EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Conservatism’s Death Gusher
The issue is death -
death gushing at ten thousand pounds per square inch from a mile below
the sea, tens of thousands of barrels of death a day. Not just death to
eleven human beings. Death to sea birds, sea turtles, dolphins, fish,
oyster beds, shrimp, beaches; death to the fishing industry, tourism,
jobs; and death to a way of life based on the beauty and bounty of the
Gulf.
Many, perhaps a majority, of the Gulf residents affected are
conservatives, strong right-wing Republicans, following extremist
Governors Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour. What those conservatives are
not saying, and may be incapable of seeing, is that conservatism itself
is largely responsible for what happened, and that conservatism is a
continuing disaster for conservatives who live along the Gulf.
Conservatism is an ideology of death. It was
conservative laissez-faire free market ideology - that maximizing profit
comes first - that led to:
- the corrupt relationship between the oil companies and the Interior Department staff that was supposedly regulating them
- minimizing cost by not drilling relief wells
- the principle that oil companies could be responsible their own risk assessments on drilling
- maximizing profit by outsourcing risk assessment that told them what they wanted to hear: zero risk!
- maximizing profit by minimizing cost of materials
- maximizing profit by failing to pay cleanup crews and businesses for their losses
- focusing only on profit by failing to test the cleanup methods to be used if something went wrong
- minimizing cost by sacrificing the health of cleanup crews, refusing to allow them to use respirator masks to protect against toxic fumes.
It is conservative profit-above-all market fundamentalism that has led other oil companies to mount a massive PR campaign to isolate BP as an anomalous "bad actor" and to argue that offshore drilling should be continued by the self-proclaimed "good actors." Their PR fails to mention that in Congressional hearings it came out that they all outsource risk assessment to the same company that declared that BP had "zero risk." The PR fails to mention that they all use cost-benefit analysis to maximize profits just as BP did. Cost-benefit analysis only looks at monetary costs versus benefits, case by case, not at the risk of massive death of the kind gushing out of the Gulf at present. Death, in itself, even at that scale, is not a "cost." Only an outflow of money is a "cost." This is what follows from conservative laissez-faire market ideology, an ideology that continues to sanction death on a Gulf scale.
But the facts won't make a difference to dyed-in the-wool conservatives, since the facts will be filtered through their ideological frames: when the facts don't fit the frames, the facts will be ignored.
The conservative worldview says man has dominion over nature: nature is there for human monetary profit. Profit is sanctioned over the possibility of massive death and destruction in nature. Conservatives support even more dangerous drilling off the coast of Alaska and are working to repeal the President's moratorium on deep water drilling. Nature be damned; the oil companies have a right to make money, death or no death.
Directness of causation is a rarely noticed property of the conservative worldview. What are the causes of crime? Bad people, lock ‘em up, say conservatives. There are no social or economic causes, that is, systemic causes, in the conservative universe. So it is with the Death Gusher. Blame BP, the "bad actor." Look for the immediate cause, but don't look any further, at the profit-above-all system in which all oil companies operate, a system idolized by conservatives. Without an understanding of systemic causes, the causes cited above won't make much sense.
A great many self-identified conservatives are actually what I've called "biconceptuals," who have both conservative and progressive worldviews, but on different issues. They actually share a progressive view of nature: they love the beauty and appreciate the bounty of the Gulf, as it was before the Death Gusher. They want to save the environment of the Gulf and the way of life as it was. But shift the issue to the culpability of laissez-faire markets, the absolute right to profit from nature and profit-maximizing corporate practices, and their conservative worldview is activated. They will not be able to see the causal role of conservatism itself in the Death Gusher, and in the conservative ideology of greed and death that has given us the global warming disaster we now face worldwide.
Incidentally, there are bi-conceptual Democrats who share the conservative view of the market. Their views have led to many of President Obama's problems with Democrats in Congress.
Finally, there is what progressive Democrats see as a contradiction: conservative advocates of smaller and weaker government and critics of governmental power trying to pin the Death Gusher Disaster on Obama for not having and using enough government power to prevent or lessen the disaster - even though the government has no capacity to plug oil wells.
The contradiction is logical, from a progressive point of view, but not from a conservative point of view. The highest value in the conservative universe is to preserve, defend, and extend conservatism itself. Anything that helps, or fails to harm, Obama contradicts this highest principle, since Obama's deepest values on the whole fundamentally contradict conservative values. Conservatives, on principle, cannot let a major opportunity to criticize Obama go by. Of course, it also helps conservatives politically.
Those who are not held captive by the conservative worldview should be able to recognize the causal role of conservatism in the Death Gusher in the Gulf. Many progressive do, but keep it to themselves.
Progressives have been much too kind to conservatives on this matter. They have largely accepted the Bad Actor Frame, criticizing BP but not the whole industry and its practices. No one should be drilling miles under the sea, where oil comes out at 10,000 pounds per square inch. No matter how much profit is involved.
Conservatism gushes death - and not only in the Gulf of Mexico.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
70 Comments so far
Show AllLakoff has some great ideas and he is an expert in cognitive science, however his understanding of politics is quite superficial. In the USA, what he describes as "Conservative" also describes "Liberals". So-called progressives are so rare they are non-existent in the Senate and in the House only as many as one can count on one hand.
A brief visit to politicalcompass.org will clarify any definitions.
Yup. People need to understand that what is described in the article as 'conservative' is not truly conservative: ask the Amish! Amish are conservative, but are not as described above. Lakoff really does need to dig even deeper into this, and look at the way the words have conditioned people's minds, and directed and limited their thinking -- even his.
Gangsters are not conservative -- they are just crooks. Even an authoritarian is not necessarily 'conservative' as described in the article -- greedy and thinking only of money, and risk-taking. There are biconceptual conservatives who are not at all progressive, but torn in two different directions which might both be labeled as conservative, of different types. There are authoritarian conservatives who are terrified of small government, or any sort of libertarianism, and who want to be told what to do in every respect.
Indentifying 'progressive' and 'conservative' with limited and rigid traits, as classified through a restrictive model of the psyche, and then bending the realty to conform to that model, is making a classic mistake -- mistaking the map for the territory, as Korzybski put it. The political compass open it up a little, but even that doesn't begin to map the wide range and variations of humanity, or the difference between HOW one thinks and and WHAT one thinks and believes. Some 'progressive thinkers' are rigidly conservative in their beliefs, and won't budge an inch, while some 'conservative thinkers' will ALWAYS question everything and never settle for the status quo (even when it works well).
Use a model (or map), but don't get stuck in it.
blue p...i love you man...teaching general semantics will not work here....but, i still love you! (over 6,000 languages extant in the world, and none of them work)
Thanks Lakoff. When you stick to Linguistics, you are trully great. Death Gusher - I like that - good framing. As for political conservatives...of with their heads!
"Death Gusher" is horrible, and the whole attack death angle is terrible linguistics here, as well as in other places. Making death out to be evil is a huge mistake. To me it's one of the top, if not top, reason more people do not become political activists/participants: they all have their own mortality to consider, life is short, so why bother?
It doesn't matter what direction you look: half is death or moving in the direction of dying, half is birth or moving in the direction of growing. So for birth and death it's the how of life that matters. All the birds, people and marine life are going to die, so the big point with the oil spill is that the death is coming prematurely and from oil suffocation or some sort of agonizing bacterial infection. But the article wasn't about the oil spill, it was about conservatism and liberalism, but that was obscured by the authors use of death to I suppose provide some titillation to make the article attractive, but it doesn't.
The author just goes along with the AMA and Global Pharma with their statements, at least in medication write ups, that talking about death is a sign of sickness and thus the person needs to be medicated. It also goes along with the likes of Patreaus to whom death is but a number to be placed in a certain box. So this use of death is terrible linguistics. Any reference to death, for optimum emotional recognition, the kind needed to attract more people into political participation, should include the how(sights, sounds, smell, touch, feel...) of death. Death should be as honored as birth, and not used as a cheap shot for titillation on another subject.
Sorry to be so negative but the model presented by the politicalcompass.org is outdated and wrong. It proposes two dimensions; (1) a left-right dimension supposedly related to economic freedom and (2) a progressive-authoritarian dimension related to social freedom. This is one of those models that looks good on the surface, but the research, which started in the 50's, was never supportive.
First, in these models the two dimensions need (psychometrically) to be more or less non-correlated; i.e. a person's location on the left-right dimension is unrelated to their location on the progressive-authoritarian dimension). Unfortunately, a large amount of research across the last 50 years has found conservatives to be high in various measures of authoritarianism. The two are highly related and not independent, which means that we don't need both dimensions. Authoritarianism is a subcomponent of conservatism - not a separate dimension (See R. Altemeyer, "The authoritarian personality").
Second, there is very little (if any evidence) that has found a relationship between left-right and economic freedom. Same for progressive-authoritarianism. Most research suggests that left-right relates to both economic and social freedom, along with many other things.
The failure of this two-dimensional model is another reason for considering Lakoff's ideas about biconceptuals.
It is only a BASIC indicator (as I indicated) to be sure. However, it is a good start for the basics, despite the shortcomings. It is far better than the one dimensional Conservative/Liberal model. If you can come up with another basic model please do suggest it.
An entire course in comparative politcs and government as well as political theory is of course the best route, however not practical for such a forum.
I still stand by my claim that some of Lakoff's underlying assumptions are not accurate. If you take notice, I am not the only one. He is a cognitive scientist, and not an expert in politcal theory, politcal philosophy, or comparative govt. and politcs. I would suggest he consult with someone like Sheldon Wolin, for example.
Love the phrase "death gusher." It more accurately describes the reality of what's happening in the gulf.
Let's all use it in our correspondence and maybe it'll go viral.
"since Obama's deepest values on the whole fundamentally contradict conservative values."
Where in the hell did the author come up with this line?? I'd like to see some evidence, please, to back this bald-faced line of cow-plop up. Obama is just as conservative as News-freaking-Gingrich, if not moreso. And I DO have plenty of evidence to back that claim up, unlike the author.
-Obama believes in bailing out the huge corporations, but not the American people, with trillions of dollars.
-Obama believes in giving away a boondoggle worth billions to the health insurance companies, by forcing millions of Americans to purchase their health insurance policies whether they can afford it or not. (he called this "health care reform"), but NOT in Medicare-for-all.
-Obama believes in drill-baby-drill oil wells. His "moratorium" mentioned by the author, above, was smoke and mirrors, as evidenced by the fact that Obama granted dozens of "exemptions" to his OWN "moratorium," during the months following his announcement of the "moratorium."
-Obama believes in never-ending war War WAR to secure America's "security" by invading foreign lands, doing one better than Bush, Jr. by starting another war in yet another country.
-Obama wants to gut social security and medicare, since they are "adding to the national deficit," and has put together a committee to do just that. He does NOT, however, even entertain the idea of, instead, eliminating all of Bush Jr's 17 tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, getting rid of all the subsidies and other tax breaks for large corporations, or reducing the military-industrial complex's trillion-dollar budget.
I could go on and on.
The author is full of shit. Obama is as conservative as they get.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
Ayuh.
Lakoff's done some good stuff, but I thought the article ran off the rails with that sentence.
Republican's don't oppose Obama because he's a socialist ... they oppose him because he plays their own game so well it threatens to keep them out of power (See: Clinton, Bubba).
well said...
. . . "since Obama's deepest values on the whole fundamentally contradict conservative values."
This remark is most definitely horse puckey and emanates from the mind of someone still blind and foolish enough to believe that Obama is anything but a typical American political criminal of the current age. The Democratic party is full of deluded people like this.
Demonstorm, I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it, as have several other bloggers here. Bravo to you and to them. Your point is both right on and obvious. And saying "obvioius" is not a slight in any way. In the recent Sherlock Holmes film, the script includes this gem: "There’s nothing more elusive than an obvious fact."
That Obama is some sort of progressive in his inner worldview, his heart-of-hearts, is truly a blind spot of Lakoff's. Or a malicious lie. I don't know which.
Anyone who wants a thorough summary of Obama's conservatism can go to Paul Street's superb scholarship on Obama. It comes in the form of two books, the first of which was written during the Obama campaign. The second of which is just out.
Here are sources for Paul's books and his many articles which assert that Obama is a militarist, conservative, corporate Democrat, more dangerous than Bush in many ways, because he poses as progressive/liberal:
http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet
and
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Street-Fan-Page/110931475606860
Notably, Paul's second book about Obama makes reference to the deceptive nature of Obama's policies, for it is titled: The Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama and the Real World of Power.
Obama is a Trojan Horse for perpetuating the corporate, conservative, militarist regime of the US. He is a killer (drone attacks, extending occupations) and destroyer of liberty (opposing the public option, and more) posing in progressive blackface.
If only we had a Malcolm X or Dr. King in office, not this imposter as president. As Cornell West said, he is "the brilliant, charismatic, smiling, friendly face of the American Empire."
I guess this rather shrill supurlative-laden piece (and inaccurate - the shut-in pressure of the well is 2800 psi) is an example of how Lakoff thinks liberals should be attacking conservatives, based on his psychological theory?
As a form of persuasive rhetoric, I think this piece is awful! Has Lakoff never heard of Shakespeare's observation about people who protest too much? It is utterly vacuous - devoid of any substance whatsoever, except vast spewings of hot air. If I didn't have a clear understanding of the reactionary right's ongoing brutal salvo in the war on the worker, I'd be sympathising with the conservatives after reading this piece, as Lakoff just came across as an typical elite liberal asshole.
And his defense of the utterly compromised Obama is indeed quite sad.
Some of Lakoff's comments, such as that about the "biconceptuals" comes straight from his theory, which is for the most part based on scientific research. Other things he said are also based on scientific research, though he hasn't incorporated them into his theory as far as I can tell. Still other things are his own opinion.
I would say that the piece is more explanatory than persuasive.
To say that the piece is "vacuous - devoid of any substance whatsoever except vast spewings of hot air" is way over the top, especially given the general context of your criticism.
how about "doublethink?"
see http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/1984-j12.shtml
Please point out the substance in this paragraph:
"The contradiction is logical, from a progressive point of view, but not from a conservative point of view. The highest value in the conservative universe is to preserve, defend, and extend conservatism itself. Anything that helps, or fails to harm, Obama contradicts this highest principle, since Obama's deepest values on the whole fundamentally contradict conservative values. Conservatives, on principle, cannot let a major opportunity to criticize Obama go by. Of course, it also helps conservatives politically."
It is, a laughable mix of mindless tautologies (the goal of conservatives is to promote conservatism) and absurdities regarding Obamas "deepest values".
Substance?
First, since you are the one attacking Lakoff, you should be the one who should provide support for your over-the-top rhetoric. You never have. I will defend him, but understand you are responsible for explaining why the article lacks substance. Throwing out phrases such as "mindless tautologies" and "absurdities" doesn't come close as explanation - it's just another form of name-calling.
Second, you cherry-picked a single paragraph as an example of the lack of substance, ignoring other substantive points made throughout the article. Perhaps I should ask you to explain Lakoff's construct of "biconceptualism", and please explain why you think it lacks substance and why it's a "mindless tautology" or an "absurdity"?
You summarize by claiming "It is, a laughable mix of mindless tautologies (the goal of conservatives is to promote conservatism)"
- Unfortunately, you chopped off the end of the sentence regarding the goal of conservatism , leaving off 2 out of 3 substantive words. All three of these survival-related concepts (preserve, defend, extend) are highly substantive when viewed in terms of biology life, human nature, and social motivation (not to mention politics). I haven't a clue what you think "substance" is or what theory of semantics or mind you are following, Also, this statement is not a tautology.
You also have problems (as do I) with Lakoff's claim that Obama's deepest values on the whole contradict conservative values. My disagreement involves neglect of descriptors such as "consistent" and "inconsistent" rather than "contradictory", while you think this is some kind of absurdity. Again, I have no idea what you mean by "absurdity". Why is Lakoff's opinion an "absurdity" or "tautology"? Why is it an absurdity to state the obvious fact that conservatives cannot let a major opportunity to criticize Obama?
I've said before that I'm not a big fan of Lakoff's model. But even if there are weaknesses in his theory, the model also has a number of good points. The incessant and way over-the-top focus on the negative makes it virtually impossible to see these good points. Thus you lose something that could have been of value.
You read too many comic books.
the best thing about Lakoff's columns are the responses they generate. "conservative ideology" is a collection of rationalizations for loot, pillage and plunder, which pre-dates Adam Smith. first the bucks, then the ideology. as for his so-called "progressives" read the previous comments. "demonstorm" has it right and is factually accurate--try to find any of that on tv or radio no matter how it is "framed." have a look at http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/1984-j12.shtml to see how
"1984" works today.
Conservatism is an ideology of death.
May I point out yet again that a true conservative would never be a Republican or a Democrat. Republicans are, in reality, reactionaries and out-and-out fascists. A Democrat is fundamentally the same except they walk over you with tennis shoes instead of spikes. It takes a Democrat a little longer to kill you. A true conservative (I doubt any even exist, especially in this country) would have some respect for the law, just to name one of any number of things that R's and D's have absolutely no respect for.
I guess there are no "real" conservatives, only living people who call themselves "conservative," just like there is no "real" god, only living people who claim to hold god's opinions.
mispost
Why stop at deregulating the economy? Let's deregulate traffic! Accidents are caused by traffic regulations! The roads will quickly be purged of bad drivers if we just stop regulating traffic! Why is the government building roads that force us to drive where they want? Let's tear out the roads and drive anywhere we want!
Stop using the word 'conservative' when what you are talking about is Capitalist.
'Conservative' - "to conserve" - is a euphemism. 'Capitalist' says it all - it's about money, honey.
I recently was behind a car whose bumper sticker declared "No to Socialism".
I'm gonna get one that says: NO TO JERKISM.
Because that's what I"m going to call conservatism from now on. I define a jerk as someone who doesn't give a hoot about others and where it's all about "Me, me, me."
Seems to fit the bill for most socalled conservatives, especially those with a Libertarian bent.
Have the other oil companies increased their safety procedures? Has there been an increase in businesses that specialize in deep water drilling systems, and procedural changes in inspections? All this would be done discreetly, I assume (Thank god it wasn't us (Exxon/Shell/Citgo/et al), this time!). Have insurance premiums gone up for them? Has anyone been fired? Watching a BP PR ad right now on TV. Whew! and people think it's the oil itself that smells bad.
Some poster on CD has the great signature: "The main problem in the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell.
If you're not sure what that means, read all the posts on this article. Lakoff is making the basic point that Conservatism is an ideology of death and greed, and that Liberals have not hammered away at conservatives on this point. (And his extended point is that language/framing is the primary tool to do this.)
Instead of CD posters agreeing to the basic point and maybe expanding it a bit, almost every post is about some silly detail about Obama or about some nitpicky point in the article. OF COURSE Obama isn't what most would call a Liberal, and I'm sure Mr Lakoff knows that, but he's trying to make a larger point.
Geez, no wonder conservatives have such an easy time kicking liberals asses.
indeed! circle the wagons, and form the firing squad!
"Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."
I think that conservatives should conserve. They should conserve the water for their grandchildren. They should conserve the carbon in the ground, not put it into the polluted atmosphere. They should conserve the federal budget too, for their children.
Of course, Bible-thumping politicians also believe in "Thou shalt not steal" but look how far that commandment went in Washington and in various state capitals.
What we see on both counts is a cult-like ideology where the spoken words are holy but listening to these same words means absolutely nothing to the true believers.
That's partly why I identify myself as a 'progressive traditional conservative' - based on my family's ideology. Some socialism is absolutely necessary to preserve a civilized society - which we don't now have. I believe in a meritocracy - my parents also believed in it, and thought the US would offer an opportunity for us. What a disastrous mistake! But then, all they heard (before WWII and for a while thereafter) was American propaganda - put out by the predatory corporatists for global consumption (in their fears that true socialism would put them out of business). Capitalism is not evil - but it should surely be reserved for the 'luxuries' in life - not basic necessities such as food, water, shelter, healthcare, education, energy, employment opportunities, and other basic societal assets. The 'progressive' income tax was a cure for most of the ills that have befallen us (the 'war on drugs' is another problem altogether). And 'discipline' has to be enforced with regulation - laws with teeth that really bite offenders.
I guess I'm considered 'conservative' because I believe in strong discipline, morality, responsibility (accountability), and character. I've never met a Lefty that embraced strong discipline - which is probably why they can't make any progress in this country. (It's not the same in the rest of the world - most Left-leaning and/or socialists believe in solidarity and strong discipline.)
The 'anything goes' crowd gave Lefties a bad name back in the '60s - so 'progressive' is a better label, without all the 'hippie' baggage. And progressives can be left-leaning, moderate, or traditional (non-war-mongering) - we all share a common vision of a civilized society that offers opportunity and dignity for all - and limits the reach of sociopaths and their anti-social vices.
... liberalism has become nothing but a way of helping conservatives get everything they want, while making disgruntled noises about it.
Democrat=Republican enabler
George addresses only the least problematic half of the equation. If he addressed the more pressing problem of the other half he would of course end up castigating himself.
Yes folks, as pernicious as "conservatism" is the far greater threat is liberalism.
Let's begin by being crystal clear on this matter- Liberalism is foremost an economic doctrine. All of the side dishes attributed to this disease are mere window dressing.
Years of social engineering has caused people to be deluded on this matter.
While many of us here know that modern-day liberalism was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism and conservatism most people do not. If they did and truly understood this history they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals", and The Democratic Party in particular, into the socialists they might want them to be.
In virtually every circumstance "liberal" or "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what. It's all bullshit.
Liberals and leftists are not merely different points in a common spectrum but, in the end, they are implacable enemies. And the issue is precisely joined on the issue of class, as has been mentioned before but now seems to have disappeared from the general lexicon.
Liberals are not Leftists, they are softer Capitalists.
1- Certainly liberals/progressives are on the left of the right-wingers and they seem to care about the poor.
2- Leftists, last time I checked, are people who believe in socialism, at least.
3- Liberals/progressives, as far as I can tell, don't believe in socialism.
4- While people believe Progressives are the top-left-radicals in America, this is not true, not even close. And because the media portray them this way, we are given the impression that the weak and slow change they advocate is extreme and almost intolerable.
So not only are Liberals/Progressives NOT Leftists, I also submit this to you : by calling them leftists, which is a very charged term in America, we are limiting the terms of the debates, we are giving a helping hand to the right-wingers.
No, Progressives are not Leftists, they are softer Capitalists.
All of these endless articles by liberal pundits like Lakoff ultimately do the bidding of the status quo by occupying the space where the Left should be, confusing and misleading people, steering people away from accurate perceptions and clouding their minds, preventing them from asking the right questions because they think they already have the answers. That is dead wood that needs clearing. If we are willing to kick over the beehive of modern liberalism you will see the true face and the true nature of the ruling class war against the people with crystal clarity. As it is, we can't even see the enemy now. We are looking out the tent flap watching for the approach of those dreaded right wingers, and the enemy is behind us right in our own tent.
=============
“I sit on a man's back choking him and making him carry me. And yet assure myself and others, that I am very sorry for him and wish to lighten his burden by all possible means. Except, by getting off his back.”
- Leo Tolstoy
McCoyote's effort to bow down and relinquish our term, "progressive" to the conservative militarists who are attempting to co-opt it is misguided and ineffective.
The problem with "left," "leftist," "socialist," and "radical," is this: the American people reject those labels as terms of political identity.
A Gallup survey in 2006 put "progressive" at about 30 percent, meaning essentially the same is liberal. This is with decades of surveys and media defining the US political spectrum as liberal-moderate-conservative.
A smart approach, one adopted by CD, by the Green Party, by the Vermont Progressive Party, by 19 state progressive caucuses in state Democratic Parties, is to seize "progressive" as our worldview, our identity, and that which represents our policies, as left, and as radical, and as departing from the corporate regime supported by both parties as this worldview is.
What matters is the substance of the policy agenda we (radical, left) true progressives have. And then adopting it. And then exposing the co-opters of it as fraudulent. Obama and Hillary Clinton both declared themselves to be "progressive" during their campaigns. But that is false.
The true (left, radical) progressive policy consensus is found, simply, by the commonalities between the Green Party platforms of 2004 and 2008; by Nader's presidential platform; by Kucinich's presidential platform; by the stated platforms of the state progressive caucuses (SPCs); and the good PAC, PDA; and the policies of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, founded by several good progressives such as Barbara Lee and Bernie Sanders. (Yes, I know they caved on health care.)
There are no "left" or "radical" or "socialist" parties or political groups with significant support. But the Green Party is our national party. And state progressive caucuses are the beginnings of a strong progressive presence in the Democratic Party. To see the policy agenda of one such SPC, see:
http://www.kansasprogressives.org/Mission
And it is an important real-world point that not only significant percentage of Americans identify themselves as "progressive" (30 percent or so), but a majority of Americans identify with progressive policy positions on foreign, domestic and electoral policy. Just Google "progressive majority" to find out the facts. (Which doesn't exactly work by Google-ing "left majority" for the reasons I stated above.)
I must also reject the reference to "softer capitalism." Without defining "capitalism," so as to define that which progressives support and that which we reject is misguided. So is the blanket embrace of "socialism," without specifying that which we reject and embrace. Is American "capitalism" the same as capitalism in Norway, Denmark or Sweden? (No.) Do we reject Swedish economics? (No.) Do we embrace old Soviet "socialism"? (No.) Do we embrace Swedish social democracy? (I do. And it fits the progressive consensus.) Is the Swedish social democracy anti-capitalist? (Somewhat.) Pro socialist? (Somewhat, but allows private property.) Without definitions and specifying clarity, the answers are not available to the American electorate on whom the adoption of progressive (left, radical, and held by a majority) depends. Uttering mindless slogans such as these are not smart: "Capitalism is bad." "Socialism is good." We need to do better than this folks. RichM makes the same mistake on the post next to McCoyote's in his blanket, categorical opposition to "capitalism" at 7-16-10 2:33 p.m.
The true (left, radical) progressive economic policy goals are quite clear in the Green Party platforms of 2004 and 2008. They are not effectively labelled "socialism" or "capitalism" for they neither advocate the elimination of private property, nor the elimination of regulations against business. They are a hybrid set of policies that combine retaining property ownership, with strong regulatory and tax policies to benefit the entire society. In a word, they are "progressive" a term embraced by the Green Party, and 30 percent of the American public.
There is a battle for our identity. I am not willing to side against CD, The Green Party and other truly progressive groups and relinquish the term "progressive" to the fake progressives attempting to seize it in an attempt to prevent us from gaining popular support.
Earth,
Nice summary of political terms in use today describing the opposite of "right." Might be a time to talk about history, too. Before, during, and after WWI, progressives like Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, opposed our entry into that war and generally came down on the side of working men and women, while maintaining their basic support for the capitalist system. By the way, they paid dearly in votes for their anti-war position. Socialists also opposed the war, supported unions (like the Wobblies), took positions to the left of the Progressives, and maintained at least some connections to the socialist movement world-wide. For the most part, I see the Greens as heirs to the Progressive movement. I do not see a drive to nationalize industries (except, maybe banks or energy) among Green partisans like Nader. Socialists would like to see the end of capitalism: no more advertising for worthless products, a de-emphasis on growth, a radical transformation of the present political and economic world that puts the welfare of ordinary people over economic aims. Like earlier socialists, they are internationalist and would work to achieve the goals of socialism everywhere. I support the use of the word "Progressive" as a continuation of the earlier movement and I would definitely separate it from "liberal." Since George McGovern, that word has lost all of its meaning. Liberals do not stand for anything--except holding political power. It should not be used; I would suggest "corporatist" as a replacement.
Thanks Drosera. I agree with all you say about both the terms and the history. As for "liberal" as a term, it has historical meaning in the sense and for the reason that the political spectrum in the media has been defined for over 60 years as "liberal-moderate-conservative." But I agree with you, that we should not use the term. It splits our identity as progressives between two names; "liberal" is closely associated semantically with "neo-liberal" policies; and is too often associated with individuals who have been highly "corporatist."
I like the words "corporate" and "corporatist" for describing status quo policies. The "corporate" media is much better than "mainstream" media, for "mainstream" sounds too much like a majority support it. They don't.
A great concept for status quo Democrats and Republicans is not only "corporate Democrat," but also Charles Derber's idea of corporate regimes versus progressive regimes. His books Regime Change Begins at Home; Hidden Power; and Greed to Green reveal this concept. That way Democrats and Republicans who support the corporatist, militarist policies of the last 30 years in the case of corporatism, and 192 years (to 1818) in the case of militarism, can be called the same name: supporters of continuing the corporate regime, and those who oppose a progressive regime. In this concept, Kucinich, Nader, and McKinney, the Green Party, PDA, SPCs, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus are all supporters of a new progressive regime. A new progressive regime would implement progressive policies in all three realms of policy: foreign, domestic and electoral. LaFollette nailed the electoral policy concept: "the will of the people shall be the law of the land," uttered by him at the 1912 Republican convention.
As for getting this done, I think progressives need to rethink the idea of popular sovereignty, along the lines articulated by Bruce Ackerman, Akhil Reed Amar, Dan Lazare, Sanford Levinson and a few other progressive constitutional scholars.
Dan Lazare says at the end of his book The Velvet Coup, this gem:
The most fundamental freedom of all is the freedom of the Democratic majority to alter the society around it as it sees fit, without any traditions are constitutional restraints to get in the way. This is the freedom on which all other freedoms depend. There can be no assurance that the people will use this freedom wisely, just as there can be no assurance that they will make wise use of free speech or a free press. But there is a total assurance that in the absence of such freedom, politics were atrophy, society will die, and civil liberties will go with it. This is the lesson of the great Soviet experiment, when an absence of political democracy reduced socialism to an empty shell, and it is the lesson of the American experiment as well.
P 310
Earthian,
Thanks for providing those references and more historical context. LaFollette was a brave soul--was he the only one to oppose US involvement in that foolish, foolish war, WWI? There is LaFollette's progressivism and Teddy Roosevelt's. Roosevelt was eager to fight; he defined his manhood in terms of the bravery and comradeship he observed on the battlefield (much like Hemingway), but at the same time, he spoke out forcefully against corrupt banks and corporations. We Americans have re-invented ourselves many times and in many ways. The depressing thing about the present time is that for thirty years nothing has changed: two parties, one corporate agenda--no opposing voices. What made the American people into sheep?
Good question as to what made us sheep (apologies to sheep and sheep fans).
Americans have lost their sense of the most basic, inalienable right: the liberty to alter our government to better reflect our wishes, by majority rule—a right clearly stated in the Preamble of our Declaration of Independence, and presumed by our Constitution's Preamble. (Anything The People do "ordain and establish" they can re-ordain and re-establish, to their liking by majority rule. Duh.)
This loss of our awareness of our most basic rights happened by institutionalized mass hypnosis, like Tolstoy described in a chapter of The Kingdom of God is Within You.
Here is a passage: "The difference between those hypnotized by scientific men and those under the influence of the state hypnotism, is that an imaginary position is suggested to the former suddenly by one person in a very brief space of time, and so the hypnotized state appears to us in a striking and surprising form, while the imaginary position suggested by state influence is induced slowly, little by little, imperceptibly from childhood, sometimes during years, or even generations, and not in one person alone but in a whole society."
The solution is to snap us out of it, to wake up out of a trance of abject impotence before the government and corporations, and complete servitude to power, and submission to the absurdities of the amending clause (Article 5) of our Constitution. Madison said "I dismiss it" when confronted with the absurdities of our first Constitution, and its amending article 13. Would that we follow his example and boldly think, and do the same.
To wake up from the trance of servitude will require us to either hit bottom, or get persuaded by knowledgeable progressive leaders who get it. We'll see what it takes, for ecocide looms large.
The language we use steals our wit: the Defense Department, Special Ops, terrorist states, the Greatest Generation, fallen heros, Operation Iraqi Freedom, troop surge, supreme sacrifice, a few good men, the appropriation of the word "honor" to signify the commitment to the military, the selling of military life to young men as the best way to gain maturity and masculinity, and on and on. The point is, militarism is now embedded in the very language we speak. To go against such a powerful meme is to reject the culture you were brought up in. I am very doubtful that the United States will change its ways over the next five or ten years. Like you, I suspect utter collapse of the economy and the world ecosystem might trigger an abandonment of militarism, especially when past military adventures in other countries have brought about so few positive outcomes.
Yep. It is a lack of the capacity to exercise critical thinking of the kind you are demonstrating that keeps us stuck.
Plus, beyond problems of militarism and other institutional corruptions, the Constitution itself is a dream institution for the corporate regime militarists who dominate both parties. There are fully six institutions which can theoretically veto the public will of The People: the Senate, the House, the President, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, and (in theory) a constitutional convention under Article 5. A citizens' assembly under Amendment I with the power to alter the government by amending or replacing the Constitution is unthinkable by Americans, but not to less-hypnotized populations of citizens the world over such as New Zealanders who changed their electoral system this way in the 1990s, and the Swiss who have referenda routinely. Those who know of the various "branches" of the government, can't conceive of the trunk of that tree (us) and our primary rights to "alter or abolish" our government and to remake it so it is accountable to The People.
It is truly bizarre when 14 states routinely have calls for constitutional conventions which are easily ratified by the states' voters, such as New York and Montana. Our states have had 233 constitutional conventions since 1790, and the nation none.
And the sad thing is that this issue of the liberty to "alter or abolish" is almost nowhere discussed by progressives, even movement leaders, who are, apparently, among the walking hypnotized.
My understanding of the liberal end of the political spectrum runs like so on a single dimension: centrism, liberalism, social democracy, democratic socialism, socialism. Each political system is based on a set of overlapping but distinct beliefs regarding government's role.
Most people believe in a single continuous dimension, with the liberal-socialist positions located to the left of center and the conservative-fascist on the right, In contrast, Lakoff's model (the biconceptual component) seems to suggest that there may actually be two independent dimensions: one related to liberalism and a distinct one related to conservatism. When these two dimensions are viewed as axes aligned at right angles (e.g., running from south to north and west to east) they can be seen to form a two-dimensional space that defines four basic political types: low lib+low con, high lib+low con, low lib+high con, and high lib+high con. This part of Lakeoff's theory needs much more research. But if it turns out to be accurate (based on the research results), then it will provide a very different (higher resolution) way of thinking about differences between people and where this "progressivism" label might fit.
This is just another way of thinking about it. Still it is consistent with a tendency in recent years for cumulative research to "decompose" a single personality dimension (e.g. "psychoticism" into two separate dimensions (e.g. "agreeableness" and "conscientiousness"). Another example would be the decomposition of "emotionality" (running from negative to positive emotion) into two separate dimensions, "positive emotionality" and "negative emotionality".
Many of the commentators are confused by two supposed ideologies: conservatives and liberals. I think the point that Lakoff is trying to make is based more on belief systems. Specifically, that the Comservative world view believes in free markets, etc. and feels it can do no harm despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Liberals share similar belief-based thinking.
Its time we face the facts folks. These facts are brought to you without political agenda, lobbyists, etc. The facts: the atmosphere is heating up. Tax cuts for the rich bankrupt governments. Oil companies take too many risks and occasionally blow it big time. There is no safe nuclear waste repository. Peak oil is here, along with about peak everything else. etc. etc. etc.
"Obama's deepest values" ??!
I think I'll refrain from reading anything more from this clueless writer.
Mr. Lakoff, if your Obama had progressive values, or cared anything about struggling people, he would have fought tooth and nail for single payer health care. And he would refuse to slaughter people in Afghanistan, many of whom are CHILDREN!
Deepest values, my ASS!
If GW was doing these things, would Lakoff be referring to his "deep values?" First sign of a hypocrite - unequal treatment.
No one ever says what these values are or how this presidents fights for them. Is it a secret? like the rendition sites? Oh yeah, Obama is a war criminal too (ask Professor Francis Boyle about that) Some deep values, eh?
In addition to what RichM and socialist have to say, I want to bring up a difference in the way Republicans and Democrats treat third parties. Bill Clinton won in 1992 in a three way race but the Republicans weren't blaming the Perot voters for spoiling Bush's election and by 1994 they came back. Bush won in 2000, technically, but even after 8 years the liberals still blame Nader for giving us Bush and the liberals never correct themselves. If all the liberals, feminists, anti-war activists, et al had endorsed Nader instead of the Democratic nominee in the last three elections, the Democrats would have run scared to the left instead of complaining about conservatives and alleged "spoilers". The Republicans and conservatives are there for liberals to use as scapegoats and money making 24/7. They're not dead.
Excellent post! US progressives don't deserve a candidate like Nader. They deserve what they got: Obomb-'em! And they will continue to get more of the same. Why? Because they have little capacity to think for themselves, ferret out information that isn't handed to them by political pundits. Most Obama worshipers I tried to talk with had no idea what his record was or who his donors were and how much they spent on him. duh.
In the US, Critical thinking is in very short supply. If you think it's only Republicans who are dense, just take a look at US progressives! A bunch of spineless wimps! "Oh please, tell me where the bandwagon-stop is. I want to jump on it, too!" Really, that was how it played out. It was pathetic.
Look folks, make it simple. Vote for the best candidate! What do you have to lose at this point? A Democrat? At least with Republicans we had an anti-war movement and some criticism of the empire's minions.
This is what Nader has been saying for decades: Don't endorse this candidate so early on! Check out his record, look at his war votes. Put on some pressure! Force him to make clear promises. But no. Obama had a feel good but empty campaign. The sheople jumped on the bandwagon immediately. Bad strategy! Dumb sheople.
But try to talk to people in love, rationality goes into one ear and out the other. They lose their ability to think strategically. They all watched the video, "Yes We Can!" where Obama's voice is over the band, Black Eyed Peas. All the diverse faces, the seriousness - All a great big farce.
It brings to mind a song by Melanie (1970s): "I think I've been duped, la da da da. Have I been used?"
Next time Ralph Nader says a bandwagon has dangerous, faulty wheels, which will surely fall off in due time, you'd better believe him. He doesn't talk nonsense - as do "some writers" here on CD.
"Force him to make clear promises."
Nope -- won't vote for a Republican, but neither will I vote for a Democrat, even if he clearly promises the moon -- because Democrats lie as much as anyone. Obama DID promise some things and then turned around and did the opposite.
I too bought into my voting for Nader in 2000 gave Bush Florida; voted for Kerry in 2004 and felt dirty, because I really didn't want Kerry (was actually glad Bush carried the state). Vowed never to vote for a greedy, lying a--hole again, which means I will probably never vote Republican or Democrat again. PS I voted for Cynthia in 2008, and still feel good about it.
Me too.
Technically, Bush did not win in 2000. The Supreme Court decided Florida did not have to count votes, which, when counted, showed he lost. Perhaps you mean technically he took office. Sorry to be picky, but the phrase "Bush won" makes me crazy.
Your point about Perot is very interesting. Is there something about Nader personally that makes him a lightning rod? Is there something about the nature of the left and right that explains this, such as the left turns its frustrations inward or something? Maybe Clinton's victory didn't grate on conservatives every damn day with his smirking contempt for their values. Or perhaps the media is to blame.
Yes you are correct on Bush technically getting in while Gore didn't fight much on the case.
> Is there something about Nader personally that makes him a lightning rod?
> Is there something about the nature of the left and right that explains this,
> such as the left turns its frustrations inward or something?
Yes to both of them. The media has its share of the blame for blocking third parties from showing up on the TV for everyone to see but that's only a small part of the problem. I campaigned for Nader in 2000, 2004, and 2008 and noticed that even most of the Nader supporters from 2000 were buying into the "Nader cost Gore" lie. The Republicans didn't blame Ross Perot for Bush's loss and sought to fix that. By 1994, Newt scored big for the Republican Party. In 2002, the liberals and progressives voting Democrat had nothing to talk about and the party continued to kowtow to the Republicans.
The Left, like the Right, just wants to scream and shout continuously so they need someone to keep the flames going. They want to elect failure or else their political shouting careers would terminate. An honest progressive like Nader would not get into feminist gender baiting, race baiting, immigration wars, and likes. Nader I liked even as a semi-conservative male because he cared about issues that helped everyone such as health care, taxation with representation, peace and nation building, defending the nation without going into war, fair trade instead of free trade, and likes. Nader isn't a gender baiting feminist wacko like Katrina Van Heuvel or Sarah Palin or a race baiter like Al Sharpton. Being honest and straight forward appears to be the only real lightening rod and as rvwalker mentioned, this country deserve Nader.