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?