Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The “New Centrism” and Its Discontents
There is no ideology of the "center." What is called a "centrist" or a "moderate" is actually very different - a bi-conceptual, someone who is conservative on some issues and progressive on others, in many, many possible combinations. Why does this matter? From the perspective of how the brain works, the distinction is crucial. 
Because we think with our brains, all thought is physical. Our moral and political worldviews are realized as brain circuits with strong synapses. If you have two conflicting worldviews, you have two brain circuits that are mutually inhibitory, so that when one is activated, it is strengthened and the other is shut off and weakened. When a worldview applies to a given issue, there is a neural binding circuit linking the worldview circuit to that issue circuit in such a way that the issue is understood in terms of that worldview. The right language will activate that that issue as understood via that worldview. Using that language strengthens that worldview.
When a Democrat "moves to the center," he is adopting a conservative position - or the language of a conservative position. Even if only the language is adopted and not the policy, there is an important effect. Using conservative language activates the conservative view, not only of the given issue, but the conservative worldview in general, which in turn strengthens the conservative worldview in the brains of those listening. That leads to more people thinking conservative thoughts, and hence supporting conservative positions on issues and conservative candidates. Material policy matters. Language use, over and over, affects how citizens understand policy choices, which puts pressure on legislators and ultimately affects what policies are chosen. Language wars are policy wars.
And so to the State of the Union Address. The President will be using business language to indicate that he is pro-business. He will speak of the need for "competitiveness" as if America were a corporation, and will stress "investments" in education, research, infrastructure, and new energy. Paul Krugman, in the NY Times, writes:
The favorable interpretation, as I said, is that it's just packaging for an economic strategy centered on public investment, investment that's actually about creating jobs now while promoting longer-term growth. The unfavorable interpretation is that Mr. Obama and his advisers really believe that the economy is ailing because they've been too tough on business, and that what America needs now is corporate tax cuts and across-the-board deregulation.
My guess is that we're mainly talking about packaging here. And if the president does propose a serious increase in spending on infrastructure and education, I'll be pleased.
For Krugman, language can be just "packaging" and the packaging doesn't matter if the right policies are followed.
But conservatives know better. They know that they had better get their language front and center. As Eric Cantor said, "We want America to be competitive, but then he talks about investing ...When we hear 'invest' from anyone in Washington, to me that means more spending. ... The investment needs to occur in the private sector." Mitch McConnell had the same reaction, "Any time they want to spend, they call it investment."
Conservatives have made the word "spending" their own. It has come to mean wasteful or profligate spending, as if the government just takes money out of your pocket and wastes is on people who don't deserve it. "Spending" as used by conservatives, really mean the use of money to help people. Since conservatives believe in individual, not social, responsibility, they think it is immoral to use one person's tax money on helping someone who should be helping himself. The word "spending" has been used that way so often, that for many people, it always evokes that conservative frame, and hence strengthens that frame and worldview that makes sense of it. When Democrats use the world "spending" assuming falsely that it is a neutral economic term, they are helping conservatives.
Conservatives are trained not to use the language of liberals. Liberals are not so trained. Liberals have to learn not to stick to their own language, and not move rightward in language use. Never use the word "entitlement' - social security and medicare are earned. Taking money from them is stealing. Pensions are delayed payments for work already done. They are part of contracted pay for work. Not paying pensions is taking wages from those who have earned them. Nature isn't free for the taking. Nature is what nurtures us, and is of ultimate value - human value as well as economic value. Pollution and deforestation are destroying nature. Privatization is not eliminating government - it is introducing government of our lives by corporations, for their profit, not ours. The mission of government is to protect and empower all citizens, because no one makes it on their own. And the more you get from government, the more you owe morally. Government is about "necessities" - health, education, housing, protection, jobs with living wages, and so on - not about "programs." Economic success lies in human well-being, not in stock prices, or corporate and bank profits.
These are truths. We need to use language that expresses those truths.
Obama's new centrism must be viewed from the perspective of biconceptualism. In his Tucson speech, Obama started off with the conservative view of the shooting. It was a crazy lone gunman, unpredictable, there should be no blame - as if brain-changing language did not exist. It sounded like Sarah Palin. But at the end, he became the progressive of his election campaign, bringing back the word "empathy" and describing American democracy as essentially based on empathy, social responsibility, striving for excellence, and public service. This is the progressive moral worldview, believed implicitly by all progressives, but hardly ever explicitly discussed. The end of the Tucson address has helped bring back support from his progressive base. Will "empathy" return in the State of the Union Address?
Obama's message in his warm-up video to his supporters said that the economy can be rebuilt only if we put aside our differences, work together, find common ground, and so on. It's the E Pluribus Unum message - no red states or blue states, just red, white, and blue states message. It's a message that resonates with a majority of Americans. And so his poll numbers have risen.
How realistic is it?
Robert Kuttner is unconvinced.
He is now Mr. Reasonable Centrist -- except that in substance there is no reasonable center to be had.
A well funded and tightly organized right wing has been pulling American politics to the right for three decades now. And with a few instructive exceptions, Democrats who respond by calling for a new centrism are just acting as the right's enablers.
What exactly is the beneficial substance of this centrism? Just how far right do we have to go for Republicans to cut any kind of deal? Isn't the mirage of a Third Way a series of moving targets -- where every compromise begets a further compromise?
Kuttner has good reason to feel this way. The conservative moral worldview has a highest principle: to preserve, defend, and advance that worldview itself. Radical conservatives have taken over the Republican party. Their goal is to make the country - and the world - as conservative as they are. They want to impose strict father morality everywhere. In economics it means laissez-fair capitalism, with the rich seen as the most disciplined, moral and deserving of people, and the poor as undisciplined and unworthy of safety nets. In religion, their God as the punitive strict father God, sending you to heaven or hell depending how well you adhere to conservative moral principles - individual not social responsibility, strict authority, punitive law, the use of overwhelming force in defending conservative moral principles, and so on. Big government is fine when used to those ends, but not when used to social ends. Only "spending" on measures to help people should be cut, not the use of money to fund what conservative morality approves of. The concern for the deficit is a ruse. They regularly support ideas that would raise, not lower the deficit. Science is to be believed if new weapons systems are based on it, but not if it shows that human pollutants are causing global warming and disastrous climate change.
The Obama strategy seems to be to drive a wedge between the responsible business community and the radical conservatives. Most Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, are in business and most people in business want the country - not just themselves - to thrive. Sensible business people rely on the best economics they can find, not just on ideological economics. And even the biconceptuals who identify themselves with the conservative part of their brains show empathy - their progressive sides - in many parts of their lives.
The bi-conceptuals include those who call themselves "moderates" and "independents" - a very significant part of the electorate, probably fifteen to twenty percent, more than enough to swing any election.
What should progressives make of the "new centrism?"
First, they have to recognize the reality of bi-conceptualism. Adopting conservative language helps conservatism. Adopting conservative programs makes the world more conservative and so helps drive empathy from the world, and that is disastrous.
Second, progressives should recognize that the business of America is business - that there are successful businesses and businesspeople with progressive values, and they should be praised and courted - and separated from radical conservatives.
Third, progressives have to organize around a single morality, centered on empathy, both personal and social responsibility, and excellence - being the best person you can be, not just for your own sake, but for the sake of you family, community, and nation. All politics is moral; it is about the right things to do. Get your morality straight, learn to talk about it, then work on policy. It is patriotic to be progressive.
Fourth, progressives must understand the critical need for a communication system that rivals the conservative system: An overall understanding of conservatism, effective framing of progressive beliefs and real facts, training centers on understanding and articulating progressive thought, systems of spokespeople on call, booking agencies to book speakers on radio and tv, and in local venues like schools, churches, and clubs.
Fifth, it is progressive to be firm, articulate, and gentle. You can stand up for what you believe, while being gentlemanly and ladylike.
Sixth, progressives have to get over the idea that conservatives are either stupid, or mean, or greedy - or all three. Conservatives are mostly people who have a different moral system from progressives.
A new centrism that makes sense ought to be one that unifies progressives under a single moral system centered on empathy; that recognizes, and shows respect for, the progressive side of biconceptuals; that respects the intelligence of conservatives; that allies with progressive businesspeople as well as with unions; that builds a communication system that brings it in touch with most Americans; that calls upon the love of nature; that is gentle and firm; and that refuses to move to the right, either in language or action.
If you start adopting conservative language and/or positions, you become conservative-lite, or worse.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. 8/21 Note to Readers: Spam Filter Glitches...
124 Comments so far
Show Allrepeat a lie often enough . . .
many people think they know what a factoid is - a snippet of truth.
in fact, a factoid is defined as "an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact."
self-fulfoolment.
It is a mystery to me why a windbag like Lakoff is featured on a website that is supposed to be facilitating communication among people seeking progressive change.
But surely this article is really a parody written by someone who wants to show him up as a fatuous bullshit artist. The parody has certainly been successful in doing that.
OK, we get the joke. Please, professor, speak up now and denounce this hoaxer, and admit the writer, whoever he or she is, has done a very funny takeoff on Lakoff.
Your sarcasm is no defense for ignorance.
I usually enjoy sarcasm too. Damn shame.
No offense, I'm directing it at the words not the person. For all I know you are probably a wonderful person.
People who attack Lakoff's message remind me of climate change deniers for what should be obvious and even perhaps multiple reasons.
Hard to read through all these comments. I usually appreciate the discussion even with opposing views, but not particularly fond of such passionate ignorance, just couldn't read through it all.
In what way are the critics of this article similar to "climate change deniers?" Describe the "obvious and even perhaps multiple reasons" that is true.
In what way specifically are the critics ignorant?
(the author rebutted, continued)
GL: "Fourth, progressives must understand the critical need for a communication system that rivals the conservative system: An overall understanding of conservatism, effective framing of progressive beliefs and real facts, training centers on understanding and articulating progressive thought, systems of spokespeople on call, booking agencies to book speakers on radio and tv, and in local venues like schools, churches, and clubs."
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. With the current conditions and arrangements, you gain media access by buying it. That is why the media only represents those who can afford to buy it. That is the problem, and it cannot be any sort of solution. All of the specific things the author recommends are already happening. They don't work. Not because of an inability to reach the public, but rather because of an extremely weak and hypocritical message, and a complete lack of interest on the part of liberals and progressives to make any effort at communicating with the everyday people.
The problem is that access to the public through the media is for sale, and can be bought and is being bought.
GL: "Fifth, it is progressive to be firm, articulate, and gentle. You can stand up for what you believe, while being gentlemanly and ladylike."
This is a covert reactionary theme - the idea that "polite" and "nice" are what are needed, and the ancillary implication that leftists are chronically not being "polite" and such. It is pretense for shutting out left wing points of view. People who state opinions - no matter how politely and no matter how well-reasoned and supported - that challenge gentrified assumptions and conventions are accused of being "rude" or otherwise not suitable for or welcome in the better circles.
The demands for politeness are not politically neutral. They are attempts at enforcing an upper class social code and a particular conservative political position.
Progressives hang a sign outside their office - "we welcome the downtrodden, the persecuted, exploited and abused. We are your friends." But then, should the rabble actually show up, the progressives complain about the riff-raff tracking mud on their beautiful imported carpet. They need to get rid of that carpet, or take down that damned lying sign.
GL: "Sixth, progressives have to get over the idea that conservatives are either stupid, or mean, or greedy - or all three. Conservatives are mostly people who have a different moral system from progressives."
The system and the ideas that are being promoted and defended by the right wing do result in people becoming stupid, or mean, or greedy - or all three.
Conservatives are not "people who have a different moral system from progressives." The same program is effectively marketed to two different groups of people with two different pitches, and the people in those two different groups answer survey questions about moral issues differently. That does not mean that this represents a meaningful difference politically between the two groups. The author repeatedly makes this error in his articles. The author always assumes - and asks us to accept at face value - that the partisan divide is a divide that is important or significant, and then goes about looking for the cause of the difference. It is very sloppy work intellectually and academically to use your conclusion as a premise, as a given. The only difference between people who vote Republican and people who vote Democrat is that they vote differently, and the reason they vote differently is because they are being appealed to differently. They then are merely a different demographic receiving different sales and marketing pitches that appeal to a different set of prejudices and feelings, all for the purpose of being sold the same product.
Progressives and conservatives are susceptible to different sales and marketing efforts, that is all. Conservatives take their "the business of America is business" doctrine straight up. Progressives are not so honest about it, with themselves or with others. The author suggests that we need to be better liars.
TWO A: Love the Orwell analogy, pithy and on point. Let's see if "Forest" can understand the points you extended the patience and skill to lay out. Thank you.
Science trumps ideology every time.
When people can see for themselves that twisting and spinning to promote a personal ideology are sop from particular people, why should only one person be responsible for calling them on it or debunking the nonsense?
Sr, I appreciate the shoutout, but if I really wanted to engage the same silliness all the time I would be at PI not here.
Describe the "science" you are referring to.
The fact that a writer has a doctorate does not make what they say "science." I think you have "authority figure I admire" confused with science.
I think you are trying to say that Lakoff is a "somebody" and the critics are "nobodies."
The article is highly ideological, by the way. On the other hand, what is this "ideology" that you see from the critics? Or is that merely an attempt to discredit the critics since you are unable to refute their points?
Two Americas -- Very good analysis here and in your other posts on this thread. Thanks for taking the time.
I can hardly read Lakoff myself. His understanding of power relations and use of power, of what constitutes conservatism and progressivism, of the effects of economic disparity, of history, of moral suasion (and how all the foregoing relate to language)...is so shallow as to be almost not there. Lakoff represents to me most of what is wrong with "liberalism", and what's wrong with liberalism (or what he terms progressivism) is not failure to communicate properly. It's a much deeper failure (at heart a moral failure) that Mr. Lakoff, from his position as "expert", papers over quite expertly. In certain aspects his work epitomizes the moral failure (use of the "frames" and terms of corporatist marketing culture, blind overspecialization as an path to influence and social standing.) His analysis is bloodless, like chewing cardboard (recycled cardboard.)
The bloodlessness is actually indicative of why liberals stew so much about communication. If the blood were circulating, they wouldn't have to stew. They would *communicate* (but bloodlessness is in the blood, so to speak.) Access to media, of course, would vary in inverse proportion to acuity of analysis.
By the way, a few years ago, a friend lent me a copy of "Don't Think of an Elephant". Small book, but I disgustedly gave it back before finishing it. When I think of it now, somehow I think "Obama".
What a recipe for failure, I have never seen it spelled out so clearly.
GL: "First, they have to recognize the reality of bi-conceptualism. Adopting conservative language helps conservatism. Adopting conservative programs makes the world more conservative and so helps drive empathy from the world, and that is disastrous."
If "progressives" took stands that were significantly different from conservatives, there would not be this problem of sounding like conservatives. People will sound conservative when they are conservative - no surprise there. The author demonstrates with his subsequent suggestions that he is in fact advocating very conservative positions. So, we are being told to take conservative positions, but make them sound as though they are not. Where I come from that is called "lying," and it is an important reason why everyday people are resistant to and suspicious of progressives and liberals, why they associate liberalism with hypocrisy - and so should they. This explains why the right wing caricatures of liberals and progressives are so effective with the public.
GL: "Second, progressives should recognize that the business of America is business - that there are successful businesses and businesspeople with progressive values, and they should be praised and courted - and separated from radical conservatives."
The author may as well just join the Republican party and put us all out of our misery and end the confusion. What on earth does the author think the Republicans are fighting for if not for the idea that "the business of America is business?" That is their entire program. What difference does it make if the boss "has progressive values?" That often becomes an excuse for mistreating employees in various ways that conservatives wouldn't consider. I see absolutely no evidence with the hundreds of farmers I have worked with that progressive or liberal owners treat their employees better than conservative owners do. More often, the reverse is the case.
"The business of America is business" is a right wing frame.
GL: "Third, progressives have to organize around a single morality, centered on empathy, both personal and social responsibility, and excellence - being the best person you can be, not just for your own sake, but for the sake of you family, community, and nation. All politics is moral; it is about the right things to do. Get your morality straight, learn to talk about it, then work on policy. It is patriotic to be progressive."
This advice applies to religious movements, not political movements. Politics is about economics and power, not beliefs and ideals. The falsehood that politics is about beliefs and ideals is from the right wing propaganda program. Merely claiming to hold different beliefs and ideals than the Republicans, and then claiming that this makes some sort of difference is a lie. This approach has failed, and failed again, yet the author continues to recommend it. In addition, the pretensions of having the high moral ground and the self-righteousness that goes along with that is strongly resented by the general public - and with good reason.
Personal morality and personal responsibility as the causes or solutions to social and political problems is a right wing frame.
(continued...)
Liberals and/or progressives aren't going to get anywhere until they attract enough conservatives to postulate a viable theory, organize a movement, lay out a plan of attack, and show them what kind of discipline and perseverence it takes to get the job done. Lefties are good at complaining - conservatives are good at taking over and leading (even if the path leads straight to hell).
If the language you're using doesn't work - then stop beating a dead horse. (Also my advice to Lakoff, since he hasn't made much progress in all the years he's been spouting off about what HE thinks is the 'real' problem.)
I used to get really PO'd when some Leftie referred to the military occupation of Irag or Afghanistan as 'war' - or the invaders who are looting and pillaging (not to mention torturing and murdering) men, women, and children in Palestine as 'settlers' - how quaint. Try calling a 'spade' a 'spade' - that's easier than all this roundabout bullshit from Lakoff. Good god, he's such a boring bastard - never has a good idea as to how to implement his grand schemes. What a waste of time !!!! Just speak plainly - and honestly - about what is going on in this world !!! Killing people is murder - period. Invading another country was condemned when the Nazis or Imperial Japs did it - it is still wrong, illegal, and immoral - period. Fraud, bribery, and coercion are crimes - even when bankers, investment brokers, insurance companies (extortionists), and politicians are the perps - period. Lying is lying - liars are immoral, and all lying should be condemned - period. (Just look to Wikileaks to see why this is true.)
Ancient wisdom (from all over the world) tells us not to lie, steal, or murder - no matter how sophisticated your method may be, it is still wrong, and no language can change that fact. (The military does not have to murder anyone - self-defense is NOT murder, and is the only legitimate reason for the use of force.)
Liberals and/or progressives aren't going to get anywhere until they attract enough conservatives to postulate a viable theory, organize a movement, lay out a plan of attack, and show them what kind of discipline and perseverence it takes to get the job done. Lefties are good at complaining - conservatives are good at taking over and leading (even if the path leads straight to hell).
If the language you're using doesn't work - then stop beating a dead horse. (Also my advice to Lakoff, since he hasn't made much progress in all the years he's been spouting off about what HE thinks is the 'real' problem.)
I used to get really PO'd when some Leftie referred to the military occupation of Irag or Afghanistan as 'war' - or the invaders who are looting and pillaging (not to mention torturing and murdering) men, women, and children in Palestine as 'settlers' - how quaint. Try calling a 'spade' a 'spade' - that's easier than all this roundabout bullshit from Lakoff. Good god, he's such a boring bastard - never has a good idea as to how to implement his grand schemes. What a waste of time !!!! Just speak plainly - and honestly - about what is going on in this world !!! Killing people is murder - period. Invading another country was condemned when the Nazis or Imperial Japs did it - it is still wrong, illegal, and immoral - period. Fraud, bribery, and coercion are crimes - even when bankers, investment brokers, insurance companies (extortionists), and politicians are the perps - period. Lying is lying - liars are immoral, and all lying should be condemned - period. (Just look to Wikileaks to see why this is true.)
Ancient wisdom (from all over the world) tells us not to lie, steal, or murder - no matter how sophisticated your method may be, it is still wrong, and no language can change that fact. (The military does not have to murder anyone - self-defense is NOT murder, and is the only legitimate reason for the use of force.)
It doesn't matter what Lakeoff says. It matters more whether my fellow progressives will take action to get specific legislative action right now. Don't let these Progressive experts keep you thinking thinking thinking without acting.
A message of hope for Liberals and Progressives in America. www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/speech1-22-2011.wmv
Protest the companies that give money to conservatives in both parties. These companies fund conservatives and allow conservatives to inflict punishment on the less fortunate so let us hold those companies accountable by boycotting them until we get the legislation we want.
Sign this petition at WWW.DEMOCRATZ.ORG if you want to get congress to enact a $10 an hour minimum wage, The Employee Free Choice act, a real prescription drug benefit for Medicare in part B, an End to 2 expensive wars, a single payer government health insurance plan, Tier 5 unemployment benefits extension and the women's freedom of choice act into law. Post this message on facebook groups, pages and profiles. Thank you.
I'm not criticizing Lakoff's message. Words matter. Sure they do.
But this is old news, boss. It seems to me that understanding how words, from epithets to poetic eloquence, matter--is elemental. Lakoff spends pages to say what Muhammed Ali said in six when a reporter asked why he would go to jail rather than Vietnam:
"No Vietcong ever called me nigger."
But c'mon, the force of words and the importance of framing the issue is as old as the playground, debate team, or a hundred thousand other mundane experiences y'all should've had many times over. So stop acting like Lakoff's essay brings anything new (or even mere decades-old) to the party. Sure, it's eloquent and passionate and well-written--and an utter wank, to borrow from the Brits.
That, and Lakoff goes on (and on and on) about the importance of word choice in framing the discussion, but BLITHELY IGNORES the stupendous, gargantuan, 8000-pound glowing orange gorilla in the living room:
Obama's words about war, torture, illegal spying, "health care" and so much more WERE LIES.
Lakoff, and so many others, can't impress me with anything they say when they are too feeble to twig this basic reality. The lies of Obama are words that, to me, render the essay frivolous at best and distracting (and dividing) at worst...
Obama lies like a rug. Woven by Bush.
Obama, and virtually no current politician, cares a whit about us. The words he uses in the SOTU and in other debates with Congress don't matter. But pay attention, by all means. I'm sure he won't pull the football away this time...
Cheers.
PUFFIN: Well said. You cut right to the chase. Bravo.
TWO AMERICAS: Great posts.
"Third, progressives have to organize around a single morality, centered on empathy, both personal and social responsibility, and excellence - being the best person you can be, not just for your own sake, but for the sake of you family, community, and nation. All politics is moral; it is about the right things to do. Get your morality straight, learn to talk about it, then work on policy. It is patriotic to be progressive."
That won't win elections.
The American electorate has been indoctrinated for such a long time, well over a century, to react positively to words and concepts like
freedom
rights
America #1
defend etc
and negatively to
any word with "-social-" in it
tax
government
etc
It will take decades to change the way people emotionally respond to these key words.
Thus if you want to win then you must use the language of winning. But not as double-speak like capitalists do.
So let policy be guided by empathy but act to win.
Lakoff's message is too dangerous for the destroyers.
....count me another dim-wit that can't follow proff. coolidge....his bi-conceptualism is intellectually fraudulent....all of us suffer internal contradictions.
i think "armybrat" put his finger on it-----calling a "spade a spade." first, the truth is that neither party will do that. and secondly emotional honesty (sometimes just called honesty) will always trump "words, words words."
(and as for acting "gentlemanly"...there have been real world studies by dreaded psychological types that aver that speakers who SWEAR at the beginning and at the end of their remarks are "perceived to be more honest, truthful and persuasive....a certain cannyness is required in this world but it dosen't come from lackoff)
i love when bloggers relate real life impressions (as opposed to arm waving theory)
i assault people all the time concerning their opinions.....the overriding single response is they feel they are being ripped-off (presumably both the right and the left, i don't ask that). the insurance companies, the banks, big oil, you name it.
if anyone wanted to get votes that's the agreement point....
I like the diagram - the center being the lowest point on the right.
I am so fed up with this blowhard Lakoff yammering on about language and ignoring all issues of substance. I can't believe anybody with half a brain could regard anything he says as in any way progressive.
For example, what the hell is he bitching at Krugman about? All Krugman was doing in that quotation is simply pointing out that this buzz from the White House about "competitiveness" could mean either of two things. Either Obama wants to invest in infrastructure, which would be great, or he thinks that we have to kiss the ass of corporations even more, which would be bad. Does Lakoff disagree with this? If so, let him say why. Instead, he claims that Krugman means that language is not important. But Krugman said no such thing. I can't believe this bozo Lakoff is even a college professor. He can't read a piece of text and identify the author's main point.
Please, CD, spare us any further wind from this bag.
Here's a quote from a recent wise man concerning the angst of posters here. " We listen with hope and fear; we seek the light of another but are not alertly passive to be able to understand. If teh liberated seems to fulfill our desires we accept him; if not, we continue our search for the one who will; what most of us desire is gratification at different levels. What is important is not how to recognize one who is liberated but how to understand yourself. No authority here or hereafter can give you knowledge of yourself; without self-knowledge there is no liberation from ignorance, sorrow. Krishnamurti
"'Spending' as used by conservatives, really mean the use of money to help people."
The BIG lie here is that when Conservatives spend, it is on mega-corporations who have EVADED paying taxes. They refuse to spend a dime to help real people make a better life for themselves, but they happily give _our_ tax money away to corporations that make $Billions and _don't_pay_taxes_.