According to Lakoff, Conservatives govern from a "strict father" model, which assumes that the child will screw up and needs to be scolded and kept in line - taught the ways of the world, if you will. The "strict father" model sees the world as a dangerous place that can only be tamed, and it assumes that people will act only in their self-interest. Government programs which support the poor only encourage people to be lazy, while government programs that impose control over other nations are part of the dominant "father," i.e. the United States, rearing the wayward "children," i.e. Iraq.
Conversely, Progressives govern from a "nurturant parent" model, which assumes the child is inherently good and has a responsibility to the community. The "nurturant parent" model recognizes the need for controls and sees them as a way to encourage a supportive community. Government programs that regulate industry are for the benefit of the larger community while programs that are punitive are unjust. Other countries should be allowed to govern themselves, and we should stick to protecting ourselves while fostering development of our industry and social values.
When was the last time you heard GW Bush talking like a "nurturant parent"? Probably in 2000, with his slogan of "compassionate conservatism," which was meant to evoke the image of leadership by example rather than by a stick, and instead we got, well, we know what we got.
This is important for us as Progressives to understand, though, because it's too easy for us to think that Conservatives are just dumb or, if they only knew the truth, they'd "come around" to our side. Wrong. And the sooner we realize that it's not our ideas but how we relate them to each other, the sooner we'll understand how to build a sustainable governing majority.
Bill Clinton understood this, which is how he was able to co-opt common GOP themes from the "strict father" paradigm. He co-opted the GOP's talk of "welfare queens," which was derogatory and damaging to their interests, and he took on "welfare reform," which spoke to the frame of the "strict father" model, but from a Democrat was a triangulation. Now, we can argue over the success or failure of Clinton's work, but the point is that he was able to frame things in a way that was advantageous to our side in an era dominated by the GOP (Reagan, Bush I, and now Bush II).
What we see with Bush is constant "strict father" frames. Day in and day out. "Tax relief" - the government saving us from our burden of taxes; "war on terror" - be afraid, but don't fear because the government will save you from the bad guys; "stay the course" - we know what to do to make this work, trust us; "stomach the fight" - suck it up and don't be a wayward child.
It's all part of the same frame, every single bit. And we here at DailyKos seem more often than not utterly stunned that this is considered acceptable discourse, as the media greedily laps it up and talks in GOP-speak.
It's time we understood how these frames work and how to talk about our issues in a way that honors our "nurturant parent" paradigm. Because, as Lakoff points out, every time we adopt the "strict father" paradigm on GOP issues, we only reinforce them. It's the difference between saying "we're not against staying the course" or "we're for a new course," and saying "we have a responsibility to let the Iraqis govern themselves" or "America is better than this."
We need to start framing our vision, our values, in our "nurturant parent" model. And I'm opening up the table below this meta-diary for just that.
Things like,
new energy
raising the minimum wage
strengthening Social Security and Medicare
fighting poverty
equal rights
environmental conservation/preservation
responsible business
protecting our country
How would you frame these? What 2- to 5-word phrase encapsulates any one of these issues that honors our "nurturant parent" paradigm and counters the typical "strict father" response from the GOP?
Comments are closed on this story.