The best book this cycle

I'm not one to recommend books lightly. In fact, I don't think I've ever said, "you HAVE to get this book." But there's always a first time for everything.

I get swamped with review copies of books these days, and given the number of liberal-leaning anti-Bush books saturating the market, there's no shortage of reading material that I'll unfortunately never get to. But I nearly flipped with joy when I checked my mail today (too lazy to do it yesterday) and found a copy of George Lakoff's new book, Don't think of an elephant!, he of the Rockridge Institute. I'd been dying to read my first Lakoff book since I read this piece he wrote for the American Prospect. The fact that the obnoxious Jonathan Chiat of the New Republic dissed him only made me more anxious to read him. And rumors that the DNC have taken Lakoff on as a consultant clinched the deal.

So back to the book, I knew after reading just a handful of pages that if there's one book you read this year, it should be this one.

Lakoff's obsession is the use of language to frame political debate. And it's his findings that will help rescue the Democratic Party from itself, extracating itself from playing with the frame built by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (think tanks, leadership institutes, media outlets, etc). What's a frame? You know them -- "Death Tax", and "Tax Relief", and "Pro-life", and so on. Bush says, "We don't need a permission slip from the UN to defend the US", and suddenly, the Republicans have framed the runup to war in a certain way. Our mistake, as a party, has been our willingness to play within our opponents' frame, rather than building our own.

I will be writing more about the book over the coming days. I'm absolutely smitten by it. But I want to open with Lakoff's meta frame for what each of the two parties stand for. This is great stuff, as it clearly explains, in a way I had never seen before, the reason why the gulf between liberals and conservatives is as deep as it is.

Given the existence of the metaphor linking the nation to the family, I asked the next question: If there are two different understandings of the nation, do they come from two different understandings of family?

I worked backwards. I tool the various positions on the conservative side and on the progressive side and I said, "Let's put them through the metaphor from the opposite direction and see what comes out." I put in the two different views of the nation, and out popped two different models of the family: a strict father family and a nurturant parent family. You know which is which [...]

The strict father model beings 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 world is a strong, strict father who can:

• Protect the family in a dangerous world,

• Support the family in the difficult world, and

• Teach his kids right from wrong.

Now to summarize how this all fits into the GOP frame, "protect the family" speaks to the GOP's militarism and hard line on crime and punishment. That one is pretty self evident. "Support the family" equates prosperity with morality -- the ability to successfully support one's charges is a virtue, and those that are unable to do so, or depend on the government to help out, are morally weak. Hence, the GOP's hostility to social programs, since they make people dependent, rather than self-sufficient.

There are many aspects of government that [conservatives] like very much. They are not against government subsidies for industry. Subsidies for corporations, which reward the good people -- the investors in those corporations -- are great. No problem there.

But they are against nurturance and care. They are against social programs that take care of people. That is what they see as wrong. That is what they are trying to eliminate on moral grounds. That is why they are not merely a bunch of crazies or mean and greedy -- or stupid-- people, as many liberals believe. What is even scarier is that conservatives believe it.

Now see how Lakoff frames political liberalism:

Both parents are equally responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good and can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents' job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others.

What does nurturance mean? It means two things: empathy and responsibility [...] all sorts of other values immediately follow from empathy and responsibility [...]

First, if you emphathize with your child, you will provide protection. [... From] crime and drugs, certainly. You also protect your child from cars without seat bealts, from smoking, from poisonous additives in food. So progressive politics focuses on environmenntal protection, worker protection, consumer protection, and protection from disease [and] also terrorist attacks [...]

Further, it is your moral responsibility to teach your child to teach your child to be a happy, fulfilled person who wants others to be happy and fulfilled.

In other words, while the conservative frame rewards those who succeed where others fail, the liberal frame rewards those who are outraged when others fail. This is powerful stuff. Some more of those liberal values:

If you want your child to be fulfilled in life, the child has to be free enough to do that. Therefore, freedom is a value.

You do not have very much freedom if there is no opportunity or prosperity. Therefore opportunity and prosperity are progressive values.

If you really care about your child, you want your child to be treated fairly by you and by others. Therefore fairness is a value.

If you are connecting with your child and you emphathize with that child, you have to have open, two-way communication. Honest communication. That becomes a value.

You live in a community, and that the community will affect how your child grows up. Therefore community-building, service to the community, and cooperation in a community become values.

To have cooperation, you must have trust, and to have trust you must have honesty and open two-way communication. Trust, honesty, and open communication are fundamental progressive values -- in a community as in a family.

I was blown away when I read this. It does help put things in perspective in a way I was previously unable to do so.

Suddenly, Arnold's "girly men" comment takes on new meaning, as does the WSJ's "lucky duckies" comment about those too poor to pay any taxes. Take any issue, apply it to the frames above, and it's easy to see why liberals and conservatives fall on opposite sides of many issues -- Patriot Act, tax cuts for the wealthiest, or, heck, Bush's refusal to listen to skeptics during the runup to his war (father knows best, or "because I said so"). Take any issue, apply the frame, and see what you get. It's pretty amazing how well Lakoff's frames work on just about every issue.

It's also gives proper explanation to the difference between conservative and liberal blogs -- where high-traffic conservative bloggers serve not to build community (most have no comments), but to amplify their party's agenda (doing what "father" tells them to do, like good, disciplined, obedient children). We, on the good side of the ideological fence, believe in "open, two-way communication", hence the use of comments and the building of "community" on most of the top progressive bloggers.

Like I said, I'll be writing about Lakoff all week, specifically, how he suggests we use our frame to recast the debate on a whole host of issues (including the big marriage debate).

•  Using this model

  You could say the conservatives tried to co-opt the nurturing role through [the largely fictional] "compassionate conservatism". It's interesting that Bush spoke to all those [bogus] social programs in his convention speech.

  Kerry ought to capitalize on his role as protector in a big way. (of course, Undermining said role is a major goal of Rove...)

  BTW, I wonder why the Dem women aren't more visible? Teresa and especially Elizabeth - who struck me as a superb communicator.

  by bushdemocrat on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 11:54:09 PM PDT

  •  I think that's off-target

    Let's not focus on dog-eat-dog vs. nurture.  One of the key objectives of GOP memes is to polarize and divide.  "You're with us or against us," etc.  Finding differences is easy.  The problem is that the Dems think being OPPOSITE is a good thing.  It's not.

    Take, for example, one of the most divisive issues out there:  abortion.  The GOP framed itself "pro-life" (pro-death penalty and pro-war be damned) in order to force the Dems to take the opposite stance, and I personally believe the result has been crippling.  Now we breed a group of far-left activitists who go as far as wear t-shirts bragging about their abortions (q.v. Salon.com) and insisting on "pro-choice".  Problem?  That's exactly where the GOP wants them.

    I won't say my arguments are right, but they are MODERATE, and they're all but missing from the debate.  I think abortion is something to take seriously, hardly something to flaunt, but I oppose ending abortion on PRAGMATIC grounds.  Bear in mind Roe vs. Wade hinged on the fact NOT that abortion is a right, but that enforcement of any regulation on a woman's body is an invasion of privacy.  A democratic government simply should not have the power to ask the questions necessary to enforce an anti-abortion law.  So if we're going to save babies, let's start with overhauling the hideously messed-up foster care system and drop anti-abortion laws to the bottom of a VERY long "To Do" list.

    But you won't hear that in any abortion debate, because the far right picked its stance, and the far left was stupid enough to jump to the other side.

    I could run this argument on practically every GOP talking point out there.  Simply finding new words for the "opposite field" the GOP mapped out for us is not the solution.  The author isn't talking about rhetoric, but FRAMES.

    by Dragonchild on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:46:06 AM PDT

    •  Pragmatic unwanted children

      >but I oppose ending abortion on PRAGMATIC grounds.<

      Too bad you're not a knocked up 13 year old.
      You might not be so PRAGMATIC.

      Nobody -likes- abortion.  The main advantage is that
      it saved lives of young girls running off to Mexico to
      be butchered.

      I know a mother with two beautiful kids who wouldn't
      be here if she'd had 2 before she was ready.

      The kids would've been very abused by an immature,
      resentful single parent.

      I love people all aquiver to tell others how to run their lives -
      when they'll never have to face a situation themselves.

      I bet you're for our president's Iraq war.
      1,000 dead soldiers is fine for the cause, right?

      by checkers on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:42:20 AM PDT

      •  How can you weight one life against another?

        If all lives have equal value, the 13 year old is no more valueable than the life of a fetus.

        I'm against abortion unless the life of the 13 year old is at risk. If a 13 year old is simply pregnant then let her give the baby up for adoption to someone who can't have kids.

        Abortion is not efficient and its against my morals. I guess I'm not a true liberal. Freedom is important but until we can prove without a doubt that a fetus is not alive its unfair to kill it.

        by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:52:44 PM PDT

    •  Sorry about that!

      Sorry about flaming you.
      I missed the word "ending"
      That's what I get reading half-assed before running
      off to work.

      by checkers on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:45:13 AM PDT

    •  abortion

      It's interesting you bring up abortion, because I've always disagreed with the way the left has framed that argument, maybe because of my own experience. My parents had a shotgun wedding pre-Roe, and spit out a total of 3 kids in 5 years because their Catholic upbringing left them clueless about birth control. Needless to say my childhood was a mess, and it's even more tragic because my parents are both pretty good people; they just were forced to be parents too young, and with the wrong partner. I'm sad for the happy families they could have had in different circumstances.

      I wouldn't wish my childhood on anyone, and that's what fuels my pro-choice stance. I'd call myself a feminist, but that really doesn't figure into the abortion issue for me at all. It's about compassion and kids, and valuing life enough to want each one to be as positive as possible. I think that jibes very well with the framework above, and I think we should try harder to emphasize that pro-choice is pro-child and pro-family. It's too easy for the right to rally the stone-agers when we frame it as a strictly feminist issue.

      by mewsic on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:36:07 AM PDT

      •  Interesting

        I'd call myself a feminist, but that really doesn't figure into the abortion issue for me at all.

        For a long time I felt the same way, but in talking to friends and colleagues (and seeing photos like this one) I've come to believe that the abortion issue really is a gender issue in the classic sense.  Or, to paraphrase many a feminist:  If men could get pregnant, abortion AND maternity leave would be covered under a decades-old socialized, nation health plan.

        As for the rest, agreed wholeheartedly.  Marriage and reproductive freedom are areas where the framing concept should be highly applicable and can help win the argument.  I've had separate discussions recently with relatives who were anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion where I've tried to employ this strategy, as well as coming at the argument from a conservative point of view (for instance:  "haven't we [in church, etc.] always encouraged couples who are having sex to get married?")  I've had a surprising amount of success;  not exactly 'converting' folks, but getting them to broaden their point of view.  

        On abortion, another relative was upset that advocates for reproductive freedom have co-opted the word "choice."  I pointed out that if you feel that way, certainly you have to agree that "pro-life" isn't a fair framing of the anti-abortion argument.  

        I've felt extremely aware of Lakoff's framing concept for a long time, particularly in the last two presidential elections.  In some ways it strikes me as a "duh!" kind of argument - or just a re-packaging of what we all should have learned from Orwell - but I'm excited to see someone tackling it in a systematic way; establishing a theory of how it works, so to speak, and explaining how it can be applied ethically to help market progressive causes.

        by ryan b on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:50:04 AM PDT

        •  that photo is frightening

          I remember seeing that photo the first time. Also considering myself a femanist, I didn't really see abortion as a feminist issue either. But that picture says it all. A bunch of men in power making a sweeping decision about all women, circumstances be damned. They will never  have to suffer any life altering consequences for their decision. Yet they are celebrating that they are able to impose these consequences on others.

          Feminism is about women having the power of self-determination. No man is ever going to be raped and then saddled with a lifetime responsibility as a reminder of that horrid event. No man will ever lose his life in childbirth. No man should have the right to force these unasked for situations on 50% of the population.

          Personally, I can't imagine having an abortion. But I've never experienced the above situations or any other situation that would put me in a position of having to make such a decision. How painful a decision it must be. How dare they think it is their decision to make.

          by gina on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:14:30 AM PDT

        •  I agree

          Don't get me wrong -- I was explaining what fuels the issue for me personally. I believe wholeheartedly that the impulse to restrict access to abortion is rooted, for many people, in some kind of atavistic desire to control women's sexuality.

          But here's what those people have done. They've hidden themselves behind people like my next-door neighbor, a really kind, sweet Catholic lady who in her heart of hearts sees abortion as depriving life to a child. The frothing misogynists have appropriated that framework (though espousing violence against doctors doesn't do much for their credibility).

          I think pro-choicers have the advantage of being fairly unanimous about several frameworks: most of us are committed to feminism, and most of us are committed to children's welfare. That being the case, we can choose which one to emphasize. The feminist framework might rally the troops, but I don't think it'll win that many converts. But the children's-best-interests framework appeals to a nearly universal moral imperative -- while also forcing the right to really look at some of the situations they're so gung-ho to bring kids into, and explain how that jibes with wanting to cut welfare.

          by mewsic on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:30:49 PM PDT

          •  You can't convert

            
            Abortion is the type of issue that you cannot convert  someone to. If someone believes its wrong to kill and believes a fetus is alive theres not much you can say to get them to support your agenda.

            And Abortion in my opinion is a medical not political issue and should be decided by the doctors and medical community in my opinion not politicians.

            Where you won't win with abortion is the moral debate, you cannot convince someone its morally right to kill unless they already believe this and its the same as trying to convince people of the death penalty.

            by Lucian on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:44:14 AM PDT

            •  Actually, it's not always that hard.

              You'd be surprised how many people take a position because of their peer group rather than deep philosophical thought.  

              My ex-wife has a police record from being arrested while engaging in protest for Operation Rescue.  She had to serve community service.  She was very involved in the San Pedro evangelical community at the time.  Even made TV appearances.

              After we became married, she changed her views.  I'd like to say that it's because I'm such a persuasive speaker, but, actually, I tried to respect her views while just expressing my disagreement.  

              I think what made the difference was the loss of her peer group.  Religious groups have very strong peer-reinforcement of beliefs among their members.   When that becomes extended to political views, it can be a mighty force.

              Her church, by the way, was headed by the brother of Bush 41's INS department head, Harold Ezell.

              by Dumbo on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 04:58:16 PM PDT

      •  It's still wrong

        
        Just because you wish you werent born does not mean the rest of us agree with you. I was raised under difficult circumstances and I value my life along with all life in general.

        This has nothing to do with how a persons raised it has to do with how much you value life. Abortion is wrong because it decreases the value of life, its wrong for the same reason the death penalty is wrong.

        by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:57:38 PM PDT

    •  Pro-privacy

      You're right.  We should reframe the abortion debate.  We are pro-privacy.  We think this should be a private decision between a woman and a doctor.  Not an easy decision, not something to take lightly, but each person has the right to privacy.

      By extension, the GOP is anti-privacy.

      The same could be said of the Patriot Act.

      by Katydid on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:15:26 AM PDT

      •  Not a bad idea

        The Japanese have a similar ethos, insofar as no one questions either a woman's right to an abortion or the fact that abortion involves matters of life or death.  But could Americans deal with the subtlety of mourning unborn children (as the Japanese do, with special shrines no less) while at the same time remaining committed to women's sovereignty over their own bodies?  I doubt it.

        by oodja on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:44:26 AM PDT

        •  Because we need proof

          That a fetus cannot survive outside of THAT womans specific body.

          If you can prove this then we can claim its a part of the womans body. However even if it is a part of the womans body and proven with science it still is wrong in most situations to kill a lifeform.

          It should not be something the woman decides on her own, she should get permission from an authority or doctor.

          I'm against abortion unless its authorized by someone qualified to make decisions like this and not all women have the sense to make decisions like these just like not all people have enough sense not to use gun and shoot people.

          by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:00:35 PM PDT

      •  This is something I can agree with but

        
        The key is to have this not just be words but the actual policy. The policy of the government should be a policy of letting the medical community decide.

        by Lucian on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:46:00 AM PDT

    •  You're right, Dragon

      ...and just watch for the knee-jerk responses.  Those who oppose your kind of thinking are those who have fallen, deep, into the trap the GOP has set and  have themselves set back the progressive cause by miles and votes and support.   One of the marks of the progressive left is independent thinking and that means ungluing yourself from the popular kids in the class and making up your own mind. A plea to those who jump all over DragonChild and others who understand framing and the damage we do when we cooperate with it:  think for yourself.

      by Frijol on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:48:28 AM PDT

    •  Re. I think that is off-target

      I agree with you, but one problem is the the Catholic Church and other religious institutions have decided that life begins at conception. Therefore any action to end that life is murder.

      Opposing murder is an ultimate moral imperative. So in this case, from the standpoint of framing the debate, the pro-choice side is already screwed with a good portion of the public.

      by mysteve on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:13:01 AM PDT

      •  When does life actually begin?

        I think this is very important. If it actually does begin at conception what right do we have to put a value on the life of the fetus? I'm against all killing unless in self defense. I don't care how uncomfortable or painful it is to have labor, if a woman can physically have labor and give birth she should. What happens to the baby after giving birth is up to the mother but I believe life is priceless and valueable. The next president could be killed, Jesus himself could be killed because of abortion. So anyone with any religious beliefs or spirtual beliefs should consider the possible consequences of every action or policy. Abortion is a slippery slope just like the death penalty.

        by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:04:56 PM PDT

        •  Yeah. Well.

          You'd sure as hell care about pain if it were you giving birth to a 11 lb breech baby, via natural childbirth.

          The point is NOBODY has the right to say that a woman has to give birth if it's not her will. Period.  

          I don't care what your beliefs are; if you don't believe in killing, don't kill. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. But don't take away everyone else's right to their own particular beliefs.

          Lucian is a man's name, right?

          by stellans on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:59:01 PM PDT

          •  Why are you so defensive?

            
            You act like I'm President Bush. I'm against abortion, live with it.

            If I were a woman I'd still be against abortion. I'm willing to go through months of pain to save a life.
            

            by Lucian on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 03:23:18 AM PDT

            •  So what?

              So what if you were a woman, you'd "go through months of pain to save a life"?

              That would be YOUR CHOICE, which is the whole point of the Pro-Choice movement. The big difference is that you're against abortion, so you'd force your opinion into law for everyone else. And the issue is very much one of choice. My body, my choice. It can't be any simpler than that.

              But I honestly do not expect you to understand, for the simple reason of biology.

              by stellans on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 08:50:39 AM PDT

    •  weird

      I've always considered abortion an issue that progressives have generally done a good job of framing.

      The "pro-life" framing attempts to create a debate on the value of life, and that is a debate in which abortion rights supporters and the Democratic Party have (rightly) refused to participate. The "pro-choice" terminology reframes the debate in terms of self-ownership and privacy rights. The effectiveness of this is evident in anti-abortion slogans that attempt to dispute the framing directly ("it's a life, not a choice").

      Of course, the progressive frame has failed to dominate the issue, but so has the conservative one. The debate has become one between competing frames, which is very different from allowing Republicans to frame the debate and then taking an opposite stance within that framework.

      by tps12 on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:53:45 PM PDT

  •  Neuro Linguistic Programming?

    
    There are many books on this, and thats what it sounds like.

    by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:49:58 PM PDT

•  Lakoff = A Smarter Dem Version of Luntz

  A few weeks ago he was interviewed on NOW with Bill Moyers.  He lifts the veil on how easy it is to win the debate, using the power and impact of the proper words and phrases, and how the Dems can outFoxx the thugs.

  If the Dems have hired him, then they've made progress.

  Read Transcript Here

  See the 19 min Segment using Real Player

  For Dial up users, click here and under photo on left side.

  by Al Rodgers on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 11:54:32 PM PDT

  •  One problem - Repubs are good at calling

    out the tactics in the press, and getting it covered. (Forget that they use the same tactics, and our attempts to call them on it do not get covered, cf. SBVFT vs CBS Memos)

    I'm sure the Repubs already have a response crafted, something like: The Dems think they can help the country if they just pick the right label for a policy.  Well policies are more than labels....yada yada.

    We've gotta think 2 steps ahead, not just respond in kind, or we're always playing catch-up, and the repubs keep their advantage.

    by bribri on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:12:38 AM PDT

    •  edwards debate

      good morning everybody.  there's snow on the foothills up here.
      i know that kerry and edwards will be getting advice form everybody and his aunt, but i hope that edwards is playing over and over the tape of the the lieberman/cheney debate last cycle and noting cheney's talent for framing the topics like alice's crocodile who 'welcomes little fishes in with gently smiling jaws'. the spectacle of those two cynical old whores cosily licking each other's backsides was sickening and in fact lost the election for that decent man gore (don't ever forget!!!)in 2000.
      cheney will try to lure edwards into a discussion of foreign policy.  edwards, don't go there.  it is no part of the vice-president's job to set policy for the nation and should never have been part of cheney's.
      but edwards is a good debater.  cheney is old and fat and lazy and was never all that swift to start with. as long as edwards takes possession of the ball, cheney will flounder about waving his 'talking points' and fall back on his perennial sneer and craven predictions.
      are we downhearted? NO!

      by carlyle2 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:03:29 AM PDT

•  sounds...

  interesting and insightful

  by BlackMagicWoman on Sun Sep 19, 2004 at 11:56:47 PM PDT

•  Nurturing

  I've been thinking about this for a while, and while I love the nurturing comparison, it still doesn't quite fit for me.  And that's because for many people, both the nurturing parent and the strict parent appeal to them.  And when that happens, nurturing is equated with Mommy, and strict with Daddy, and in those families, Daddy wins.  There's something about nurturing that is not as self-sufficient as strict, and frankly, something kind of sissy about it when viewed by the other side.

  When I'm most settled in my Democratness, I feel stronger than simply "nurturing".  To me, I don't think fairness is just an element of our frame.  I think it's the frame.  And not the compromise kind of fair.  I'm talking Solomon level of fair.

  Honestly, I think Solomon might be our ticket out of this mess.  Solomon the wise.  He was fair, he was strong, and no one thinks of him as a nuanced equivocator even with that thing with the baby.

  We need something more masculine or gender neutral than Nurturing.  I don't want to be known as the Mommy party.  We're the party of Solomon.
  

  by tunesmith on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:00:09 AM PDT

  •  Not either or

    Lakoff makes the point that very few people fall exactly on the strong father or nurturing mother side of the model - we're all some mix of both.

    We've always claimed to be the party that cares about people; perhaps we need to add a "father" image to that, like "cares and protects".

    by badger on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:10:43 AM PDT

    •  I see this in some research that I do

      I do social research, and the more successful people do have a mix of attitudes.  They believe in personal responsibility AND equal access to opportunities. Of course, the people I interview are not exactly CEOs.  They are usually adults who are successfully emerging from welfare, or getting an education for the first time; that sort of thing.

      by Tomato Observer on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:17:39 AM PDT

  •  Continuing the Riff

    Also, comparing Bush's thinking to "strict" is giving him way too much credit, and still yielding to their frame too much.  We can fight against their frame without giving them more credit than they deserve:

    It's the difference between wisdom, and dogma.  The difference between leadership, and bullying.  The difference between leading inclusively, and going it alone.  It's the difference between the wisdom of a king, and the actions of a tyrant.

    At this point it really isn't about nurturing, it's about reclaiming.  The revolution is already mostly over; they've almost won.  These opportunities that we're trying to advocate aren't things that we're trying to create, they are things that already exist that are rightfully ours.  They are being taken away little by little, and what it keeps on coming back to is that it is unfair.  The other side keeps trying to screw us, over and over again, and it's up to us to show the other people that it is happening, because I can only protect myself by convincing others to protect themselves as well.  I'm not putting my neighbors needs ahead of my own.  I'm not trying to nurture anyone above myself.  It's about basic fairness, protecting what's mine, about finding leaders wise enough to see this, and about the Golden Rule.

    As far as foreign policy, Bush's side doesn't really have to do with the strict father model, either.  What really happened is that they simply went berserk, left the house to beat up someone with the same last name as an attacker, while leaving all the doors to the house unlocked.  They sacrificed protection for a raw display of power.  They weren't strict.  They were so weak that they lost their cool and put us at risk.
    

    by tunesmith on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:20:59 AM PDT

  •  My sentiments also.

    As a pro-gun, working class Dem, I had the same reservations.
    Lakoff caused me to examine my Democratness, and for me it does come to down to fairness. I'm a Democrat because we are the party of Labor, mostly. My other core values, being against torture, harsh justice, espoilation of the landscape, and empire abroad, I think most Republicans share.
    It's the class issue that really defines what being a Democrat is for me. It is the rapacious nature of the rich that makes me most angry.  
    Fairness. When I was a kid under Ike, the tax rate on a million dollars was 90%. I like that idea.
    But another point he makes is about alliance and common ground, and I'm willing to ally with the Mommy wing of the Party, if they'll help me stick it to the robber barons.
    The other thing he talks about that got me interested was 'strategic iniatives.' I already talked about that in another diary, but it was probably the most valuable thing I learned reading his book.

    by AWhitneyBrown on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:42:41 AM PDT

    •  Then how do you explain wealthy dems?

      The class struggle view of the current dem/repug split is a limited view that frequently falls apart; it is like one blind man's description of an elephant.

      I live in a wealthy neighborhood (houses start at a half mil) in a college town where many houses have had "no war" and "peace" signs on their lawns for over a year, and the Kerry/Edwards signs have sprouted like dandelions in spring.

      I am also a free-trade dem. And I am enthusiastic about being in the party of Labor.

      by ilan on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:30:11 AM PDT

      •  Perhaps...

        you have hit on the problem with today's Democratic party: It's so close to the Republican party that wealthy people living in college towns can agree with it.

        If one takes a somewhat assertive progressive viewpoint, there shouldn't even BE any half a million dollar houses when so many people live in ratty apartments. Why isn't the property tax and inheritance tax so high that such houses become rare?

        And how can a wealthy person truly support organized labor, when the purpose of organized labor is to equalize incomes between class levels? "From each according to his ability," etc., i.e. "take the money away from the wealthy people and use it to help the less able."

        http://dhm.best.vwh.net/each.html

        On the other hand I do agree with you on the free-trade part of it because (unlike the current Democratic party) I haven't yet forgotten that it is the workers OF THE WORLD that are to unite against exploitation, not the "workers of America united against the workers of India or China."

        Today's Democratic party is a clone of the Republicans...

        by asdf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:31:16 AM PDT

  •  No, we're the party of adults

    If you wanted to be treated like an adult, where you're given the facts and allowed to decide via ballot box and discussion and debate what's right for you, you want to join the Democrats. If you want to be treated like a child who can't possibly understand the wide scary world full of terrorists outside, so you need to be lied to to make sure you make the 'right decision' that's already been decided without your input or honest open discussion, you want the current crop of Republicans in the white house. Gay sex make you feel icky? Why then it must be bad! Let's ban it! Do as I say or else the boogey man bin Ladin/Saddam will get you? Alright then, better do that! Dad says he's six feet tall and has WMD and eats little boys who don't vote Republican!

    by misty on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 03:20:24 AM PDT

    •  Terrific analogy

      I've heard that one before, but not put so well. If it makes you feel icky, it must be bad -- no matter if it makes other people feel great and has no effect whatsoever on anyone else. That pretty much sums up the repug/fascist mindset.

      by Man is 5 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:16:06 AM PDT

    •  Franken's Theory

      Al Franken had a theory very similar to this, saying that conservatives "love America" more akin to how children love their mother, in a rational but subordinate role.
      On the other hand, liberals and their "love" are more like a married couple, who argue, listen, converse.

      by Antioch on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:54:40 AM PDT

  •  Strict Father vs Nurturing Parent (not mother)

    Read Lakoff. He does not frame this as male vs. female. That would be a mistake.

    The essence of progressive values are inclusive, vs. conservative values, which are exclusionary and confrontational.

    Lakoff deliberately contrasts the imbalanced, one-sided paternal frame of the Republicans with the balanced, yin-yang, inclusive model of the Democrats.

    It is not either-or, it is and.

    by galiel on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:16:45 AM PDT

  •  Nuturing parent or strict father...

    My mother was the strict parent and my father wasn't particularly nurturing.  I would describe his approach as mostly laissez-faire but setting a good example.

    Lakoff's own use of the terms he uses to promote frames is revealing and seems gender biased.  

    He uses the term strict father (male) and nuturing parent (gender-neutral).  Where are the women.  Maybe they are in his discussions but not in his frames.

    Ummm...wonder what he's got against women?

    by Molly McRae on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:36:25 AM PDT

    •  Um, talk about missing the point

      Have you actually read Lakoff?

      The "strict father" frame is not a statement about actual parenting or actual gender roles in education. It is a statement about the conservative mindset, which is gender-biased, and about how the Republicans use that frame effectively while Democrats do not use the inclusive, gender-neutral nurturing parent frame to their advantage.

      Talk about knee-jerk dogmatism. Read what the person says rather than prejudge the entire world according to your narrow antagonistic lens.

      by galiel on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 07:17:36 AM PDT

      •  Actually yes...

        I have read some of Lakoff...well at least I tried to read it.  Someone pointed me to the Rockbridge website.  

        I thought it was sophomoric then and I still do.  A lot of discussion here seems to think Lakoff invented this stuff.  If so, where did Luntz learn?  Luntz is much better at "framing" than Lakoff.

        And I do think it is revealing that Lakoff's primary context for framing excludes women.  I would bet Barbara Bush had a much greater impact on W than GHW did.

        If you want to know about the mind set that Bush appeals to most (beyond the Primitive Baptists, etc.), attend a Promise Keepers event or at least check them out.

        Finally, sometimes you may have to resort to tactics you abhor to defeat an enemy, but are we there yet?  I hate pr/marketing/spinning.  I don't like it done to me.  I don't want to do it to others.

        by Molly McRae on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 11:35:21 AM PDT

        •  I don't see any of that in Lakoff's actual message

          1. No one is claiming that Lakoff invented framing, least of all Lakoff. On the contrary, his whole point is that the conservatives have mastered it and have used it consciously for years.

          2. Lakoff's primary context for framing does not exclude women. His point is that the conservative framing excludes women. His proposal of alternative liberal framing includes women. That is an utter invention of yours.

          3. What does attending Promse Keepers have to do with any of this, except to refute your own point and show that, as Lakoff explains, the conservative frame is the one that excludes or at least diminishes and demeans women.

          4. Who is advocating "resorting to tactics you abhor to defeat an enemy"? Least of all me, who is constantly fighting here for the definition of progressivism as just means being worthy ends, vs. the ends justifying the means. Becoming aware of framing is not "pr/marketing/spinning", any more than becoming informed about how advertising manipulates our emotions and thinking is engaging in "pr/marketing/spinning". Is anything in the liberal frame that Lakoff lays out dishonest or manipulative?

          You misunderstand the entire meaning of "frame" as Lakoff uses it. Language influences thought. If you use language unconsciously, you are still influencing thought. If your opponent uses it consciously, and what is more, dishonestly, then a) if you are made aware of it, you are forwarned, and b) if you learn how to use your own language more consciously and deliberately, you can be more effective in communicating your own language - not by lying or manipulating, but by being more effective.

          To be frank, your approach seems extremely prejudicial. You seem to evaluate everything through a very narrow and rather hostile lens, regardless of the actual content. Neither Lakoff nor I -- nor Howard Dean, who made Lakoff's book required reading for his entire staff - are anti- or dismissive of or exclusionary towards women. By having that prejudicial mindset when approaching his work, you completely and utterly miss the point of the whole "framing" discussion.

          by galiel on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:03:18 PM PDT

  •  Nurturing is NOT coddling

    Like the strict father, a nurturing parent also makes sure their child is well prepared to take care of themselves. Nurturing isn't coddling, which leaves an individual inept and dependant. Nurturing is helping one grow and fulfill their potential. It is providing an environment which will support, teach, and even challenge, so that the individual has the tools and temperment to succeed.

    I think the main difference is that the nurturer teaches their child that we are all responsible for creating a better society, while the strict father teaches the child that all they have to do is look out for himself/herself.

    by mrboma on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:56:49 AM PDT

  •  Lakoff Isn't Saying "Mommy Party"

    Another poster hit the nail on the head by identfying Atticus Finch as the model nurturant father.  Let me tell you, there was nothing sissified about him.  

    I think that you are confusing Lakoff's deep analysis--which is a conceptual one--with questions of presentation, which you are unconsciously mis-reading back into Lakoff. The point is, nurturance is a foundation. It's a foundation that can support enormous strenth--much more strength than the Strict Father model can. So, when it's time to talk about strength, we should talk about strength. But unless we are clear about where it comes from--about the foundations in nurturance--we are very liable to get confused, and sucked into Strict Father representations of strength.  

    This is precisely what's been happening with Kerry ever since the Swift Boat ads came out.  You know, when he saved one man's life, that was an act of nurturant strength. And, when he came back and worked to stop the war, he saved a lot more lives--which was also an act of nurturant strength.  If Kerry had internalized Lakoff's thinking, he would not have such a hard time explaining this.  And he wouldn't have to say a word about "nurturance" to do so.

    by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:58:23 AM PDT

    •  Good

      Yes, I do think it's a difference behind metaphor and presentation - Lakoff probably didn't intend "Nurturing" versus "Strict" as an actual frame.  At least, I hope not, because I really do think that when their connotations are compared head-to-head, Strict just wins.  Most people would say that both sides have their strengths, but most people would feel uncomfortable saying that when there's an emergency and things are at their most dire, that they'd prefer Nurturing.  Strict has a "when-it-gets-right-down-to-it"-ness that Nurturing doesn't in matters of emergency (and foreign policy).  Nurturing has a way of pulling people (and nation states) up onto an equal level that folks may feel these entities don't deserve.  Plus, Nurturing has an unfortunate connotation of being burdened and inviting dependent relationships.
      

      by tunesmith on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:48:19 AM PDT

      •  "Strict v. Nurturing"

        Lakoff uses the terms "Strict Father" and "Nurturant Parent" based on what he discovered as researcher. It was not his attempt to frame things as a political advocate. In Moral Politics he sharply divides his work into two parts--the purely descriptive/analytic part which deals with how the two models work, and the evaluative part which investigates and argues for why the liberal model is superior, based in its grounding in a parenting model that works.

        Now, this may well be a weakness in one sense. Lakoff's intention to be as fair and accurate as possible in the analytic phase doesn't produce the juiciest debating language.  But it's a strength in another sense--it's accurate. Which means that when you look at all the things that flow from the frame, they all make sense.

        When you say, "I really do think that when their connotations are compared head-to-head, Strict just wins," I think you are simply reflecting the fact that conservatives have spent the last 30 years framing the issues, while liberals haven't.

        And you yourself are buying into their frame when you say, "most people would feel uncomfortable saying that when there's an emergency and things are at their most dire, that they'd prefer Nurturing."

        Why is this buying into their frame?  Simple. Nurturing is about preventing things from becoming so dire in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and all that. It's the Strict Parent frame that it's a dangerous world out there, a world that's defined by emergencies and things being at their most dire--and that's the frame that you've invoked.

        Well, I've got news for you. There are much bigger dangers out there than the conservatives imagine--global warming and AIDs, just to mention two.  And do you see the Strict Father types doing jack shit about either? No, you do not.

        There are good reasons why conservatives ignore the biggest threats we face. (They ignored Hitler, too. They even ignored Communism--conservatives in the Senate were opposed to the Marshall Plan and NATO. The only Communists they wanted to fight were the ones in the State Department.)  Put simply, they don't believe in learning through dialogue. Strict Father knows best, so he has nothing to learn from others. So if you come to them with an argument about how there's this new problem, or even threat that they should worry about, they just think you're trying to put something over on them. This is precisely how Bush & Co. reacted to the Clinton Administration warnings about Al Qaeda.

        It's actually a nurturing approach that makes one more sensitive to challenges before they become problems, much less emergencies or crises.

        Now, admittedly, this doesn't come across instantly when say the words "Strict Father" vs. "Nurturant Parent." But why should it?  It took years--decades even--of Conservatives working to implant their connections in people's brains.  It will take time for us to do the same.  

        Remember, Lakoff is arguing both about what is really going on--"Strict Father" vs. "Nurturant Parent"--and about how to communicate. He is not saying that we should lead with speeches titled "Let Us Nurture You!" How you present the nurturant parent position is something to be worked in a myriad of different ways.  

        But if you try to change the basic framework to make it sound "tougher" or whatever, you will be distorting the fundamental insight, and doing so to match an environment that's been defined by the other side.  This would be a double mistake.

        by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:44:12 PM PDT

    •  Strict Father vs. Kids of Police

      A moment's thought will make it clear that Strict Father is no way to run a railroad.  The kids of Strict Fathers--kids of police, ministers, politicians, any figure of authority---tend to be way more screwed up and liable to completely screw up their lives and those of others than the kids of normal people.

      by Aaaargh on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:26:45 PM PDT

  •  Missing the point

    I must not have been clear - I am not saying that Lakoff is calling us the Mommy party.  I'm saying it's too easy to frame "nurturing" as feminine/mommy, which is too easy for the other side to use as a negative.  A good frame also has to be good at inoculating itself against attacks.  So I think the "nurturing" frame needs to be improved.  I don't want to have our side opened up to the attack of the other side of calling us the Mommy party, because in their mind, every Mommy needs a Daddy.

    In other words, it is relatively easy to argue that a nurturing approach is not appropriate in certain cases.  It is much harder to argue that an unwise or unfair approach is not appropriate in certain cases.  "Wise" and "Fair" might not capture every positive quality that "Nurturing" does, but there's got to be another frame/metaphor/word that is similar to "Nurturing" but also isn't as open to attack.
    

    by tunesmith on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:40:41 AM PDT

    •  This analogy is right

      
      This analogy is right.

      Could a child survive without any help from parents? Republicans seem to think so. They tell the child its their responsibility to survive and when the child goes crazy, breaks laws, robs people, or turns terrorist, they once again blame the child for not surviving in the proper way.

      Blaming people solves nothing if you arent willing to correct their mistakes.

      by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:12:13 PM PDT

    •  This analogy is right

      This analogy is right.

      Could a child survive without any help from parents? Republicans seem to think so. They tell the child its their responsibility to survive and when the child goes crazy, breaks laws, robs people, or turns terrorist, they once again blame the child for not surviving in the proper way.

      Blaming people solves nothing if you arent willing to correct their mistakes.

      by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:14:56 PM PDT

•  Unless you are Grover Norquist

  and you want father to protect the family from the dangerous world but ignore the family otherwise. Father doesn't have to support or teach the family anything. The children will do their own thing and father better stay out of their way.

  So what is Bush's "compassionate conservatism"? Father pretending to be a nurturer but failing miserably because his heart isn't it? Shoveling money into the family business, thinking that will improve the bottom line, but it only sinks the family further into debt to their neighbors?

  Sounds like a good book. Already has me thinking.

  by existenz on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:00:45 AM PDT

  •  turn it around: deadbeat dads

    How do we turn the frame into painting the repub-type view as a deadbeat dad?

    Also, "This American Life" (WBEZ radio show) had a show about protective dads - it turned out they were hopeless when left alone in the house for a while to fend for themselves.
    

    by bribri on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:06:57 AM PDT

    •  Actually this would be genius

      
      That plan would be genius to win the female vote.

      It would be wise the democratic party actually listened to the advice on these blogs. I'm sure republicans read these blogs and discuss what you say.

      by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:16:32 PM PDT

•  I, too was just exposed to this book.

  A couple of days ago, and had the same reaction. I posted a diary about it http://awhitneybrown.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/20/05711/3407
  along with some ideas it gave me.

  by AWhitneyBrown on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:00:46 AM PDT

•  The Chalice and The Blade: Our History, Our Future

  Riane Eisler's book, The Chalice and The Blade, also approached this framing from a more spiritual, feminist model:

  "We have often been told that a just and peaceful society is merely a utopia-an impossible dream. We are taught religious dogmas of "original sin" and their secular updates in socio-biological theories about "selfish genes." Not coincidentally, in both cases, these notions are embedded in stories about how male dominance is either divinely or scientifically ordained.

  The real alternative to a patriarchal or male-dominant society is a very different way of organizing social relations. This is the partnership model, where, beginning with the most fundamental difference in our species between male and female, diversity is not equated with inferiority or superiority, dominating or being dominated....societies that orient primarily to one or the other of these models have characteristic configurations or patterns.

  by Molly Pitcher on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:03:32 AM PDT

  •  Chalice and Blade

    Seeing Chalice and Blade (also metaphors for male and female reproductive organs) reminded me of something fascinating I read about entymology - "vagina"'s source comes from something that means the same thing as "sheath" - isn't that ugly?  A sheath is something that only has the purpose of housing a blade.  And "cunt" actually has a quite honorable entymology although I forget what it is, something about the name of a goddess.  The pagan goddess Cundrie, I believe?  I think it's another example of a positive-connotation pagan belief being turned into something negative by people doing things "in the name of Christianity".  Anyway, I've always thought it was interesting that those two words have kind of switched places over the centuries...

    by tunesmith on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:33:40 AM PDT

    •  Not really Christian

      It's Roman soldier slang. The vagina was the sheath of the gladius, the short Roman sword.  

      by CT Yankee on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:48:06 AM PDT

•  Lakoff's earlier book

  Moral Politics covers the same ground, but it sounds like this book is probably an easier read and more prescriptive, which is probably what the earlier book lacked.

  The other person we should probably be listening to is Danny Goldberg on talking to younger voters. I haven't read his book (Dispatches from the Culture Wars: How the Left Lost Teen Spirit, but there are links to articles by or about him here, here, here, and here

  by badger on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:05:38 AM PDT

  •  Yeah

    I didn't get beyond the jacket of Moral Politics (which I still want to read), but this book is short -- about 120 pages -- and written in a way that I could pick it up and digest in a few hours. Clearly more practical than theoretical.

    by kos on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:14:31 AM PDT

  •  Moral politics

    also resolves some of the misunderstandings that have been posted above. (I suspect the new book does too) Some kossians have objected to nurturance on the bases of apparent weakness or femininity. But Lakoff's nurturant family realizes that the "strong father's" belief in his self reliance is a cover for fear of his sons (gets a little Freudian huh?) who have to be thrown out of the home to stand on their own. It makes for an ineffective tribe. The biggest difference, to my mind, is that conservatives believe that teaching requires punishment, liberals that it requires example. A nurturant father and mother have to be stronger and wiser but they always get better results.

    by johnmorris on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:08:35 AM PDT

    •  Modelling

      Interestingly, Lakoff never really stresses this, but one reason that nurturant parenting works, while authoritarian parenting doesn't, is that nurturant parents model how to act in a way that children can imitate, and refine through feedback from their parents.

      In contrast, children cannot act like the Strict Father (that would be "backtalk"), at least not within the family, where they can get feedback, and learn from mistakes while they are relatively minor.  They can, of course, act out outside the family, passing judgment on others, telling them how to behave, etc. But this is much more crude than the sort of intimate, communicative modelling available via nurturant parenting.

      by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 11:05:33 AM PDT

•  I'm reading the politics of morality

  It sounds like the same type of themes, I have been swamped with school but have read some on the frames of reference that republicans and democrates see the world and why we talk past each other and why we have been getting killed in the framing of issues and the sparing of politics.... We don't have message dicipline and let ourselves get framed. I bought the book because many here recommended it. I just read a piece in the atlantic monthly on the debates and he is quoted in it.

  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200407/fallows

  by Davinci on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:08:33 AM PDT

•  2 things:

  1. Some of what Lakoff is saying is not new nor is it news to many.  One is the point about how bills are named or positions named.  Assault Weapons Ban is a pro-Democratic name; Death Tax is a pro-Republican name.  While not new, Lakoff is still a valuable resource; he also perceives an understanding of all these issues that I haven't seen yet.  Good news if the Dems have actually hired them.  

  2. Another important book to read is Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction, and Democracy by Kathleen Hall Jamieson.  It's an old book (pub. 1992), but many of its lessons are completely relevant to today.  The book discusses a lot about what's wrong with the press and how to work the press.  There's a historical bent to it.  In it, I also learned that the Reagan campaign leaked false information to Bob Novak that Carter had dispatched his legal counsel to Geneva to arrange a "deal to exchange American hostage for military equipment vital to the Iranain war effort agianst Iraq."  So the Republicans using Bob Novak to leak "information" for political purposes is not new. When does this man get thrown in jail, and when will he stop being called a journalist?  Someone take his column away from him!

  by Newsie8200 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:10:53 AM PDT

  •  oy an edited sentence gone bad

    Or what happens when I splice two sentences together.

    That should say "when will people stop calling Novak a journalist?"

    by Newsie8200 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:12:40 AM PDT

•  Conservative and "Community"

  Any discussion of political communities really has to consider FreeRepublic as a blog, as the only reason it isn't is that it pre-dates the blog concept.  FR is about as sticky as Kos, but with a few important differences, chiefly the "herd-mind" mentality.  Jim Robinson still does a good job keeping the thought united, and I'm sure a good portion of us here have been banned at least once from FR for posting something not "intellectually pure", not even something gasp moderate, or even HORROR liberal.  So it's not quite a community, rather, what they WANT a community to be; where everybody nods in assent so the Secret Police doesn't round them up and ban/eliminate them.

  by Power on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:11:07 AM PDT

  •  Good point...

    Great connect with the discussion and the  blogs. This posting is extremely insightful.

    I've been taught frames from a theoretical business management perspective (e.g., structural, symbolic, human resources and political), but have never seen it in a psychoanalytical partisan context.  The author definitely conveys insightful perpectives but, as in business, theory is one thing -implimenting it and making it work effectively is a much more difficult task.  

    by GregNYC on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:27:10 AM PDT

  •  dunno

    I know quite a few people who have been banned from this site for not being "intellectually pure", mostly for holding "conservative" ideas (although I personally know one of them is a far-leftist, of the Marxist sort, so I have no idea how he ended up being considered a conservative).  So it sort of goes both ways.

    FreeRepublic is quite a bit worse, of course, but it's not like DK is the Jeffersonian free speech zone to contrast with PR's totalitarianist approach.  In fact, I wonder if I'll get banned for this comment...

    by Delirium on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:40:54 AM PDT

    •  "banned" as in

      kicked off administratively?  Or are you referring to rating-assisted oblivion?  I do see a disturbing number of zeroes and ones bestowed on posts that vigorously argue a non-majority stance.  Seems like human nature at work.

      by turbonium on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 02:54:08 AM PDT

    •  Banning for a good reason

      I'm all for banning anyone that comes in any blog and starts one-sided arguments, uses ad hominem attacks, or is generally underhanded and rude.
      I post on a few conservative blogs, just to get a read on what is going on over in that world. But just picking fights is obnoxious, and is reason enough to take someone down a notch.

      by Antioch on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:11:00 AM PDT

  •  It does go both ways

    But we try to keep away from being too smug, hypocritical or something like that. Liberals, as often exhibited here, are more self-conscious that most cons that i know and especially those of Freeperville.

    And whereas Freepers BAN people who don't agree with them, Kos doesn't do that. Of course, quite often, as with the Naderites, we do it for Kos.

    Banning is not very democratic, we KNOW that. The conservatives probably know that too, they just think it's a liberal plot to overtake the government.

    by Jonesyboy on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:13:18 AM PDT

•  It goes both ways

  It isn't that simple.  Two phenomena I find with OVERWHELMING frequency on the conservative side are A) arrogance, and B) hypocrisy.  (Which is why I'm so hostile when I observe either among liberals -- I don't want it ANYWHERE.)

  An example of arrogance, in context.  Conservatives aren't opposed to "community", within their own frame.  In fact, "community" is much more a tangible thing in rural, conservative areas.  In the cities I live, it's amazing if you're on speaking terms with your own neighbors.  After all, everyone moves every couple years, so what's the point in making the effort?  On the other hand, small-town communities can get quite close-knit.  The breakdown isn't that conservatives oppose community; they oppose TEAMWORK.  Prevailing concepts are hostile rumormill, family shame, "blame the victim".  Social cures are just invasions into private matters they'd rather keep secret -- with good reason.  These close-knit communities are openly cordial, but can be saturated with downright hostility boiling just below the surface.  Every family has a bad apple, and no family is forgiving of others.

  Thus, the bad apples get suppressed, introducing HYPOCRISY.  Domestic abuse?  Private matter.  Family abuse?  Don't ask, don't tell.  Any victim speaks up, even a small child, and they're INSTANTLY stigmatized with jaw-dropping hostility.  It sickens me how the "family values" crowd can show such active hatred and disregard for their own so-called "loved ones".  No, it's not as simple as rhetoric.  It's that hypocrisy and denail are so crucial to keeping "family values" conservatives' heads from exploding that facing difficult truths (like voting for a moron) get through to them like spitballs against a brick wall.

  by Dragonchild on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:13:46 AM PDT

  •  Note my subject line is off

    I was going to write about liberal rhetoric, which is also an issue.  But I wound up getting bogged down in conservative hypocrisy and arrogance.  I'd seen far too much of it lately to let them off the hook.

    by Dragonchild on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:15:10 AM PDT

  •  Community of conservatives

    In a sense, the conservatives do form a functional community, where all of them - top advisors, funders, RNC, pundits, "fair and balanced" media, blogers... - effectively support each other in the pursuit of one goal - winnng for more years. In this direction, they incarnate the communist phrase "From everyone according to abilities, to everyone according to needs" just perfectly ;-]

    by ray z on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:33:49 AM PDT

•  What about the Drug War?

  I'd be very interested to see how this framing fits with the Drug War -- does Lakoff address it?

  Decades of failed drug policy continue to be pursued by both parties.

  Republicans use the moral/crime and punishment strict father approach, and Democrats talk about nurturing, but end up convincing themselves that being "tough" on drugs is the way to be "providing protection" (or perhaps it just provides political cover).

  Democrats have talked treatment, but often voted for longer sentences; they talk after-school programs, but vote for drug testing.

  Is there a way to frame the nurturing protection that doesn't involve the current situation where over 1 in 20 black men of voting age in the country is in a state or federal prison?  (Hmm, I wonder how many votes that was in Florida?)

  Can nurturing also involve being "smart" on crime and drugs, instead of "tough?"

  by guither on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:21:40 AM PDT

  •  There's an element of Libertarianism.

    That is slowly taking hold in the drug war, and I think that is the way it is going.
    As a drug user, buyer, and occasional seller, I didn't get to pick the side I'm on in the drug war; but it is the winning side.

    by AWhitneyBrown on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:30:50 AM PDT

  •  Back at the start

    of the drug war Nixon compromised with a democratic congress. About half of the money for the first several years was spent on treatment. It was very effective. Methadone clinics, especially, treated thousands of junkies and rehabilitated many of them to productive citizenship. The punitive drug war was founded by Nelson Rockefeller who found it to be a really cool way to beat Democrats in New York. The prison/industrial complex ate up all the money and the clinics dissappeared.

    by johnmorris on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:17:57 AM PDT

  •  Some thoughts on Drug policy

    This isn't really about framing, maybe someone will take that issue up, but I think the "War on Drugs" is one of the most spectacularly failed national policies of recent years, it hasn't really done anything except put a lot of people who generally weren't a threat in jail.  

    I read a book a while back called "The Botany of Desire" by Micheal Pollan, and he had a very interesting section on Marijuana where he argued that the whole "War on Drugs" was a more of less naked grab for state power and against civil liberties and I haven't seen anything that really contradicts his conclusions(at least with regard to Marijuana).   And while we're talking about drugs, the only thing that I can think of that Gary Johnson(the last Governer of NM) did that I actually liked was attempt to start a new dialogue on National Drug policy, I wish that had gone somewhere, as we really need to revise our drug policies, if nothing else we could significantly reduce our embarrasingly large prison population and the corresponding drain on our economy.

    by ellisande on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 10:27:54 AM PDT

  •  Do republicans actually care?

    
    We could say republicans are the strict father, but does the current republican party actually care about the majority of the people?

    I'm not saying democrats care, but republicans don't really offer alternatives when they remove programs. When welfare was reformed we did not increase investment in the education system to balance this.

    by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:20:27 PM PDT

•  I think it's dead on

  and Clinton was the ultimate nurturer. Hell, so was the greatest and longest running democratic show, FDR.  Lincoln was, when the political party polarities were reversed. Doesn't matter whether the nurturer is dealing with the neocon born agains and budding facists, the depression or the Civil War, Dems win when daddy got drunk got into a fight and wrecks the car and now mommy's gotta fix it. Ralph Cramden fucked up big time, and now his arrogance and reality in a head-on, it's  Alice to the rescue. But back to Clinton again, he showed us the biggest factor in winning elections is still political talent.

  by moon in the house of moe on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:26:13 AM PDT

•  Moral Politics

  Now get yourself a copy of Lakoff's Moral Politics a book that goes into greater detail on the subject.  It will be time well spent.

  by onegoodmove on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:27:06 AM PDT

•  Wonderful and less than timely

  Too bad activists couldn't have been steeped in this earlier in this Presidential cycle. It's truly brilliant and precient, but I have dim hope that this can help now. I love it, but without time... I can only hope.

  by lectric on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:27:26 AM PDT

  •  Not Over Till The Fat Lady Sings.

    We'll take any edge we can get. Oh, and as I'm sure you're aware, it'll take a lot more than merely hoping.

    by chuco35 on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:30:23 AM PDT

•  Lakoff is brilliant

  I first encountered George Lakoff on the web last year, in an interview posted at the Berkeley web site. They put up a second interview recently... both are well worth reading.

  There's a Lakoff DVD out now, maybe already mentioned in the rapidly growing thread which I haven't read through yet...

  Google him.

  He's prescribing exactly the right medicine.

  by woid on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:37:20 AM PDT

  •  Lakoff video on web

    The DVD I mentioned a minute ago? Here. $15 gets you 25 minutes of Lakoff... Why, that's onIy pennies a minute!

    I also found some (maybe all) of this same video on the web, in two long Quicktime chunks, a few days ago, but damned if I can find it now.

    There's quite a bit of assorted Lakoff video on the web.

    At the rate his memes are spreading, I expect to see an infomercial soon.

    by woid on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:02:42 AM PDT

•  I like Lakoff's argument about frames...

  But this framing of the argument in terms of family relationships doesn't satisfy me, somehow.

  I, personally, identify more with the "conservative" family definition, used above.

  When I hear talk about "open two-way communication," I feel like I'm slipping into Dr. Phil La-la-land, some area where good feelings doesn't intersect with the real world of tough knocks.

  And yet, I don't see myself as a conservative at all.  I see our present situation in very stark and scary terms.  We are about to lose another Vietnam-ish war because of incompetence.  Incompetence doesn't get too many pats on the back in the "conservative family" frame of things, does it?

  And there is a moral failure here.  The failure of a president of the United States to use proper judgment, take good advice, and to make decisions based on what's good for the country rather than what will optimize his political fortunes.  That is a moral failure.

  From either frame, Bush looks very bad, indeed.

  I also don't understand the family-orientation of one of the points in the conservative frame: "They are against social programs that take care of people. That is what they see as wrong. That is what they are trying to eliminate on moral grounds."

  I have heard the moral arguments.  But listen carefully to those "moral" arguments, and underneath, you can hear a simmering class resentment, a feeling that some other type of people (like... blacks? illegal immigrants? gays?) are unfairly benefitting from social programs.  

  We should be careful not to confuse which came first.  The resentment came first, and then the moral justification for the resentment.
  

  by Dumbo on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:45:00 AM PDT

  •  That last one is a very telling point. n/t

    by AWhitneyBrown on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:48:24 AM PDT

  •  two families

    a few weeks ago I heard an example of the two families.  to visualize the conservative family is an Arnold Swarzenegger movie, while the liberal family is in the mold of the cosby show.

    by cbsturf on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:13:07 AM PDT

  •  Adding a little bit more to my post...

    When I was a kid, my grandma, who was a Southern Baptist from Little Rock, Arkansas, used to tell me that blacks deserved their lowly place in the world.  There were a number of important biblical quotes in this regard.  

    One was about how Ham, having seen his father's nakedness, his children were cursed to be slaves.  Genesis chapter 9.

    The Bible sure is handy, huh?  The oppression of the blacks was something they deserved.  It's not the fault of the people that bought and sold them -- it's ol' Ham's fault.

    People manufacture moral reasons to justify their political desires.

    by Dumbo on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:43:30 AM PDT

  •  Chicken And Egg

    You ask good questions, Dumbo.  I want to make two points in response.

    (1) Lakoff's argument is based on a metaphorical mapping between the family realm and the political realm. But it doesn't mean that your personal family experience must mesh with your politics. (Lakoff himself says that he employs the Strict Father model in his academic work, because that's the way that the academic world is structured.)

    In fact, a large number of working-class families are Strict Father families. Yet they were the base of New Deal liberalism. The conservative strategy to woo them over is to make them identify more with their family model than their economic self-interest.  

    For many decades, the pattern established in the Great Depression held, and these voters identified more with their class. But as conservatives made a play for them on family model grounds (via culture war politics), Democrats tried to respond by "moving to the center," thus abandoning the main thing they had to counter this--a strong model of nurturance in the economic sphere, via things like unempoloyment insurance, worker retraining programs, affordable college education for all, etc.

    So, to sum up, there's a lot of play in how these mappings work, particularly when we talk about individual cases.  What Lakoff is doing is talking about logically coherent frameworks and how they work.  Most of the time most of us will vary from these frameworks, but they represent a coherent baseline around which people will vary in different ways.

    (2) I agree completely that rationalization is a very big factor here.  A good framework for thinking about this is Social Dominance Theory (SDT), as laid out in the book Social Dominance:  An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression by Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto.

    SDT which places such rationales in what it calls the realm of "legitimating myths" (LMs) which are either hierarchy enhancing (HE) or hierarchy attenuating (HA). People incline toward one or the other according to attitudinal factors described generally as "Social Dominance Orientation" (SDO), which in turn is influenced by a variety of factors--not least by how privileged you are in the existing social system.

    Because we're a relatively egalitarian society (formally democratic, universal rights in principle, etc.), many of the HE LMs are presented in a form that's outwardly HA. One example is "egalitarian" arguments against affirmative action--which would be far more convincing if it weren't for the fact that these arguments are held more strongly by people who believe in an us-vs-them world.

    The value of the SDT approach for this discussion is that it stresses the stability of social systems. The content of LMs may change over time, as moral standards change--the end of legal segragation, for example--but new LMs with similar functions can be expected to emerge. Some people genuinely believe these LMs, others cynically employ them, others are fooling themselves as much as anyone else.  And yes, for all three groups, more often than not, "The resentment came first, and then the moral justification for the resentment."  But, of course, the very fact that justification is needed points to the weakness of these positions.

    Now, Lakoff's work connects with SDT in a very straight-forward manner: he is explaining the underlying logic that gives coherence to HE LMs on one side (the Strict Father model) and to HA LMs on the other (the Nurturant Parent model).  Explaining the underlying logic is a different sort of explanation than what you're talking about, which is more about why people chose one set of LMs or the other. And that gets back to SDO itself.

    Thus, your observations--which are quite valid--should not be seen as an objection to, or refutation of Lakoff.  Rather, they point to a larger set of issues.  There are very real limits to how much can be done simply by the sort of work that Lakoff is focused on, which SDT helps to illuminate. But Lakoff himself is aware of this. He does not believe we can change the world overnight, nor that language alone can do the trick.  He is simply saying that language has a vital role to play in changing the world, and nothing in SDT would dispute this view.  

    By studying Lakoff, SDT and other sources of insight, we can become much more adept at unmasking the rationalizaitons and hypocrisy, and much better at presenting an authentic morality in its place.  This is only part of the battle, of course. But it is a vital part.
    

    by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:54:28 PM PDT

    •  Thanks... that clarifies things.

      Especially