it seems you have in the Green Party) and allow the support of that group to get you beyond cynicism.
I encourage you to do this because cynicism is the death of democracy. Unlike skepticism, which is about critical inquiry, cynicism is a loss of faith that emerges after a feeling of betrayal. Cynicism is what causes many of us to disconnect from the political world, which effectively nullifies any power we might otherwise have had. It is the psychological weapon of choice for dividing the masses into manageable bits.
Best,
Joe Brewer
Founder, Cognitive Policy Works
Twitter? Follow me at http://www.twitter.com/cognitivepolicy
Like your article, your response is nothing more than an obfuscation to deter the truth. I went to your website and read the bio's of those working on your behalf including one person engaged for the soon to be named Democratic Senator from MN a former radio host imbecile like Reagan before he jumped into politics. Why don't we cut to the chase gentle Joe, who did you vote for? Anything less is blowing smoke for the rest of sheep, Joe.
You cite various characterizations that my missive asserts a "cynical" and "angry" point of view, but remain in 'denial' about your own world view tied to corrupt and dishonest people like Obama and his world class henchmen. So, yes, I am angry when children are murdered and crushed because of the luxury of a antiseptic view of life such as the one you hold, and then perpetually tied to the military machine while they continue dropping American made munitions (like cluster bombs) authorized by Obama. (And please don't provide a rebuttal about how you do not support war, because a vote for Obama derives culpability from the action of your vote assuming of course 'responsibility' is still a virtue for an accountable, and authentic life.)
It is also hilariously ironic (if not tragic) that during the last eight years, your ilk has been feeding cynicism and anger about the Bush Administration that was entirely warranted. But now that your latest Democratic Savior is in office, let us all leave our anger behind, so we then can prepare for the important job of kissing Obama's "change we can believe in" marketing schema. To do so only perpetuates the corporate enterprise/mind set that has brought us to the brink planetary destruction.
If you and your ilk had one iota of integrity you would be as angry as me (and other authentic visionaries) like Hedges, Greenwald, Goodman, RFK, to name a few, all prophetic voices for the authentic “progressive” movement.
Furthermore, I am indeed angry when Obama keeps asserting "clean coal" when such a thing does not exist except in the fantasy world of a pack ‘groupies.’ And if you and your ilk had any integrity whatsoever, you would be angry too. Yes, I am angry when Obama appoints corporate insiders like Gueithner and Summers to clean up the mess that they created in the first place while working for Bush and Clinton repectively, and if you had any integrity, you would be angry too. Besides the obvious policy issues propping up the status quo, the Democratic party leadership continues their ongoing illicit shenanigans to suppress and undercut the growth of Third Parties; and I consider your essay nothing more, than 'more of the same.' Moreover, anger is a catalyst for authentic transformation, because it leads to activism.
If you really believed your own rhetoric about coalitions, you might try to explain why Obama has not included one authentic progressive in his administration like Nader?
The Obama dysfunction touches on almost every "progressive" issue of value to me. Apparently, the only thing you can offer, Joe, is a eco la la - let's all join hands and dance merrily around the Mullberry bush - as environmental destruction tips us ever closer to the breaking point of no return thanks to Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. What exactly don't you understand about that? The environmental community is asserting maybe five years at best; the change you are talking about is incremental requiring years to achieve.
As far as "cynicism" goes, some people call it realism. A method and concept you apparently lack in your grand reframing schema.
Moreover, If you don't like, or appreciate my critique against the type of tripe that seeks to reframe under the rubrick of "effectively nullifi[ing] any power we might otherwise have had. It is the psychological weapon of choice for dividing the masses into manageable bits" by incorporating obfuscations to achieve the same results and ends as the neo-conservatives. Thanks, but I choose something else that is rooted in honesty and integrity of voting my values and not following the pack for the sake of winning with the Blue Team.
In conclusion, taking refuge under the banner of condescending norms intended to incite anger from me, only renders illigetimate your own case (if you ever had one), and further ties you to the apologetic wing of the Obama administration.
Agree. Abuse is a vicious cycle for conservatives on the left and the right.
The Environmental Movement was born out of a desire to CONSERVE the natural world and therefore a conservative movement but are methods are not and boarder on radical praxis. But given the power of the status quo no doubt a novel idea for those living on Sunnyside Street in the burbs and driving their SUV with an environmental sticker attached on the rear window.
I do not see where Joe Brewer is advocating for or apologizing for Obama.
He is pointing out the use of the term "Progressive" which implies some sort of
Progress can be made. The problem with the angry cynical response of Elohim is
that it feeds the response: "Well if no matter what I do no progress can be made then why bother?"
Do Obama's policies represent progress over Bush and Republicans?
Certainly. You would have had no bonus limits, Stimulus Plan, Hi Speed Rail funding,
credit card limits, withdrawal from Iraq under McCain and Republicans.
Is it enough? No.
For example, 22 "Democrats" voted against limiting credit card rates to 15%.
This is the fundamental reform needed to stop credit card Usury at its core.
All of us should be contacting our Senators to complain about that and funding opponents who oppose these sorts of policies.
On the other hand 33 Democrats and not a single Republican voted for it including both of my New Jersey Senators, Lautenberg and Menendez.
If it would have passed I am pretty sure Obama would have signed it.
I agree that we need to pose truly Progressive alternatives like the Greens as opposed to the Regressive Republicans.
But we need to make progress wherever we can and push for more...
Not diss any progress whatsoever leading to cynical dropouts from politics.
elohim
I sort of took offense myself but I re read what you posted and if I ignored the crack about us poor ole Liberals it looks entirely different.
In my view Joe's wrong anyway, Liberals are NOT progressives, sorry they are NOT one in the same no matter how you look at it.
Exactly my point.
Actually I should have just said I agree rather than restating your point in "my view" A failing of mine.
I'm working on my posting though!
Thomas, my point was that labels can be misconstrued. I dislike the use of labels. The liberal label (or so called progressive label) covers a lot of ground, and I don't think you can find agreement on a definition of what it means - at least I've seen none that I am comfortable with.
In our contemporary moment, people use the frame (like Joe) to identify people who advocate for the Blue Team, and then giving out misleading characterizations that their values are covered under a political entity like the Democrats offer; that type of framing is shallow in my view, and leads to the types of legislative dysfunctions that fueled my own negative response to Joe who is trying to lump us all together while Rome burns, and our Mother Earth is shit upon by his Saviors.
Gotcha! Thanks. I hope we can stop Rome from burning.
I note by your conversation with Rose, that you served in the Marines. I served two years on a Recon Team in Vietnam. Drafted by the Johnson Administration another war escalator like Obama. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The fundamental flaw in the analysis is that every individual belongs to several different tribes at once, including one based on political affiliation but also ones based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, occupation, appearance, nationality, language spoken, age, geographic location, socioeconomic status, etc... And the elite corporatists in the US know this and exploit it to full advantage, i.e. use it to keep the little people divided and politically weak.
Hi kivals,
I don't see this as a flaw at all. The fact that we each belong to a multitude of tribes allows us to influence how we define ourselves through various combinations of the social networks these tribes represent. You are absolutely correct that tribalism has been exploited by historical power players to divide us (Howard Zinn describes this beautifully and extensively in A People's History of the United States). What I see as a new potential - through social networks and social media on the web - is a capacity for people to self-organize in ways that were impossible in the past. We can each feel empowered by engaging with our tribes as an important step toward a workable unity that gets beyond historical divisions.
Best,
Joe Brewer
Founder, Cognitive Policy Works
Twitter? Follow me at http://www.twitter.com/cognitivepolicy
Thank you for your response. I just am not convinced that the political affiliation tribe, in this case "progressive," will necessarily or even often trump the other tribes that the individual belongs to, as certainly each such tribe will offer compelling reasons why that affiliation should be supreme. And, as mentioned above, elite corporatists will exploit any differences in goals of the tribes to divide and conquer those who might otherwise join together to create a viable challenge to the corporate oligarchy. I am more of the opinion that progressive causes may be better served by promoting the idea that the supreme tribe is the human race itself, a tribe that encompasses and I believe most can be convinced supercedes all other tribes, making it far more difficult for the corporatists to sow division. I know this is not a new idea, but I believe it is an old idea whose time may have come, in part because of the availability of social media you referred to, though I envision and hope for more interchange of ideas and greater understanding between those of different tribes.
Forming a tribe around the notion of universal human dignity is strategic. When I wrote this article, I didn't go into all of the details because I wanted readers to feel comfortable tinkering with the idea that they can find power through their connections with people around them. But of course there are preferable affinity groups to be part of. One of them is the "universal dignity" or "universal prosperity" group that underlies the moral worldview of progressivism. This missing ingredient - the deeply held assumptions about right and wrong in the world - is what makes various tribes congeal into a larger movement.
Generally speaking, when I write for progressive audiences it is safe to assume that core values of empathy, shared responsibility, human dignity, and preservation of the commons are active in the minds of readers.
Best,
Joe Brewer
Founder, Cognitive Policy Works
Twitter? Follow me at http://www.twitter.com/cognitivepolicy
Thanks for the dialogue. I am certainly with you on organizing people around concepts of "universal dignity" or "universal prosperity," and I would add "equal value of each human life," but I am not sure I am with you on defining any tribe as composed of people who hold such beliefs. I think of tribes as exclusive and exclusionary, promoting causes and striving for goals that benefit primarily members of the tribe. I try to keep in mind that individual identity over time is a useful fiction (useful in simplifying to provide more manageable models of reality) and that individuals are always changing, evolving, and sometimes even progressing, and I certainly never want to give the impression to those who do not yet hold such beliefs that there is any exclusive club of people who do, and that the people in that club are fundamentally different from them or from what they could be.
All the best to you.
kivals
I really enjoyed your dialogue together.
Thanks, Thomas. You and Sioux Rose are probably the kindest and most polite posters I have seen on CD, and those traits are always appreciated. I sometimes feel exasperated when I read comments from "progressives" seething with hatred for their fellow human beings. You can be more considerate with those with whom you completely disagree than many here can be with those they agree with on virtually every issue.
Dog gone, what a really kind thing to say. I'm #2 to SR though even if you were right, because I find some of the intolerance, racism, hate and frankly, stupidity wearing on me lately. Not that I can't be fairly "Tupid" myself at times!
My appreciations for the kind words and thought.
Sioux Rose
KIVALS: A "shell route collision" moment! Just when I was about to comment on this inspired debate (reading the repartee between two very excellent minds), my own name (and thus soon after presence!) was invoked from the ethers! (LOL)
I try to be a diplomat, but I have lost my temper and patience with a few in this forum. Still, the power of dialog, the magnetism of affinity, the sense that MANY of us see what's wrong and bravely refuse to offer to this pervasive darkness our consent, nor our light, makes me feel less alone in the quest for universal justice. Meeting others of like mind (and even entering into debates with those who offer varying perspectives) is what draws me repeatedly to this virtual "congressional venue." It's great when some of the published writers enter as well. Imagine if one of our really enlivened sessions went live on national radio? Apart from the hate calls, outrage from those unaccustomed to having their worldview rocked by something as inconvenient as truth, a few would be awakened as Truth is a powerful medicine when effectively delivered.
THOMAS MORE: You are very much the diplomat! And in my view, given the soldier background, something of an anomaly. I'll bet you can still charm the ladies.
Sioux Rose
You sweet devil!
But a Marine, not a soldier!
Is this just a variation on the "million points of light" argument? I just have to refute Margaret Mead's observation, for instance, American independence was not achieved by the persistence of Massachusetts radicals. They had been preaching independence for a hundred years to no avail. American independence came about because the plantation owners of the South signed on to the cause following on the Somerset decision of 1772 banning slavery in England. It was the slaveowner's fear that Parliament would ban slavery that brought about independence, not the enlightened thinking of a school of New England philosophers.
National issues require national movements; tribes are merely niche markets.
Hi ClassAct,
You are correct that a national movement was involved. What you've missed is the dynamic pattern that led to the formation of this large-scale movement. It began in small pockets of like-minded people who were motivated by a cause that was appealing enough to spread from one "tribe" to another. This is a very common pattern for creating and sustaining growth of a movement from small groups to a coherent massive-scale one.
Best,
Joe Brewer
Founder, Cognitive Policy Works
Twitter? Follow me at http://www.twitter.com/cognitivepolicy
While I may agree with the author of this article I must admit that Elohiem has a point, this is not happening with Obama. The elites own him and to be more specific the Kennedy’s and he did not even bother to hide that fact as soon as he became president he renamed the Tri-borough Bridge in NYC to the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge among other things he has applied the Kennedy label to. I have always agreed with the progressives but not when they sell out and Obama is no progressive he is simply an elitist out for self interest and camouflaging his agenda as a humanitarian one rather than his predecessor Bush who was straight forward with his agenda. The green movement seems by far the most appealing and rational of all the ones out there but the battle will be fierce and the opposition they will meet will seek to destroy, move forward green movement/party.
Hi pablo30,
Why are you making this about Obama? I didn't. My article is about finding affinity with something larger than yourself and learning how to tap into this phenomenon so that you feel more empowered. Then I go on at the end to explicitly call for each of us to create meaning for what it means to have progress, rather than passively swallowing what elite communications firms tell us.
Please keep your eye on the ball. This message is the core of what I'm saying.
Best,
Joe Brewer
Founder, Cognitive Policy Works
Twitter? Follow me at http://www.twitter.com/cognitivepolicy
The Revolutionary war was not only fought because of the slave owners it was also fought because of the massive taxes that were being applied by the British and the opportunity that presented itself for the business owners to expand on global trading (although at a smaller scale) without having to pay tariffs to England. Margret Mead made a wonderful point with her quote “never doubt that a small group of thoughtful and committed individuals can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” When a call for progressive change for the better of all humans is made it is our duty to answer.
i am frequently very critical of joe brewer, but you know, in a really basic way, his advice is solid: change your thinking, and do some practical good in the world.
who could disagree w/that? how am i going to change the world? i am going to TYPE HARDER at CD ;)
the problem w/joe brewer is the same as any marketer: he doesn't define his terms, he employs them for rhetorical effect. to know what a "progressive" is, wouldn't you have to know what you are progressing from/to? this requires some serious thinking and investigation, over a lengthy period of time. some knowledge of history, economics, etc. brewer offers a change of rhetoric w/o an expansion and deepening of knowledge. he makes really naive appeals to people's vague "good intentions." but one might say "good intentions" combined w/ignorance are a great bane to "progressive" struggle.
in that joe brewer perpetuates inbred american ignorance, how can he be considered "progressive"?
(and joe, why does Fox & Friends have the POWER to make the word "liberal" something despicable?)
Hi rush limbaughs taint,
Nice point about how I didn't define my terms. I was intentionally ambiguous with this article because I want each reader to decide for him or herself what their individual progress story is. It is not for me to say what the "grand vision" is that everyone should follow.
You are spot on about the need to do serious thinking about what your progress story is (we all do!). This is something I hope each reader will take away to ponder on their own.
As for your final question about "liberal" being made despicable, there is no adequate short answer that fully explains it. I will only offer a vital piece of the answer here for the sake of brevity (and because I have a lot of other work to do this morning), which is that the power comes from insights into human cognition that are exploited by private interests unbeknownst to those who are manipulated. Very powerful persuasive techniques that exploit our cognitive unconscious have been employed for decades through mass media and other avenues. You can learn more about this in the phenomenal BBC documentary series, The Century of the Self (Google this as a video search and you can watch the entire four hour series online).
This is one of my deep motivators for sharing insights about human cognition. I want to help people understand how their minds work so that this knowledge becomes democratized.
Best,
Joe Brewer
Founder, Cognitive Policy Works
Twitter? Follow me at http://www.twitter.com/cognitivepolicy
if it's "my individual progress story", then where does "the tribe" come in?
and do you think the concrete actions of "liberals" themselves might have had something to do w/it? say, having to be dragged kicking & screaming into supporting the civil rights movement, or the almost unremitting & universal support of "liberals" for the vietnam war? or say "liberal" support for the creation of Fox & Friends type networks?
thanks for your responses here Joe. one more question: why do today's "liberals" mostly sound like the archhero of today's conservatives, Ronnie Raygun?
If the Native American tribes had not been decimated by genocide committed by whites,
this hemisphere
and much of this planet
would still be alive, green, and lightly trod.
Nobody like whites for re-inventing the wheel that most native peoples did not even need.
I understand the intention of the author is to make vague generalities about words like "Liberal" and "Progressive" in order for folks to understand the root meaning of the words... However, definitions that are too vague tend to make the term meaningless...
Without the historical and political context for the term "Progressive", the word means whatever you want it to mean... Like "Progressive Insurance" for example...
Why no mention of the Progressive Party during the last Guilded Age at the turn of the 19th Century?
A short list of their platform would give folks a clearer idea of what the word actually means...
Words do not exist in a vacuum, and carry with them their associations regardless of their classical definitions... I understand it is not the intention of the author to neuter the meaning of words from their historical and political context, but dumbing down the meaning of words by stripping them of their associations is what Orwell's Newspeak was all about...
I think this essay is Double Plus Ungood...
I wrote a couple years ago on these here webpages about framing and terminology. I always appreciate a reason to repetitively and redundantly repeat myself.
Progressive is the term, the framing, the vector that is farthest from the x-axis of the left/right political dichotomy ('leftist' is the most pejorative, with negative meanings such as 'out of left field' 'left out'- how can that ever compare with 'being right'?)
The opponent of a progressive is a regressive, which is much better to term your opponent than 'the right'.
locust's word of the day: polysemous
Progressive can take in not only the supposedly farthest left tribe but disgruntled tribes of so-called center and right.
my tribe, my 'us'? locust's name stands for itself.
locust brought to you today by CISIC (Crummy Idiots still in Charge), a political re-action committee. CISIC (pronounced Sea-sick) is represented by the lawn firm of Derision, Sarcasm, Insult and Scorn.
what about the Republic of Reason?
End tribalism. Focus only on specific policies.
Let policy-support movements replace tribalism.
i.e. the movement for Single-payer
the movement to end the wars NOW
the movement to ban torture
People will need to educate themselves about specific issues anyhow. We don't need tribes full uninformed people who just like being members of a group. We need people who understand specifically what they are fighting. And if they are well-informed, they don't need a tribe.
Also, the problem we face is really much simpler than all of this. We surrender our votes to democrats who refuse to represent our views. We need a single political party or independent political candidates that we will stand behind, win or lose. Until we have that, the concept of "tribes" creating grassroots change is a red herring, because they lack the power or access to legislature necessary to influence policy decisions.
We need standardizing of terms: Left for people, right for elites. These reflect the most significant division, the class war perpetrated by elites against the people, the grand-daddy of all conflicts.
With such standardized terms, it's far easier to frame reality. Good = left, bad = right, according to the principle of universality, the golden rule, which happens to have the support of almost all the people.
More controversial is the idea that we can do some good and some bad, and let the good sort of compensate for the bad. This is called triangulation, employed with great enthusiasm by Demoks in Washing-town. We need balance in many areas, and we can't erase the dark side of human nature. But we don't need triangulation and we can enforce a "do no harm" public policy, i.e. Hippocratic Oath. So for example the USA bombing Afghani children while simultaneously saving the polar bears becomes just saving the polar bears, or preferably nurturing the whole biosphere in a rational way.
We can unite the greatest number of people around grass-roots enforcement of the Golden Rule + Hippocratic Oath in public policy. But this requires mass enlightenment/responsibility. Mr. Brewer's essay is a good step in that direction. Notice the presentation of science without tyrannical-elitist jargon.
But it will still require a lot of work by a lot of people. Start by getting civics into the local K-12 curriculum. Out of universalism comes a whole slew of public policies: All kinds of new rights, like universal rights to self-sufficient production. And grass-roots support, e.g. shifting our individual exchange/association away from the power centers and toward our local communities.
The problem is that as the Democratic Party appropriates the term "progressive", the same thing will happen with that term that happened with "liberal"; it will come to stand for nothing but hypocrisy. Since the Dems are now the ones blocking progress on a whole range of issues, true progressives will be joined by legions of "progressive" Democrats who will apologize for anything that Obama and the Democrats due, whether it's blocking any mention of single-payer or escalating the war in Afghanistan.
Progressives of the world, unite! as the Green Party. Read the platform at gp.org. Progress always comes from outside the two-party system; it comes from the people forming their own movement. Discard the politics of corporate rule and get active with the Greens.
Peace, justice, democracy and sustainability!
green, nicely stated.
elohim, reading your backs & forths w/joe brewer, you are spot on. sorry to say, but j.b. is totally full of crap.
humans can only stand reality in small doses-t.s. eliot (or something to that effect.)
...too much reality. a faulty denial mechanism. that's why his movies are no longer funny-woody allen's psychiatrist in "purple rose of cairo." (i think that's the movie.) ezeflyer called me "paranoid" cuz his gallons and gallons of obama kool-aid are making me sick.
taint, yeah, a guy like ez has no place else to go... when the superstructure comes crashing down, and the herd is driven out of suburbia onto the streets, perhaps life will take on a different scope of praxis as measured against the tarnished armor of Obama's elitist programs on behalf of enfranchised academics like Joe who has the luxury of standing on his ivory tower and then bring down the seminal word on the passive body of the congregation.
Unite over policies not labels. Problem solved.
Another World Not Only Is Possible, It's A Must
"Based on?"
"Time running out."
"Due to?"
"Perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday."
"The answer being?"
"A vision that can capture the imagination of the masses."
"Such as?"
"A world where everyone's in charge of his (or her) own destiny and where there are no have-nots nor left-outs."
"Anything else?"
"Yes we can."
I think that is Joe's thesis. The problem is to ignore that Osama and his bloody brethren want a better world too ; the 911 High jackers wanted a better world. Even Hitler was a Master of organizing tribes on behalf of their vision of a better world: one of those tribes was called the Gestapo. Now we have Obama's vision of a better world which includes interminable war escalation, occupation, and covert air strikes killing innocent children. And then naming Cheney's assassination general to head up Afghanistan so to continue the occupation and murders with more efficiency.
Like you said, "yes we can" nothing more than a marketing schema intended to enslave the New Age types like Joe and friends.