Some ideas, and a question, on how to use lessons from FDR and current linguistic knowledge to properly frame the debate to get the support from conservatives which we must have if we are to fully succeed.
UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff, a cognitive linguistics expert, has identified the cognitive difference between conservatives and liberals as actually a difference between patriarchal Vs matriarchal thinking.
In his 1996 book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, author (and cognitive linguist) George Lakoff posits that the two major American political tribes have fundamentally different worldviews, and that this is what prevents them from coming to much agreement, or even being able to effectively communicate with each other. Both sides imagine the country as a family, but differ in belief about the best way to structure that family. Conservatives, say Lakoff, follow an “authoritarian father” model, where the patriarch maintains order, builds character through struggle, and punishes transgressions. Liberals, however, embrace a “nurturing parent” model where caregivers act like a Universal Mother: sharing, caring, yet allowed to question. The clash between these archetypes is alive and contributes to our political and cultural debates today.
Economically speaking, Lakoff’s models still work. Hard-dealing Capitalism is the strict patriarch, awarding success for perceived hard work (or, perhaps, fortunate choice of birth parents). Socialism’s more equitable distribution and safety net are the universal mother, caring for all the children. The wisest among us know that we need both systems in tandem to get us where we need to go. Few will put in the work if they don’t get the reward, whether it’s profit or, at least, the social capital that accrues to the mighty hunter. Without some level of redistribution, though, the system goes bust, as we learned in 1929, and Gilded Age levels of power and economic inequality aren’t terribly effective at maintaining widespread prosperity either. The wheels come off the cart unless balance is restored.
I find this way of identifying our differences much more accurate than the conservative and liberal labels in use today. Think about it. Liberals do not want liberal gun laws. The matriarchs among seek to help and nurture immigrants while the patriarchs seek to protect their tribe from the outsiders.
A lot of conservatives see their in-group as their local community or their neighbors, and then they will do all sorts of things. If there's a flood they'll be out there swinging the sandbags, if there's a fire they'll be out there on the lines with the hoses to protect their neighbors' homes. That is the powerful community version of in-group nurturance, and that is real nurturance, it's real care.
That can be appealed to, and we need to find ways of talking about that in terms of regulation and protection. What protections are being taken away from the people in your community? That needs to be said over and over again. Are we going to get bad drinking water? Are you going to get poisoned foods? Are you going to get drugs that haven't been adequately tested that could make you terribly ill?
With this in mind, in order tap into that “in-group nurturance” that is “real nurturance” and “real care” to help us succeed in passing a green new deal and health care for all we need to appeal to their patriarchal hearts.
Beyond practical pledges, political leaders must provide a convincing and even inspiring narrative to spur climate action. Cognitive scientists, such as George Lakoff, have long argued that people are more responsive to political arguments that are framed according to their own values (as opposed to those of the person making the argument). So, if liberal and progressive forces want a majority of the electorate to support the spending required to mount an effective response to global warming, they need to frame the Green New Deal – not unlike US President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s original New Deal in the 1930s – in terms of security.
People need to be protected from the instability that increasingly extreme weather will create, and they need support during the transition to greener (higher-quality) employment. Meanwhile, businesses need incentives to pursue the long-term opportunities created by the economic transformation.
This unifying emphasis on long-term societal, personal, and economic security would contrast sharply with prevailing populist narratives, which frame security as an identity issue and thus tend to trigger emotional – and divisive – responses. And there is reason to believe that it could work. One of the key, albeit contested, legacies of Angela Merkel’s chancellorship in Germany, for example, is her government’s leadership of the Energiewende, or energy transformation, which gained traction after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster raised questions about the long-term security of supplies.
When it comes to the green new deal the patriarchal conservative want’s security and tribal protection from flooding, droughts, food shortages and especially the millions of climate refugees.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—basically, the world’s best weather and earth scientists—has just issued a report on rising temperatures and the problems they’re causing around the world. One of the problems is migration. People are fleeing the hotter parts of the world. If we keep burning coal and oil, we won’t be able to build a wall high enough to keep out the millions of refugees heading north.
We must also constantly remind them that unless they want more military conflict we must tackle climate change because Climate Change Helped Spark the Syrian War and will have similar effects in south America if we allow it to continue.
When it comes to health care we again need to tap into that “in-group nurturance” that is “real nurturance” and “real care” to help us succeed. FDR wisely named it social “security” and we need to take a similar approach. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. To protect your family and tribe from financial disaster you must have affordable health insurance. However, the big insurance companies and pharma are stealing (breaking the patriarchal authority and order) from you. They are taking 25-30% of your healthcare spending to line their pockets while you face bankruptcy.
The point is there is a scientific way to use facts to appeal to the patriarchal conservative’s reality, morals and their better angels to win their support just as FDR did when he got the last new deal passed. We just have to speak to their motivations. A simple start could be just naming legislation accordingly such as “The Financial and Healthcare Security Act” or the “Energy and Climate Security Act for America's Freedom”.
In line with the Albright quote at the top, putting yourself in the shoes of a patriarchal conservative, how do you think we can frame the argument to best motivate them to support single payer and a green new deal?