Lakoff vs. Capitalism (Round 1)

George Lakoff's much talked about book, "Don't Think of an Elephant" has been talked about quite a bit around here recently and I think its advice may be central to the future political success of progressives. I think Lakoff's position has a lot to offer, but I think it also has some limitations that are worth pursuing in order to overcome them. I say this with the caveat that I have not yet read "Moral Politics" which is the longer version of Elephant, and so there may already be an answer to the question I'm asking. (more after the jump)

In Elephant, one of the prominent metaphors Lakoff builds up is that of the Strict Father (right wing) vs. the Nurturant Parent (left wing). Here's a short excerpt from the book taken from Alternet (More Lakoff links in this diary by Pacific John.)

The strict father model begins with a set of assumptions:

The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good. What is needed in this kind of a world is a strong, strict father who can:

Protect the family in the dangerous world,
Support the family in the difficult world, and
Teach his children right from wrong.

What is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong. It is further assumed that the only way to teach kids obedience -- that is, right from wrong -- is through punishment, painful punishment, when they do wrong. This includes hitting them, and some authors on conservative child rearing recommend sticks, belts, and wooden paddles on the bare bottom. Some authors suggest this start at birth, but Dobson is more liberal. "There is no excuse for spanking babies younger than fifteen or eighteen months of age." The rationale behind physical punishment is this: When children do something wrong, if they are physically disciplined they learn not to do it again. That means that they will develop internal discipline to keep themselves from doing wrong, so that in the future they will be obedient and act morally. Without such punishment, the world will go to hell. There will be no morality.

Such internal discipline has a secondary effect. It is what is required for success in the difficult, competitive world. That is, if people are disciplined and pursue their self-interest in this land of opportunity, they will become prosperous and self-reliant. Thus, the strict father model links morality with prosperity. The same discipline you need to be moral is what allows you to prosper. The link is the pursuit of self-interest....

As is evident from this quote, one of the guiding themes is that the world is hostile and you need to pursue your self-interest. The operating assumption is that we live in a very Adam Smith, laissez faire capitalist system. But there is a difference between believing that the world is a certain way and that we should want it to be a certain way, isn't there?

In other words, what is there about the Strict Father metaphor that implies that laissez faire capitalism is desirable? The reason I ask is this:

One of the main divides between the left and right now is in the brand of capitalism we prefer. The Republicans enrich themselves with deregulation, destroying welfare and healthcare, and promoting free trade agreements that cost us jobs to outsourcing and help destroy the environment. They prefer a no holds barred, self-interest rules capitalism that leaves very little room for values or principles. The left, on the other hand aren't communists, we believe in capitalism, but a capitalism with limits. A capitalism with a social safety net, and one that limits the power of capitalists through sensible regulations and demands some accountability for externalities that capitalists inevitably produce, such as pollution.

Now, let me finally ask: why does the Strict Father metaphor imply a preference for the former laissez faire version of capitalism instead of a regulated one?

•  I think

  one of the biggest detriments to Republican style capitalism is that it doesn't encourage competition. Republican policies align themselves with the largest and most powerful corporations in the system, which have gotten large and aim to continue to grow in part by stomping out any competition. I think this is counterintuitive to having an efficient capitalist structure. Capitalism is based on deriving benefits from competition, and Republicans support anti-competitive behaviors. I think, if explained well to the public, they could understand.
  Republicans=competition bad
  Democrats=competition good

  by colinb on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:14:23 PM PDT

•  Discipline and meritocracy

  I think it's because of the view that no-holds-barred competition is ultimately good because it rewards, in theory, those with the appropriate self-discipline to "work hard" and those who are of high merit.

  Of course, we dispute this.  But that's the idea.

  by Linnaeus on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:15:38 PM PDT

•  Answering my own question a little

  I have some answers to this question myself, but I was hoping for some help. My line of reasoning so far is that if you're going to promote self-dependence and hard work then you don't want oters taxing the fruits of your labor to give to people who have been "lazy". My point, I guess, is that if this is the Strict Father's answer, then there's a huge chink in the armor for us to exploit in two principal ways:

  1. To the Kansans that Thomas Frank writes of in "What's the Matter with Kansas?" we need to pound home the message that they are working hard and not getting anything for it. Meanwhile, the rich "moderate" Republicans are laughing their assess off on piles of money that these poor saps are making for them. But to do this, progressives need to combat the image that currently exists of welfare as a handout to the lazy and show examples of success. Compare the hardworking Christian mother of 3 who can't afford healthcare, to one who is covered by a government program. Show that the government safety net works, it's not just taking from the hard workers to give to the lazies. The right has done a great job of showing the opposite and this is an uphill climb.

  2. More importantly, the big chink in the armor of laissez faire capitalism is that it has no soul. It is a system driven by profits only, and will destroy everything in its path including itself if left to its own devices. moral values. The reason that we have so much sex and violence on TV is because of capitalism. The reason that we have lost our sense of community to Walmart is capitalism. The reason people go to the mall instead of to church is capitalism. They already feel the effects of capitalism destroying their lives and livelihoods, they just blame it on "liberals" instead of its real source. They can keep the Strict Father metaphor all they like they just need to see that Father should be fighting to force capitalism to have a soul. To put values back into the economic engine that drives this country by placing limits on it.

  I should probably stop here, but one more thought occurs to me: tort reform and medical liability limits are an excellent example of this. Republicans, to enrich themselves, portray lawsuits as stealing from the businesses that make our lives better and the doctors that heal us. We need to make the case much more vociferously that suing negligent and outright evil companies for their actions is not stealing from them it is holding them accountable. Suing doctors for, as Bill Maher put it, "leaving a tin of altoids" inside me is not a bad thing. We should not be ceding this ground to Republicans by saying as we did during the debates that they have a good point. Instead we should be standing up for our principles and making the case that while there are abuses in the system that need to be corrected, the system itself is a good one and needs to be preserved.

  by nussbaumski on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:19:43 PM PDT

  •  oops

    moral values was supposed to say "It has no moral values".

    by nussbaumski on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:22:10 PM PDT

  •  Good comment.

    fighting to force capitalism to have a soul

    Another way to say this that might click more instantly:

    "Democrats fight to force capitalism to have a conscience."

    Consciences allow people to distinguish right from wrong.... every good capitalists ought to have a conscience (unfortunately many don't).

    Having a "soul" is different.

    by thesill on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:29:41 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      But isn't that exactly what the conservative Christians should be all about? Or do they simply believe that each capitalist should have a conscience and that the problems this country faces is because the "liberal" capitalists don't have a conscience, while the good right wing capitalists do? If that's what it is, then we should take steps to disabuse them.

      The idea that charities and faith based initiatives can take the place of welfare and healthcare is ludicrous, and doesn't account at all for any of the economic impact of conscience-free capitalism. Still, we need to make this case firmly and clearly and on principle, and we haven't done that very well yet.

      by nussbaumski on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 01:48:57 PM PDT

      •  I hate to say it, but

        Howard Dean was making this point back in the spring /summer of '03.  We are more than cogs in a great amoral machine, and, for the betterment of our communities, we need to consider what sort of rules we want our markets to obey.  But he was ruthlessly pigeonholed as the 'anti-war' candidate.  Ah.

        by smithbm on Mon Nov 08, 2004 at 03:02:51 PM PDT