Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Conservatives Really Want
--Dedicated to the peaceful protestors in Wisconsin, February 19, 2011.
The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is the moral basis of American democracy.
The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.
Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement.
Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the president has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives.
Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.
In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.
The conservative worldview rejects all of that.
Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.
But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?
The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.
The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government should not do public service. The market has service industries for that. Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on. The very idea of these things is at odds with the conservative moral system. No one should be paying for anyone else. It is individual responsibility in all arenas. Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Taxation cannot be seen as providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for business to prosper.
In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word.
Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should NOT have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used again conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's doctors.
Freedom is defined as being your own strict father -- with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of course need a gun.
This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.
What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.
Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American -- the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent. Middle class wages have been flat for 30 years, while the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life, but not the American way of life.
Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud over and over that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic.
Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called Democratic Communication Disorder. Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media, and booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on TV are conservatives. Talk matters because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths.
And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks -- talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies. They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them.
Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like "entitlements" instead of "earnings" and speak of government as providing "services" instead of "necessities."
Is there hope?
166 Comments so far
Show All"Is there hope?" I Hope so. I even Think so. Maybe I even Believe so! If we all do what we can to Stop this "Conservative" crapshoot, things can only get better. What part of "provide for the common good" do the cons not get?
What the article describes is Puritanism, pure and simple. Not that the Puritans were simple. But they were a cult and they were whacko. Too bad they are the forefathers of much of our country. We will never get over being Puritans. We will always have witch hunts. We will always have those who worship the Father and the father and exert strict discipline on their children with physical torture. We will always have those who see God's favor in wealth and power. 'Liberals' and 'progressives' are amateurs. The Puritans have been at it in this country for over two hundred years. The progressives in this country don't stand a chance. We will have to wait for some other culture to come and liberate us.
I am sorry, but I totally disagree with the idea that we are a nation of Puritans. There are definite sects of society that can be described as such, but I see the majority as an assortment of conservative and liberal ideas, skewing towards liberal. In my humble opinion you are confusing the leadership with the people. I also reject the idea of requiring another culture to liberate this country, just as I reject the United States "liberating" other cultures. Change and determination must come from within. The American power control structures that you see as being so rigid and unyielding will fall far easier than you believe. Change is in the air.
" I see the majority as an assortment of conservative and liberal ideas, skewing towards liberal."
If that is so, why are there so many new Republicans in Congress?
Single issue voters and overall discontent with the current system.
True, but the social ideology should be described within a larger context. It was well described in the 19th Century by Max Weber in his book entitled "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". The title speaks for itself. While Protestantism was defined by the reformation of northern European Christianity three centuries before, its world view was corrupted but the advance of capitalism primarily during the 18th and 19th centuries. While the religious components of main stream and off-the-wall Protestantism still possesses some resemblance to the tenets of the 17th century, the social components of its adherents have become dominated by a social ideology that has no connection to the new Christian religions that arose from the reformation.
On another note, words dominate the political dialog and should be used wisely and judiciously. It really irritates me to constantly read and hear the Social Security and Medicare payouts being connected to the concept of "entitlement". They are not entitlements, they are pension and health care programs paid for by the working people of the US, and any time the word "entitlement" is used in reference to them, its use must be unequivocally corrected.
"Entitlement" is something one is entitled to, a synomym for something one has a "right to." It isn't the wrong word at all because people who have paid into programs all their working lives do have a right/entitlement to the fruits of those programs just as I have a right to spend the money in the bank account my wages have been deposited in. The problem is that so few Americans know the meaning of words--or think about the meaning of words--that Republicans can take a word and make people think it means something bad rather than something good.
A lot of change for the better could be achieved by having better English language instruction.
Though you make a good point, the other point involves using the conservative word "entitlement", as it allows the debate to shift to whether social security etc. has become a right, and blurs the fact that people as a whole simply get the money they have paid into the program. Once one has shifted the dialog to the concept of right, then the radical conservatives (neo-cons) can proceed with the argument that no one has the right to social welfare (another term they use to mix social security with social welfare).
Words matter. Words shape the debate. One often loses the debate by accepting words that frame the debate to make it difficult, if not impossible, to convince the other side.
In a more neutral setting I noticed that this site refers to the Wisconsin labor protests as a "uprising." Of course, using that term puts the complexion of violence on the protests, and accepts the framing of the radical right that wants people to believe we must control unions in order to protect ourselves from thugs that represent a small part of society.
Using the wrong word loses the negotiation at the starting gate.
I agree, the change we need doesn't exist in our culture. The hope we need won't come in time to stop the republican-tea party culture. As they move forward in their ideologies perhaps we will start to witness and be aware of the damages from thier destructive policies. By then other successful progressive cultures will be enjoying the benefits of sane policies. Then perhaps the Sputnik syndrone will kick in and the people will want what the others have.
I disagree Mars. The problem is that the progressive views of the majority of Americans are not publicized. Polls show that a minority of voters (~ 25-30%) actually support conservative ideology. Unfortunately, our corporate dominated media makes the minority appear to be the majority by reporting only those views favorite to corporatte profits. Fortunately, as the protests in Wisconsin (soon to spread to other states) show, what the media tries to convey as a majority view actually doesn't constitute the majority at all. It's merely an illusion.
Thanks dawg
There are so many INCREDIBLE posts fore and aft
on this thread, there is little need for my 2 cents...
still I won't be able to resist. LOVE you all (almost
all...i aint no kristyan)
Since your post was short and sweet, I'll keep mine that way - there's a line from a Bob Dylan song..."I've been Ayn Randed, nearly branded a Communist cuz I'm left-handed, well that's the hand to use, oh, nevermind".
What the article describes is Patriarchy not Puritanism. The Puritans were patriarchal, but that was not a defining character relative to the Caviliers and Catholics.
Beyond that, the current right wing that has taken over the Repulicans is a Southern (Scott-Irish) based form of patriarchy, not a Northeast traditional puritan based one. With the southern based form there is no noblese oblige, or requirement to improve oneself. Just a requirement to obey and know your place.
"In order to form a more perfect Union."
George Markley: You might want to check out George Monbiot's article on Puritanism and its legacy, if you haven't already. http://www.monbiot.com/2004/11/09/religion-of-the-rich/
Incidentally, I think I spotted an error. In the paragraph beginning "Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained", I think the third sentence should read "Science should *not* have authority over the Market...."
Yes, I noticed that too, and I agree.
Good catch.
Perhaps he meant to say that in a rational world science should have authority over the market.
From the context of the statement within the article, I don't think that's what he meant. Lakoff was describing the way conservatives see the world, a worldview in which "the Market" outweighs all other considerations, including scientific truth.
Re: .....I think the third sentence should read "Science should *not* have authority over the Market....."
Thank you. I noticed that, too.
It would be a good idea to review this sentence for clarity.
Right -- that NOT must have gotten dropped because science must kowtow to the holy market. As someone else pointed out, Lakoff is way off on the number of U.S. bases-- which he puts at 174. Actually, 741 would be closer to the truth but since some bases are secret & the Pentagon loves opacity, it is difficult to give a precise number.
If Lakoff really imagines that the U.S. only as 174 bases then he needs to read the late great Chalmers Johnson to get a firmer handle on the skeleton & sinew of Empire.
2 Orange: I noticed that mistake too. He left out the word not. Also, how about his number of noted military bases... 174? Dyslexia? He would have been closer if he had written 741...
This is one of his better essays, however. Still, it takes a lot more than a language frame to liberate a person (or huge population pool) from their faith-based belief structures.
OOPS! I hadn't scrolled down to notice; but evidently you (Randy) and I were seeing the exact same flaws in the essay.
This site claims at least 737 bases.
http://www.alternet.org/story/47998
Yes, Siouxrose, George should run these essays by Common Dreams' readers first and he'll get some helpful fine tuning.
I agree with you that this is one of Lakeoff's best essays. I plan to pass this one along to a number of friends who are mystified a bit by the real endgame of the American conservative movement.
I think we all are living in a faith based structure. It takes as much faith to believe that a dollar is real as it takes to believe that a supreme being is real. Money is a fiction but we all believe it is real. So lets attack the very foundations of the current conservative-facist structure and deny that structure our belief that their money is worth anything. What do we put into its place? Another form of the idea of money naturally. We have to believe in something. That's the very center of the nature of human beings. But for the purposes of dismantling the current power structure we first have to understand that those who have the power to define have the power to control: which is the problem with current democrats. They gave up the power to define and are now lost in the woods without a penny to buy their way out.
Or R.H. Tawney's "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" for a different take.
Mr. Lakoff.......... nothing less than a SUPERB article.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Somehow we need to get the word out about "Liberal" views and their logic to more Americans.
I am losing hope for American society. We are quickly becoming a horrid society.
My heroes are Liberals -- people such as Thom Hartmann, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, Naomi Klein, Katrina vanden Heuvel, etc.
Wrong!! This was not a superb artricle. It is based on the error of saying that the Democrats are really on the side of all that love and empathy and careing and shareing that the conservatives hate.
Mr. Lakeoff says, "We see the Democrats are helping them"---NO!! They ARE them. Both of our corporate parties are the servants of the very wealthy who have purchased our government. Nothing will improve until we see this as a fact. The Democrats are equally against the values of progressives as are any Republican. I am not saying that people who are registered as Democrats are the bad guys, they are duped. The Democratic Party is the enemy of the working people of this nation. Some of us still believe that the Democrats really, under all the awful stuff they agree to are, in their deepest hearts, really good people and not really the greedy corrupt that march hand and hand with the Republicans into total fascism.
Get over that delusion!! THe Democrats are the Republicans. They are a two headed fat moneygrubbing pack of power freaks. No love there. No compassion, No decent respect for life on earth. Nothing counts but getting richer. In the French Revolution such people were beheaded. I suggest we just tax the bastards and use their ill gotten wealth to provide a decent life for all and to protect our mother the earth.
;
This is one of the most cogent summations of the "conservative" mindset available.
Several members of the Frankfort School -- especially Erich Fromm-- have explored some of this terrain far earlier. Fromm is a wonderful thinker, remains very relevant, and is well worth reading.
There is also Wilhelm Reich's "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" -- although more historically directed to classic fascism.
Tidy little post here for those short on time:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2179992_recognize-authoritarian-personality.html
There is some issue with Lakoff's use of the term 'conservative' as well. Conservative is often meant as someone who is opposed to rapid change and holds high respect for tradition and experience. Politicians such as Dwight Eisenhower or intellectuals such as Kevin Phillips are good examples of conservatives.
The Republican Party is a rabidly reactionary party now devoted to radical change. Of course, some of it is rooted in reversing the New Deal and a yearning for a mythological past-- so it is clothed in conservative trappings. But you are not going to think you are in 1950 Kansas when they are done implementing their "conservative" vision.
The Democratic Party, ironically, is actually the more conservative party as it is somewhat resistant to some of these extreme transformations. It is lightly committed to preserving the New Deal, a social safety net, public education, etc.
Lakoff often comes off as a one trick pony--it's framing, framing, framing-- and also as an apologist for the Democratic Party-- if only the poor hapless Democrats knew how to frame the issues then all would be well.
The Democratic party has more than framing issues. Despite giving inept lip service to empathetic values and a positive role for government, the Democratic party owes its economic allegiance to corporations, Wall Street, and economic elites -- just as the Republican Party does.
Admittedly, they are sometimes different elites, different corporate sectors. For example, big oil & coal may put their money on the Republicans, new tech elites in computers, software, telecommunications, etc. may put their money on the Democratic party. Or like Goldman Sachs you simply put bets on both parties.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-21/goldman-donations-loom-over-republicans-democrats-alike-in-election-year.html
The point is that both parties are deeply beholden to corporations who profit handsomely from the conservative vision that Lakoff portrays. Additionally, many Democratic Party leaders personally profit from tax breaks for the rich, bailouts for banks and Wall Street, etc. because they themselves are wealthy and often have stock portfolios, etc. to be protected by serving business elites.
The kindest thing we can say about the Democratic Party is that they have a conflict of interest & this contributes to an inability to articulate a populist vision based on empathetic values as a counterweight to the right-wing narrative.
Why do intellectuals such as Lakoff, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, etc. continue to tether themselves to the Democratic Party? Partly out of habit perhaps but also because IF the Democratic Party is beyond reform then we are really sailing into truly bleak terra incognita.
Unfortunately, Chris Hedges is probably closer to the reality of U.S. institutional corruption than intellectuals of goodwill such as Lakoff.
Is there any hope? Probably not with the Democratic Party.
RANDY: Great post! You laid out all the key issues. I would also add that people do tend to act from a stance that protects their self-interest. Apologizing for the status quo, even if one acts as benign critic, guarantees a place in the hierarchy and thus a decent paycheck. That factor should not be neglected in asking why certain intelligent writers/teachers/speakers continue to ask the public to accept the lesser of two evils, while simultaneously putting the onus on them to work energetically to (hypothetically) alter it.
I believe George Orwell answered very well 'why certain intelligent writers/teachers/speakers continue to ask the public to accept the lesser of two evils, while simultaneously putting the onus on them to work energetically to (hypothetically) alter it.'
"All left wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy. They have internationalist aims, and at the same time they struggle to keep up a standard of life with which those aims are incompatible. We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are "enlightened" all maintain that those coolies ought to be set free; but our standard of living, and hence our "enlightenment", demands that the robbery shall continue."
Replace 'Asiatic coolies' with Muslims, Indians, Native Americans, Central and Latin Americans, etc and I believe the answer to your question becomes crystal clear.
"There is some issue with Lakoff's use of the term 'conservative' as well. Conservative is often meant as someone who is opposed to rapid change and holds high respect for tradition and experience. Politicians such as Dwight Eisenhower or intellectuals such as Kevin Phillips are good examples of conservatives.
The Republican Party is a rabidly reactionary party now devoted to radical change. Of course, some of it is rooted in reversing the New Deal and a yearning for a mythological past-- so it is clothed in conservative trappings. But you are not going to think you are in 1950 Kansas when they are done implementing their "conservative" vision.
"
Well, yes. Most conservatives are reactionaries who want to return to the late 1800s, not the 1950s. That does not mean that they are not conservatives.
Yes, but not all conservatives are reactionaries. Nor do all conservatives subscribe to irrational politics and efforts to turn back the clock to an imaginary age.
An authentic conservative would value time-tested traditions, values, and institutions.
For example, before his appointment as a Supreme Court Justice, Roberts claimed that he would honor legal precedent in his decisions. In other words, he was a conservative. However, as his Citizens United decision boldly displayed-- whereby the radical right contingent tossed out a hundred years of legal precedent-- he is not a conservative, he is an extremely reactionary activist judge who intends to reshape the country as much as possible in favor of corporate/state power.
Some might argue that he was simply honoring the original free speech intent of the Bill of Rights. However, there was no intent in the Bill of Rights to protect the speech rights of corporations and banks-- this was a much later and rather bizarre interpretation.
Bluntly, Roberts and his most radical right associates are fascists not conservatives.
An honest conservative would also honor the original intent of the 4th Amendment to protect individuals from unreasonable search and seizures by police and the state. How many self-proclaimed conservatives support that? (Or Democratic Party leaders?)
What I tried to do was draw a distinction between honest conservative traditions, which can be both reasonable and rational-- and irrational reactionary movements that are quite dangerous. I was suggesting that the modern American 'conservative' movement aptly described by Lakoff is much more the later, than the former.
often i have said repugs accuse others of their
own transgressions also watch what they do not
what they say...simultaneously I believe the fiction
of two parties is largely theatre...it is a mutually
beneficial insider game of codependency.
The big picture domestically is divisive politcal
manipulation is transferring wealth from middle class
to upper class i.e. from teachers and public sector
to big banks....all in the fictitious name of eliminating
deficit spending. When R's are in control they use
geopolitical theatre ( read prearranged faux terrorism,
9-11 ) to justify expanding the world police state...
when d's are in charge they rationalize r's excesses
by continuing them and protest that they are being
filibustered and blocked by the faux d's such as 'blue
dogs' and other pretend libruls (read rockefeller lieber thug
etcetera ad nauseum)
True, both the Republican party and the Democrat party have some of the same values. Almost everyone in both parties believes capitalism provides the best economic system. I believe, however, that thinking of both parties as the same, misses important nuances. I can't think of anyone in either party who could survive in a Russian or Chinese communists party, though I can think of many people in both parties, who would feel comfortable if they became the top ranking dictator. I have difficulty naming people who can cross from one party to the other. Perhaps 50 or so could easily could make such a transition.
Both parties tend to support business and corporations, but they differ markedly when it comes to social programs. Moreover, the parties differ significantly on the role of government and neither implements what they say they stand for.
The Republican party has several strains of conservative thought: traditional conservatives, religious conservatives, and libertarians come to mind. I currently can't think of anyone belonging to the Republican Party that I might label as a liberal. Similarly, the Democrat party has different stripes of political beliefs. I can think of liberals in the sense of 1800 liberals in England (neo-liberals), socialists, people highly sympathetic to labor, and of course moderate, traditional conservatives, as well as moderate liberals as currently found in various countries of Europe.
Framing again has mixed and matched. Indeed even in Lakoff's most excellent essay he has partially fallen into the trap. Some Democrats have progressive ideas, but certainly not all Democrats have progressive ideas. Those that don't have left of center ideas do not get fooled. They state what they state, and do what they do, both from beliefs and their judgments of their electorate. Judging from the grand health care debate, a substantial number of Democrats in the current congress have slightly right of center views, so much so that they do not subscribe to universal health care, and certainly not a government controlled health insurance. To get as far as he did, Obama had to strike bargains with the devil, and not push for the only system that will likely reduce costs, "a single payer health insurance scheme." To do so in the American political climate would have failed to provide the necessary votes. So in the effort to get health care for all, he sacrificed the objective of lowering the front end costs of health care, and hopes for a set of indirect cost savings. This, BTW, serves as an example of how both parties differ. Just look at the voting record on the new health care laws.
In conclusion, some might say, as you do, Democrats and Republicans simply represent two sides of the same house. In so far, as both groups believe in the capitalist system in varying degrees, it appears they have identical philosophies, but I think both parties differ markedly in the details. Several members of the Democrat party could never find a home with the Republicans and vice versa, as things other than economic ideologies, and even economic details, separate them.
Yes I agree, it is REALLY a great article. I especially liked this paragraph. After reading it I could think of dozens of things that I have seen Conservatives do that supports Lakoff's statements. I have taken the liberty to add a correction in CAPS, which I think Mr Lakoff accidentally left out.
"Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should NOT have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used again conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's doctors."
By coincidence I just happen to be watching a AlJazeera documentary on North Korea. They are interviewing students at the North Korea school for cinema, and the students keep on referring to their Kim Jong-il as their "Dear Leader". So I guess in many ways that N. Korea would be the ultimate Conservative utopia, (without the free housing, and health care of course). Most of the people powerless and poor, with a small elite ruling class, a leader that is worshiped, Kim Jong-il = Ronald Reagan, and a massive military that the country really can't afford. Scary stuff...
I would say that paragraph describes Fascism far more than traditional conservatism. In fact the father of the political idea of conservatism (Robert Peel in the "Tamworth Manifesto") said that his party (the Tory Party) must change, must conserve what was good of the past but let go what was inferior and replace it with new and better ideas. Of course the current Republican party is far closer to the Tories of early-19th Century England than to the Conservative party of Peel and Disraeli.
Thank you Mr.Lakoff for saying so eloquently what I've been trying to put into words for so long. Well done.
NR16020,
I'm not a religious guy - quit going to church as soon as I was old enough to make up my own mind because I couldn't stand the hipocrisy -but whenever I run across a conservative who says liberalism is bad I make sure to point out that the very embodiment of liberalism was Jesus. If our nations so called conservatives acted in accordance with the teachings of the man they so revere we wouldn't have a fraction of these problems we now face. Usually leaves them speechless.
said this many times but...
look at what cons do, not at
what they say...for instance
deregulation of broadcast standards
has resulted in hyper sexualized and
exploitative television that drags down
childrens internal role models....
Conservative??? not really...
Its in opposition to their supposed
con (servative) faux kristyan morality.
Otherwise HIP HIP HIPPY
HOORAY for lakoff and a tip of the hat to
SEAN PENN for putting himself out there
yeah, everyone should be from Missouri (The Show Me State)
No, NO, NO!! It would be way to crowded here then.
Yes, KrazyKatz, you are exactly right. Jesus was a liberal.
I think they get away with the "conservative" Jesus is by quoting everyone but Jesus - mostly Paul.
Beginning in Matthew 25:31, Jesus berates people who care only for themselves (the goats) and lifts up those who care about others (the sheep).
And the final judgement: Matthew 25:45 "In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me". And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life.
Now I have a real problem with this "eternal punishment" part of the quote. I think this is something someone added on later. Eternity cannot be subdivided as there is no time in eternity.
But, your point is well taken. Jesus is a flaming liberal.
The correct title for this article is: =What American Conservatives Really Want in February 2011.=
It seems to me that Dr. Lakoff is a Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science & Linguistics who has not met a =conservative= from any other nation on the planet. Maybe we need a trip back in time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Huddled in a hypothetical cave are four males. Three of them watch a fourth use a clever tool to start a fire. It is a bow, consisting of a bent piece of hardwood and a leather thong attached to the ends of the bow. The thong is wrapped around a pointed stick. Moving the bow can spin the stick, when the dry pointed end is inserted into a dry hole in a piece of wood. Flicka flicka flicka - voila - a tiny yellow flame appears. This is painstakingly used for ten minutes to make a fire, to the delight of all.
But - - here comes a Traveler into their cave. He assembles dry moss and dry leaves into a small pile and, while the 4 men watch him, he sharply whacks two stones together. Voila! Hot sparks fall onto the dry stuff and smoke begins to curl upward. He blows gently, and in 20 seconds the material bursts into flame. Simple.
"Wow! I'm going to stop using this shitty bow thing and start making fire by whacking two stones," says one proto-human.
"But the bow is GODs WAY! I ought to know, I am the Shaman. Those stones are the Work of the Devil. God said LET THERE BE WOOD and there WAS WOOD."
"Apparently, God also said LET THERE BE ROCKS, and gave us two of them as SPECIAL ROCKS for making fire." says the Traveler. I obtained these from a Clan of Smart People who have Common Dreams."
"The Devil speaks, " hissed the Shaman, "he is right here among us! We should kill him right now, before he does any more public stone whacking and RUINS OUR ENTIRE SOCIETY!! My parents had to carry a burning ember from the last fire, protect it and hope it did not stop burning so the next fire could be started. Some Clan People froze to death. Then God gave us the Bow Gizmo."
"Perhaps you are over-reacting," says a third. "Why don't we just tell our HEALER not to heal him of anything, take turns watching everything he does 24/365 so he has no privacy whatsoever, and tell the women not to screw him."
"What if a lot of the clan want to make fire by whacking stones together?"
"We'll organize a Tea Party," the Shaman said venomously.
Trylon
"Wow! I'm going to stop using this shitty bow thing and start making fire by whacking two stones."
Wonderful metaphors and a delightful story, Trylon.
May I extend the metaphors by noting that progressive ideas do indeed seem to have a dynamic spark, while regressive ideas, much like a stick endlessly drilling into a shallow hole, are boring.
Poetic.
Dare one say that progressive voters are the opposite? Constantly voting for the same old candidates and hoping for a different outcome?
Nice work, Trylon. More parables please.
Last year I placed a parable on the blog of Americans United. It was based on the childrens story of three little pigs building houses of straw, wood, and brick. But in my story, each pig was building and mounting a =cross= in the -middle of nowhere- Mohave Desert.
The conclusion of my parable demonstrated: 1) AU's Barry Lynn was a fool, 2) the decision of SCOTUS on the Cross in the Desert was asinine. For example, if on government property I build a wall of red bricks such that there is a cross-shaped hollow area with no bricks, have I built a CROSS? Does my wall honor all the hollow veterans of World War One? Is this wall an offense to hollow Muslim veterans? If it is offensive to someone from a sand covered, 2-lane road 200 yards away, is it half as offensive from 400 yards away? At what distance does it become a Thought Crime?
Anyway, my 3 little pigs parable pissed off everyone BUT the Pope. And it had some interesting consequences
Trylon.
Situating this little scenario in a false past and in a derisive context of a social setting involving a "shaman" carries the argument into a form of hideous negation. Addressing a profound failing, that is a case specific situation in the US and celebrates so deep a cultural prejudice, needs to be pointed out. I would ask you to consider the virulence of culturally externalizing the 'bad guy' with this twisting. It is poorly considered and a de facto projection of hatred of "other". The scenario is a case of linguistic and social violence in the skewing of traditions by placing western problem in the mouth of a "shaman". This is what colonization has done for centuries. Please stop and think through what is being said.
OLD GOAT: I hear you. The parable equated the Shaman with the local Baptist "hell and damnation" modern day preacher. Otherwise, it was interesting. In truth, shamans can recognize lost spirits, but they hardly advocate a belief system that casts anyone to hell. That was the Christian church's KEY tool for disciplining the masses. In the Bible Belt, it's still quite effective today.