The subtitle Why you can not understand 21st century politics with an 18th-century brain seems exceptionally appropriate in this case! I know there has been much already written on this, but a careful analysis from Lakoff's perspective may help us sort through some of this stuff. I'll give it a try. I have been writing in parallel with Lakoff for some time now trying to recast some of his ideas in the context of complex systems theory applied to understanding the mind and how it operates in terms of world views. There is much overlap between our ideas since much of what I have put together stems from the interplay of Lakoff's teachings and the complexity theory of Robert Rosen. The best place to get a taste of Rosen's revolutionary approach is his book:Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life (Complexity in Ecological Systems) (Paperback) published by Columbia University Press in its "Complexity in Ecological Systems" series. Look below the break and I will give you a quick synthesis and apply it to the infamous cartoon.
Lakoff's new book: The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain is a must read for the people at the New Yorker for what David Remnick says on the Huffington Post
Obviously I wouldn't have run a cover just to get attention — I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's — both Obamas' — past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.
Wrong David! Dead wrong! Please please read George Lakoff before you kill again!
Before I say any more maybe we need to remember:
A picture is worth a thousand words
A trite old saw right? Much more. The whole point here goes to the concept of "framing" that Lakoff has so brilliantly grounded in basic scientific ideas. I'll add to that the discussion of meaning in terms of the relationship between symantics and syntax and the role of symbols in all this coming from the semiotics of people like Umberto Eco. I just had a highly recommended diary discussing the ideas of Bill Moyers on the Press. Did the New Yorker feel it was necessary to give us a atomic bomb sized example of what Moyers was complaining about?
First the most obvious: how many people will be most affected by the syntax and symbolism of the picture? Far, far too many! David that gets you an "F" for this particular excercise. It gets you an "F" because there is no lower grade! You see, David, in order to buy your lame explanation for running this travesty on the cover we have to assume that people will go to the trouble of reading your semantics about why they should feel good about the Obama's after your brilliant satire defuses the hate being spewed very deliberately out there. Next, after reading it, they have to understand it. Finally after understanding it they have to buy it. Who does that leave? I wonder if even all of your staff is left after that?
There is no doubt that the forces of darkness out there have been working their butts off to frame this discussion. They were just handed something they could never accomplish in a million years with trillions of dollars. Let's look at the introduction to Lakoff's book:
American values are fundamentally progressive, centered on equality, human rights, social responsibility, and the inclusion of all. Yet progressives have, without knowing why, given conservatives an enormous advantage in the culture war. .... The future of democracy is at stake now.
That is it in a nutshell. So we have the New Yorker supplying the clearly irresponsible media with a picture to flash at people to characterize the Obamas in the worst possible way! Here's the problem according to Lakoff:
Progressives have acepted an old view of reason, dating back to the Enlightenment, namely that reason is conscious, literal, logical, universal, unemotional, disembodied, and serves self interest. As the cognitive and brain sciences have been showing, this is a false view of reason. Oddly enough, this matters. It may sound like an academic issue, but this assumption about the nature of reason has stood in the way of an effective progressive defense and advancement of democracy. Progressives have ceded the political mind to conservatives.
There is so much to be said about this. If you have wondered, as I am sure you have many times, how George Bush could have possibly been reelected in 2004 be sure that Lakoff has been trying to answer that.
Here's from the book jacket:
The political divide in this country is not just about money, he argues, and it is not just about geography, religion, or even power. It reflects an even deeper divide in how Americans understand the world-how our brains work- resulting in two competing modes of thought when it comes to governing our country. One is fundamentally democratic, and one fundamentally anti-democratic. And the anti-democratic mode of thought-better funded, better organized, and more thouroughly established- has been winning.
We can not let them win again! The Supreme Court will be a gestapo! I don't even want to think about the rest. As Lakoff says it:
The radical conservatives seek and have already begun to introduce: an authoritarian hierarchy based on vast concentrations and control of wealth; order based on fear, intimidation and obedience; a broken government; no balance of power; priorities shifted from the public sector to the corporate and military sectors; responsibility shifted from society to the individual; controlo of elections through control of who votes and how the votes are counted; control of ideas through the media; and patriarchal family values projected on religion, politics and the market.
So the New Yorker seems to have slept through all this? How do they figure that the same approach that allowed all this to happen will suddenly begin to work now? I am totally repulsed by their elitist belief that an obscure attempt at satire can somehow cut through the framing we are up against. They may have done everything they could to ensure as much success as possible by the 2008 Swiftnboaters. Shame on you all at the New Yorker, SHAME ON YOU!