EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Moral Leadership and the Myth of 'Centrist' Thinking
If you have not read Drew Westen's outstanding piece, "What Created the Populist Explosion and How Democrats Can Avoid the Shrapnel in November", on the Huffington Post, Alternet, and other venues, read it immediately. Westen states as eloquently and forcefully as anyone what he, I, and other progressives have been saying from the beginning of the Obama administration. I agree fully with everything he says. But ...
Westen's piece is incomplete in crucial ways. His piece can be read as saying that this election is about kitchen table economics (right) and only kitchen table economics (wrong).
This election is about more than just jobs, mortgages, and adequate health care. All politics is moral. All political leaders say to do what they propose because it is right. No political leaders say to do what they say because it is wrong. Morality is behind everything in politics -- and progressives and conservatives have different moral systems.
In the conservative moral system, the highest value is preserving and extending the moral system itself. That is why they keep saying no to Obama's proposals, even voting against their own ideas when Obama accepts them. To give Obama any victory at all would be a blow to their moral system. Their moral system requires non-cooperation. That is a major thing the Obama administration has not understood.
The conservatives understand the centrality of morality. They attacked the Obama health care plan as immoral for violating the moral principles of freedom ("government takeover") and reverence for life ("death panels.") The Obama administration made a policy case, not a moral case. The conservatives have characterized the bailouts as thievery and Obama's ties to Wall St. as immoral -- as being in bed with the thieves. The attacks on government are seen as moral attacks, with government seen as taking money out of working people's pockets and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Whether it is the birthers, or the anti-Muslims, or the anti-immigrants, of the pro-lifers, the attack is a moral attack. The Tea Party cry is moral -- for "freedom" (see my book Whose Freedom?), for God, for patriotism. Even jobless benefits are seen as giving money to people who are not working and don't deserve it. Even social security that workers have earned, that are deferred payments for work, are seen as undeserving people "sucking on the tits of the government."
The moral case is not answered just by good policy that will help people who need help -- as Westen proposed. The good policies -- extending unemployment benefits, help to small businesses, help for teachers and firemen, limits on credit card rates, restrictions on rate increases and service reductions by HMO's -- in themselves fit a progressive moral system, but don't in themselves make a case for progressive moral leadership.
Why are so many people about to vote against their interests? The Republicans are not offering kitchen-table benefits. When people are voting against their interests, more interest-based arguments don't help.
Westen's discussion of "the center" and of populism in general, misses what is crucial in this election. There is no one "center." Instead, a considerable number of Americans (perhaps as many as 15 to 20 percent) are conservative in some respects and progressive in other respects. The have both moral systems and apply them to different issues -- in all kinds of ways. You can be conservative on economics and progressive on social issues, or conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic issues, and so on -- in all sorts of combinations.
Neuroscience 101, which Westen correctly invokes, tells us that in the brains of such voters, the two incompatible systems inhibit each other, that strengthening one weakens the other, and that the stronger one can have its influence spread to other issues. The "swing voters" are really "swing thinkers." And it is language -- moral language, not policy language, heard over and over -- that strengthens one political moral system over the other and determines how people vote. The Democrats need to reach the swing thinkers -- the people who are moral conservatives on some issues and moral progressives on others -- and strengthen their progressive moral views. The kitchen table arguments must become moral arguments as well -- arguments about freedom, life, fairness, and the most central of American values.
What are those values? They are the values that won the 2008 election for Barack Obama -- and they were not just hope and change. Candidate Obama made the case that American is, and has always been, fundamentally about Americans caring about each other and acting responsibly on that care. Empathy, which he proclaimed over and over was the most important thing his mother taught him, and is the basis of our form of government. Responsibility is both personal and social. "I am my brother's keeper," as he said over and over in the campaign. And thirdly, excellence -- doing everything as well as we can, individually and as a nation. That is why we have life, freedom, fairness, equality -- and quality -- as fundamental values.
We haven't heard that kind of moral leadership since the inauguration. Americans are longing for it. And those moral values really do motivate every kitchen table policy!
It is morality, not just the right policy, that excites voters, that moves them to action -- that creates movements. Legislative action must come from a moral center, with moral language repeated over and over.
What should be avoided, besides policy-wonk and pure-policy discourse? Again, the answer comes from Neuroscience 101. Offense not defense. Argue for your values. Frame all issues in terms of your values. Avoid their language, even in arguing against them. There is a reason that I wrote a book called, Don't Think of an Elephant! Don't list their arguments and argue against them using their language. It just activates their arguments in the brains of listeners.
Don't move to the right in your discourse or action. That will just strengthen the conservative moral system in the brains of swing thinkers. Frame your arguments from your moral position.
In addition, beware of the same pollsters and focus-group-dialers who missed Scott Brown's moral message to the swing-thinkers in Massachusetts and claimed that Martha Coakley would win so handily that she could go on vacation. Just because a message plays well in focus-group-dialing doesn't mean it will win elections.
Finally, Democrats need a truly effective communication system. They need unified, morally-based framing of issues. They need to train spokespeople all over the country in using such framing and avoiding mistakes. They need to organize those spokespeople. And they need to book them, as conservatives do, on radio, TV, in civic and religious groups, in schools and universities. This is doable, but this late, it will take resolve from the top.
Winning this election will require the right policies and actions, but it will also require moral leadership with honest, morally-based messaging and a communications that will not just blog and knock on doors, but will be there in the districts with the crucial swing-thinkers 24/7 day and night.
The Democrats cannot take their base for granted. Only moral leadership backed by actions and communicated effectively can excite the Obama base once more. Without that excitement, the Democrats will lose big.
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...
89 Comments so far
Show AllLot of blather about what "motivates" voters, with nary a mention of Diebold, ESS, etc.
On the one hand Lakoff is right, the effective way to communicate, whether letters to the editor, blogging, public speaking, what have you, is to frame the debate always in your terms, according to your moral framework. That is absolutely essential and an excellent lesson for anyone reading this thread. Take that to heart and never forget it.
On the other hand, you cannot do what Lakoff is suggesting if you don't have a moral framework in the first place! And that is what is wrong with the Democrats. That is why they are so adrift after being handed an unprecedented mandate in 2008.
This Orwellian article could have been titled “How to Best Put Lipstick and Makeup on a Pig.” Obama’s war is immoral and has resulted in the deaths of many, many innocents. Killing people remotely using drones is immoral and has resulted in the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children. Ignoring the theft of billions of dollars by private contractors that can’t even provide enough electricity to light a bulb is immoral. Supporting corrupt puppets in power is immoral. Paying off our enemies to not attack us is immoral. Dealing with drug dealers is immoral. Obama’s claim that he can act like a judge-jury-executioner and order the deaths of even US citizens is completely immoral. Expanding the war into surrounding countries without declaring war is immoral.
No amount of spinning and glorifying the war as Obama has done in his recent speech is going to change these things. Writing an article intended to help an immoral pro-war political party remain in power is immoral. It wouldn't surprise me to find the Democratic Party going down in flames come November.
Obama has been a devastating choice for President precisely because he stands for absolutely nothing except himself. He is a moral relativist who believes in power through appeasement and backroom dealing just like Bush.
This would be bad in normal times but in critical turning points in history such as we are in right now, times that call for strong firm leadership based upon principle, it is tragic to have someone like Obama in power, backed up by limp dishrags such as Ried and Pelosi. You could not imagine a more inadequate group of leaders for such difficult times.
I'm tired of reading his apologist articles these days and I want to resell his books that I bought at a bookstore. The Obama apologists can buy them and keep them ! Finally, to hell with those corporate advertisement bloated Alternet and Huffington Post. Those two sites did nothing good for my brain and when I finally was fed up with the Democratic Party once and for all, I followed the advice of a young girl on that site eventually and came here. If you want to be a "liberal" authoritarian, join the idiots on Alternet and Huffpost and risk crashing your system with their bloated advertisement crap. I may visit those two sites once in a while but they're falling apart too with far less intelligent posters most of the time anyway.
I don't see Lakoff as an apologist for Obama. Instead I see him calling Obama and the centrist Democrats to be what we want them to be, progressive moralists who stand up for progressive views.
It may be that Lakoff is one of those on our side who thinks that Obama wants to be more on our side but feels constrained as compared to those, like me, who have concluded that Obama doesn't want to be on our side. But I have never seen Lakoff defend the centrist, rightist actions of Obama. He just doesn't attack them, which fits with his views that you don't argue against things because that gives them power, instead you argue for things.
I based my assumption on his articles of the last two years. Lakoff may be on our side but if he still thinks that the Democratic Party is, his thinking there is outdated. Like most others here, I believe that if Lakoff is not coming to grips with the fact that the Democratic Party is working hard to fail itself and that the party is not really spineless, then I don't know what to make of his framing writing anymore.
Excellent analysis maxpayne! You are exactly right on everything here. When the Republicans take over in November it will not be because the majority has decided to go with them and their corrupt philosophy, it will be because the Democratic base will stay home due to the amoral Obama presidency. This is not the change we were looking for.
This comment sounded reasonable to me. Who flagged it and why?
Once in a long while, a flagger takes a belt-and-suspenders approach and actually "outs" themselves as a flagger, or can't resist flagging AND adding a nasty response that's circumstantial evidence of the gratuitous flagging.
Otherwise, there's no way to tell who does it.
But anonymous or openly vindictive, there's been an increasing epidemic on what I call "spite-flagging" in recent months.
The motivation is the same as the "anti-mosque" mob-- one decides that one is legitimately offended, therefore whatever is causing the ostensible offense MUST GO!
It's a way to lash out without actually engaging the merits of the "offense". It's at best pathetic and degrading to the overall discussion.
Ultimately, though, such abuse is self-defeating because spite-flagging undermines the "honor system" upon which it's based, and becomes more of an administrative hassle than a useful check.
For too many years, I lived in a "cubicle" in a big apartment complex. Periodically, we would be subject to rashes of false alarms-- mostly from vandals or pranksters slipping into the building. Spite-flagging is the equivalent of such false alarms.
Flagging requires a lot less work than informed and balanced argument against an opposing opinion. It might just well be an act of laziness. Don't feel offended.
Morality is a prison for the weak. The ruling elite are amoral. Any means to an end is the providence of the strong and ruling elite.
This is a lesson of history.
Lakoff is only doing the work of the ruling elite.
His ideas are very establishment, conservative.
Lakoff's message to you: shut up and row, but occupy your mind with this idea.
This strikes me as a flippant remark, but I won't flag it. But this sort of comment might get filtered by the HP censors.
How kind of you. Flippancy isn't a violation of board rules, rich. We're having a problem right now with people who are flagging for sport. Please don't join that trend.
Excellent, i was going to write something similar - there is some truth in Lakoff's advice on how to argue effectively on your own terms not on your enemy's terms, but it's lost in a sea of confusion about who Obama is and what the Democratic Party is and what a progressive is and what a liberal is etc.
Lakoff is arguing about a game that is not a actually happening. Very tired of seeing his punditry here. He gives tactical advice to the supposedly well-intentioned Democratic party, when what we need is strategic thinking about how to build and activate a resistance movement outside the parties.
Obama's war? Really? It was started by Bush, many many years ago. I would think that until Obama has dealt with it and kept it going as long as Bush did it will still be Bush's war, just like Iraq was his.
Right at the beginning you show that you want to ignore the mess that was left to us all by the Republics that stole everything they could.
What Democrats need even more is a spine.
Public Option? off the table before the debate began!
Not to appease Republicans, but the insurance companies that backed their campaigns! (In the primaries, Hillary Clinton got more donations from the Health Insurance industry than all republican candidates combined)
Environmental Issues? Obama was touting the safety of offshore drilling right up to the point of the Deepwater disaster, and for that he let BP handle the coverup.
Economy? bailout the banks! oops there's nothing left after that to help actual people...
We're still in Afghanistan. We are still in Iraq. (tho only in the capacity that we were in Vietnam for - as Trainers, not combat, troops, uh huh)
It's not better talking points or better framing that Dems need, The can blame the Republican obstructionists all they want but didn't they have like 6 months of a filibuster proof majority at the beginning of the Obama administration?
What Dems need, frankly, is a spine, an ounce of moral fiber.
They need to get up there and say "providing single payer healthcare to all would actually be CHEAPER than trying to keep up with the overhead from all the different for-profit health plans out there, it would be a cost savings and help EVERYONE."
they need to say "we screwed up invading Iraq and Afghanistan, we should turn over those responsible for this illegal war over to the ICC and ask the UN for help in fixing our mess, or we will only see MORE terrorism against us"
they need to say "any bank that needed to be bailed out is now under our control, as without our help they would no longer be solvent"
they need to say "BP and Halliburton, you messed up and tried to hide the extent of your damage with dispersants, we will therefore seize all of your assets until this thing is entirely cleaned up, after which we will turn over anything left over to the Niger delta cleanup"
they need to say "a violation of equal protection clauses against a certain class of Americans is anethema to a free society and will not be tolerated"
The problem the Democrats face is that they are seen as a bunch of spineless wimps who run to the right while shaking their boots any time they face opposition, while slinking in at night and stabbing the progressives in the back every change they get (i.e. NAFTA)
It is not the rabid right they need to court, but the disillusioned left, who make up the bulk of the current non-voters.
'They need to get up there and say "providing single payer healthcare to all would actually be CHEAPER than trying to keep up with the overhead from all the different for-profit health plans out there, it would be a cost savings and help EVERYONE." '
I remember Obama saying exactly that about his health care reform. It didn't work because it didn't have enough moral fiber to it.
I don't think selling single payer as cheaper is the solution. I don't think we should message that we oppose for profits because the overhead is too high. Those are exactly the kind of weak non moral arguments that don't win the hearts of folk.
Let's be simple and moral: "I don't believe some should get rich off people dying. That's wrong. That's evil."
Then when we have more time we can add that it not only is right but affordable because it would be cheaper.
Lakoff's gobbledygook is hard to take, from a moral standpoint of course.
Sometimes it is more than framing or presentation. Sometimes it is action. No matter how Obama and his crew try to sell his presidency now, the voters who supported him know perfectly well that he backed down from his campaign sttements.
People who had no health care still have none. Mountaintop removal goes on. The soldiers in Iraq are replaced by mercenaries and contractors. Voters are in no hurry to be fooled by words again.
You got it!
Don't recycle Congress in November. THROW OUT THE TRASH!
I think Lakoff's call for moral framing for progressive views presupposes that those who would follow his call would be required to act in progressive moral ways too. Lakoff isn't just presenting progressive morality as a way to message despite action. Lakoff is clearly a proponent of a moral progressive vision and is calling the party to that vision.
what? wow...
jk
Maybe you can start to understand why I want a law passed banning all cults from the state.
and by state I mean the whole state: the police, the security services, parliment, judges the NHS, the state!
Will a Law pass banning cults from the state? NO! Why because all the cult members in the government and outside it will work to stop that happening- They care nothing for socitey they are out for them selves and their power!
'Fuck the people' seems to be there motto!
A cult member will alway serve their cult first, therefore it is undemocratic to allow them into government...
and that many of the cultists are very immoral i feel that would clearly effect their ability as leaders-to lead!
"The Democrats cannot take their base for granted. Only moral leadership backed by actions and communicated effectively can excite the Obama base once more. Without that excitement, the Democrats will lose big."
Its hard to claim the moral high ground while defying the will of your citizens, lying through your teeth every time you open your mouth and failing to do anything but play golf and give speeches.
Its far, far too late for Obama and his democratic toadies, they atre about to have their arrogance shoved "where the sun don't shine"
Right you are, Mightymite,
IT IS FAR TO LATE FOR WORDS OR IMAGES TO SAVE THE DEMS. The latest last straw is the 'Deficit Commission' stacked by Obama with people who hate Social Security. Even the '310 million tits' remark, the ex Republican Senator chairperson describing Social Security, didn't drag a peep of anger or remorse out of our president.
Trillions to criminal bankers, without insisting that they relieve mortgages, even the ones created by their criminality; and with no oversight over their obscene 'bonuses,' but Social Security, apparently, has to be cut.
Really, Mr. Lakoff, I know you're a linguist, but certain realities are too pungent for verbal analysis.
Instead of saying that Lakoff's article is the usual blather, why not look at what he says. For example:
"You can be conservative on economics and progressive on social issues, or conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic issues..."
He goes on to say that the conflicting attitudes inhibit each other, which implies that they interact. But in an interesting book by Daniel Yankelovitch (circa 1990, I believe) the opposite was suggested. He used the analogy of the cubbyholes in a roll-top desk to describe the minds of such people.
For example, he said that anyone who calls for lower taxes but does not want to see services cut has the two concepts in separate cubbyholes, whose walls are too firm to allow the ideas to associate. When one of your ideas is not allowed to be affected by other ideas, you cannot learn from experience.
It is not clear if such people can be reached by any fancy linguistic tricks. That is the problem with Lakoff's proposals.
In other words, one must take into account cognitive dissonance as described by the late Leon Festinger. Some earlier workers used the concept of 'compartmentalization' for the phenomenon. It has been going on for a long time.
I've got another take on the political dynamics Lakoff discusses. Politics is not about morality; it is about one side beating the other. Rightists will end up doing the same things Obama wants to do, but they will offer Obama no support. That is because they want Obama and his friends (who are not members of their tribe) to fail so that their side, once gains power, can triumph. There is no morality here, only demographics. You think a rightist government wouldn't get out of Iraq (as Obama falsely declared we did)? That it wouldn't reward schools that toe the conservative line? That it wouldn't prop up failing investment banks? That it wouldn't establish a foreclosure plan like Obama's? Even on healthcare, they would support many of the provisions of the "hated" Obamacare. They don't oppose these measures on the basis of morality but on the basis of raw power. Get the term "morality" out of the discussion and start talking about whose ox gets gored and whose bank account gets fatter.
Good points. In fact, the Bush administration did do some of the things on your list, with regard to schools and banks, and given more time it certainly would have come up with a health care bill that did little but reward the insurance companies (as it did with the Medicare Part D that rewarded Drug companies).
The Republicans will pretend to "hate" Obama but I remember how the party suddenly called Hillary Clinton a good "conservative" compared to Obama similar to calling Ted Kennedy a good "conservative" compared to John Kerry in 2004 or even misconstruing Jack Kennedy as a "conservative" Democrat and using his tax cutting policies to justify Reagan's and Bush's versions. I predict that in 2020 the Republican conservatives will pretend to "honor" Obama as a good "conservative". Heck, the GOP used then Governor Mark Warner as a "conservative" compared to Tim Kaine to unsuccessfully get Jerry Kilgore elected as the next governor. Somewhere the Democratic Party falls into this strange set of delusions thinking it will always work to help them win.
"No political leaders say to do what they say because it is wrong."
Au Contraire. Darth Viper and the Imperial Chimp very deliberately and specifically led the nation to do the wrong thing in numerous extremely important scenarios. By declaring the US Constitution "just a piece of paper", the Imperial Chimp was propagating the party line articulated by his daddo, Cowboy Reagan, and Darth Viper in the new century.
The line was: We the elite are ABOVE the law, we intend to do wrong, for elite benefit at the expense of everyone/everything else, and we intend for everybody to understand this".
And understand it they did. A wild wild west speculation bonanza across all sectors was unleashed by Darth Viper in his "secret energy meeting" in 2001. The message then was: "Doing wrong is good for elites and this what we will all do. Doing wrong by elites is against the interests of the people which is naturally required if elites want to take the resources and energy from the people, like vampires sucking their blood."
And so they did. And the Demoks went along with it, writing blank check after blank check for elites and their diabolical schemes.
Lakoff doesn't want to acknowledge this because he believes in the status quo of elite-party rule in merka, which requires the people vote either greater elitevil or lesser elitevil. Oh my gawd, the choice is simple! Give me the lesser!!!
Of course that would be INSANE. We should all VOTE THIRD PARTY to serve our own better interests. Smash the elite establishment with your vote. Help bring this nation closer to sweet anarchy, where we can get face to face with those who wish to oppress/exploit/enslave us. It's a way that hasn't been tried, yet, eh? Wanna try something new when the old doesn't work?
I see no difference between Lakoff and Bernays. His actions have exposed his intentions.
Thank you. I get so tired of politicians being given directions on what to SAY that will win them votes. It is dangerous, in that once the populace loses faith that the politicians will even try to match their election promises, people might give up voting and look for other solutions.
Giving a moral argument is more persuasive than logic to most people. If Obama had operated in a moral way, it would have worked in 2010 as in 2008.
Voting for a third party is a great idea, except that part of the mechanism of ballot counting fraud is to shift votes from third party candidates to the candidate of choice by the fixers. As long as the ballot counting is done by unaccountable and clearly crooked private firms, we will NOT get the people we vote for. This happens in both the primaries and the general elections. Please check out verifiedvoting.org and blackboxvoting.org.
Until candidates, and I have talked to quite a few about ballot fraud, are willing to consider the issue and to devote some of their funds to countering it, the good ones will lose. The D & R parties will not do anything realistic about it, because each one believes it is to their own advantage to continue the current methods.
We can complain about too much corporate funding of campaigns and various other issues, but until we confront the massive ballot fraud which is done in EVERY county in the US, we are lost.
"Why are so many people about to vote against their interests?"
They've been doing it consistently for the last 30 years. In the case of 2010, it's not so much a matter of secular humanists, gays, abortionists, etc. who need to be defeated, but that Americans, whose most common and intensely held fantasy is to become rich and famous, will not allow any fundamental tampering with a system in which they possess a subatomic ability to become multimillionaire pop stars. And the poorer and more harried they become, the more this will be true for the majority. The United States is a land in which the majority of the oppressed love their oppressors.
Yes, it's truely amazing that Big Brother Media--the Propaganda System--has so few enemies, and that so few people realize they are saying four when only three fingers are displayed--the three fingers of The Bird.
That implies that there is an alternative, an option for people to vote for their interests.
A very small percentage of the population holds the fantasy to become rich and famous, and most people do not think in terms of what is in their best personal interests.
I agree with your analysis - wrote an L.ed. some years ago (that was actually published) to that effect. People will support policies that favor the group of people that they see themselves as a part of or believe they may become a part of. That's why New Deal legislation got passed - a majority identified with those "at risk" - they had either been there themselves or the possibility of their being there was all too real. For the past several decades, too many folks still had the illusion they "could" become wealthy in this system - "don't tax the rich, I might get there someday". I suspect things will not change until enough of us realize, I mean, in our bones, that social welfare policies, progressive taxation and redistribution, etc. are the only things that will help us "progress" ......
George Lakoff is right on the mark about this. The side which as Walter Lippman put it puts "the pictures in people's heads" about the issues will win. That's what framing the issues is about, and the way to do that is to talk about ethics and stop being such cowards. Real morality takes courage. Progressives must stand up for their values and it helps to keep it as brief and to the point as possible. Cut right to the chase!
AD
Perhaps our President will realize (probably AFTER the second Tuesday following the first Monday in November) that, whereas you can win in 2008 by being "I'm not Bush," you have to develop your own narrative in order to govern.
Nobody really cares where he was born. What we care about is where he stands now. And he has done a poor job of letting us know... on issue after issue, and in fight after fight.
He ran as "I'm not George W Bush" only to lead as "George H. W. Bush." Progressives lack a narrative because they lack leadership.
I am yearning for a primary like the one facing LBJ as he planned his reelection campaign: with fringe candidates gaining so much following that electible candidates were drawn into the race. Then we'll see if Obama really wants to lead, or just be able to retire as America's first president of color.
"He ran as "I'm not George W Bush" only to lead as "George H. W. Bush.""
You wish. Bam is just as clueless as the checkout counter but, if anything, even more trigger happy.
For all of our leftie/progressive self-awareness on CD, and the clear and open knowledge, logically deduced, that Obama is the rudderless centrist he set out to be, I still check in with non-ideological news message boards (AP, Reuters, etc. via Yahoo News) once in awhile to see how others feel. Today there are thousands of messages just like this one: "You liberals must love socialists, marxists, and communists, because that's all Obama has in his administration. Wise up you morons!"
Around 25% of voters can be written off as permanently deranged (religion, racism, sheer stupidity, whatever), and passionately so, and motivated to vote in higher than average proportions (see Murkowski, Lisa). Of the other 3/4, 2/3 (50% of total voters) are in the range of right-center ("moderate" Republicans) to center-center ("moderate" Democrats). Of the remaining 25%, almost all are "liberal" Democrats, and almost none are progressive Democrats, and fewer yet are true progressives/lefties to the point of having figured out that even being a Kucinich Democrat is useless. So all Lakoff is doing is selling his own books. I've never seen a darn thing from his pen that could actually accomplish anything against the massive power of corporations and their agencies, or even against the simple math of the real electorate. I don't even know why he's discussed. Only agitation can work.
.
STOP trying to smarten-up the Democrats, Obama, or for that matter, the GOP. They are all corrupt, self-serving grafters. There isn't a moral fibre in anyone of these current politicians.
I wouldn't let them into my kitchen.
Let's clean house,,,,,vote all current office holders out in this Mid-term election; and again in 2012.
We need a New Progressive Party. Offer the Public new honest canditates and reasonable moral principles,,,,no tricks,,,,and they will be elected.
Out with the Old politicial games,,,,start anew
//
The big fat morality is happily ensconced in militray industrial -political hideout. One silver lining in the cloud is this it is the same stupid morality that worked on Taliban from 1996 to 2001 and allowed them to ignore the real problem and then came the Big Bang!
Lakoff's article is predictable and tiresome. He continues to cling to the "professional left" premise that Obama is essentially well-intentioned but ineffective, rather than a calculated deceiver and dark-horse tool for TPTB.
That premise is false and immoral. Repeating moral and morality 39 times, he really misses the point: that morality is NOT about language, messaging, arguments, rhetoric, empathy, salesmanship, and moral framing. It is about moral ACTION. "Faith without works is dead" and once you have proven, as Obama has, that you break your promises and violate your professed values repeatedly, then moral 'language' is ultimately the hollow noise of Pharisees and, in itself, immoral deceit.
Regardless, IMO, losses in 2010 are already a part of the plan that will enable Wall Street to loot Social Security, while giving Obama political cover as he washes and wrings his dirty hands. In 2012, he can then "redisocver his moral voice" and play false messiah once more.
Basta! Obama and democrats may be the relative lesser evil, but the distinction is now trivial. They deserve to lose big. Bring in Caribou Barbie. The sooner this corrupt system fails utterly, the sooner we can resurrect a system premised on real, not rhetorical morality.
Exactly right and perfectly stated. Thanks.
Very on-the-money comment,Doug Terpstra, and I agree with it 100%.
We now have nearly 15-20 million young voters who have got nothing from Obama and the Dems. and have tuned off electoral politics. They had very finely honed, progressive moral systems in the brain and not conflicted, multipersonality moralities stored in pigeon holes in the brain as Lakoff argues. They were very loud and clear about what they wanted from Obama after 8 years of Bush-Chenney and he betrayed them all for a few pieces of silver and his pesonal venality.
Doug, you missed one thing. It seems in the heat of this election, almost every "progressive/liberal" Amurkan is missing this and wrecking their brains on what to do to "save" Obama and the Dimocrats ("i" not an error). They WANT TO FAIL. Since the beginning of 2010, both parts of the pseudo-progressive Dim party have been trying mightily to do precisely the opposite of what they promised the huge progressive/liberal base, especially what the young and very hard working and hopefull voters wanted in 2008.
Why? Because they have been told by the plutocrats to be patsies in front of the frothing-at-the mouth, white, redneck crowd so that they win over traditional shiftless Republican pols. A Congress full of Neanderthals, red- meat- in- the mouth-and-blood-dripping-all over is wanted to pass a war resolution on Iran so that Obomber can get his excuse to start the war by February or March next year. It is such type of Congress with a pliant and I, believe, complicit Obama and the Democratic elite that will be able to mobilise about 5 million or so unemployed, Christian Evangelical, Rush Limbaugh worsipping American yahoos for the army in an existential war with Islam starting about March 2011. The new Congress will usher in a complete Nazi state under martial law and string up intellectuals who ever open their mouth to say anything substantial and truthful.
Lakoff isn't among these moral intellectuals. His framing rhetoric and books, though correct in some respects, and with some insight from the baby-stage neuro science we are now in, has no clue about the counting, reasoning and other faculties of the human brain which can be activated quite easily with nice diagrams and basic arithmetic about economic issues. By this the supposed "morality" of "fiscal conservatism" that wants tax cuts for the rich and service cuts for the majority (90%) of the population are taken out of linguistic framing and starkly portrayed for the very immoral and stupid idea it is in one simple, multi-coloured diagram and some basic household examples that almost every homemaker who takes care of the family budget would understand.
Lakoff has never understood this. His continual articles avertising his services for the WH and the Dem. politburo are never taken seriously by them or many of us. Even in this article, he is on the abstract plane and does not provide CONCRETE, easy to understand examples such as the small business $40 billion aid package held up by the Republicicans AND "blue dog" dems. Having taught economics, finance and accounting to MBA's for 30 years, most of whom are gucci versions of the tea party folk, I can say that from experience, my lectures bombed whenever I taught abstractly, and succeeded marvellously when I gave, even contrived, trivial examples with some numbers with an accompanying conceptual diagram. Lakoff has never taught any economics. Thus he dichotomizes social policy and economic policy, which is so naive that anyone with a bit of economic/sociology/historical/anthropological reading would understand that any separation between social and economic policy is artficial and has no moral basis.
I hope George Lakoff has a big enough garden because this is a truckload of bullshit.
Of course, I suppose he might argue that it is not the amount of manure you are spreading, but rather, it is how you spread it.
Morality is much like bullshit. It is the outcome of a system which is usually developed for other purposes. It can vary in consistency depending upon the environment and it is best when experienced cautiously.
Also, when Obama said "I am my brother's keeper" who would have guessed that he meant he would work so hard to keep his brother(s) (and sisters) trapped within this corporate slaughterhouse. I guess it's just his (and Washington's) special moral calling.
Hi! The Democrats are taking their base for granted, especially when it comes to Labor vs. environmental issues, as evidenced by the (failed) injunction by the center for biological diversity aimed at stopping the ruby pipeline. The group had YEARS to bring up any challenges to the project, and filed suit only AFTER FERC final approval, and AFTER another greenie group extorted 20 million dollars from(parent group) El Paso! How disingenuous! Union Labor is proud of our pro environment stance, and the trained Craftsmen and Women who will construct this pipeline will NOT stand by for any wrong doing! As to morals, I know I speak for many of my brothers and sisters in Labor, when I call for more equitable distribution of the wealth LABOR creates for the corporations! I don't see how any WORKING PERSON could even remotely consider voting for MOST Republicans considering the right's view of Labor as expendable. The problem is that the Democrats are just as awful! They are so out of touch with the middle class! They are RICH people, part of the same club as their counterparts on the right! Labor really has NO friends in Government! We would be happy if EVERYONE paid their fair share of taxes, but that NEVER happens! I am a single parent of 3, and the Dems Alternative Minimum Tax has screwed me out of LEGITIMATE write offs two years and counting!Sure I made over 76k, but I had to pay for child care while I worked 250 miles from home! Corporations like Microsoft, Intel, and others freely do right by their workers, but most corporations will have to be FORCED by tariffs, and other regulations to do what's right for America!
And while I'm at it, Obama didn't help the Democrats by bailing out the rich just as Bush did! Yes, He(Obama) inherited a shit sandwich, but he hasn't given us any thing except LIP SERVICE in response to our(America's)problems! Instead of single payer, or competition in health care, we got a TOKEN that has only served to jack up rates, while helping those who were already eligible! My medical is $9.00 an hour! and I don't have a "cadillac" plan! I still have a $20.00 copay for doctors and prescriptions! And married couples in my union don't get any breaks! THAT'S $18.00 an HOUR, AND STILL A CO-PAY! NOTHING HAS CHANGED! Taxing the rich at a ridiculous rate isn't what's needed! We need a FLAT SALES TAX, one that forces everyone from welfare mommas to CEO's to PAY THEIR SHARE! And we need to protect our workers with tariffs! Not reward outsourcing with tax breaks! And as far as Socialism goes, we sure aren't anywhere close! By the time we're finished paying taxes, we get less for our money than folks in Costa Rica, for God's sake! We're OVERTAXED and UNDER SERVED, all while the rich get richer, and the middle class fades!Obama needs to grow some BALLS, and start a new "NEW DEAL"! Hey Mr. President, while you attempt to walk FDR's path, why don't you pay a call on Lynden Larouche, and others that think outside the box? Democrats will lose ground this November because They didn't put Americans back to work! That should have come FIRST, before any "bailouts". It didn't, because, for the most part, Democrats AND Republicans are but two arms of the same MONSTER in my mind!