Because I’m tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I’m tired of getting them elected! We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, “Liberal means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we’re gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn’t have to go to work if they don’t want to!” And instead of saying, “Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties…!”, we cowered in the corner, and said, “Please. Don’t. Hurt. Me.” No more. I really don’t care who’s right, who’s wrong. We’re both right. We’re both wrong. Let’s have two parties, huh? What do you say?
I chose to kick off with a quote from the show West Wing for several reasons.
- As of now, President Obama is practically capitulating to the GOP on all the key issues a la Clinton, the last DINO president. And yes, I do know how the division of power works with the American government. That’s a discussion for another day if anyone is interested.
- Lakoff is driving home the same points made by Massey and Reich in their books during the Bush II years. Liberals need to take control of their label and stop letting the GOP/Conservatives/Teabaggers define it to their ends. I found it similar to Alterman’s book about the opposition “working the refs.”
- Most importantly, words and their connotations are everything. Lakoff uses more technical terms to his argument because he’s a professor of Cognitive Sciences and Language.
The copy I bought was published in 2008 and was mostly written around 2007 (the paperback probably has some amendments). This matters since the author points to the death of Anna Nicole Smith to illustrate the use of narratives, which are then broken up into smaller units called frames or scripts. What does she have to do with politics? According to Lakoff and David Rieff, everything. Through cultural narratives, she is either a rags-to-riches success ending in a tragic death or a sleazy gold-digger who overdosed. The microcosm of her life acts as the foundation for expounding other larger, more complex narratives: the Gulf War readily comes to mind.
So where’s the problem? Conservatives know how to use narratives very well. Never mind they’ve conned the majority into two endless, bankrupting wars; prevented a sound energy policy (the oil will run out); let public infrastructure rot while selling it to private interests (Austin’s new tollway is currently owned by the Spanish corporation Cintra); and spread dozens of myths which work against the citizenry’s interests.
Meanwhile, the Liberal response has often remained with sticking to the emotionally detached use of reason, facts and old strategies from the 18th century’s Enlightenment. Eventually the electorate will wise up, become rational and come around to the best choice. Screw that! Facts and figures are meaningless without passion. This is why Gore couldn’t seal the deal to make Florida irrelevant while Truman won by a larger than “expected” margin. Besides, most Americans continue to have an irrational hatred of intelligent politicians and intellectuals after McCarthyism poisoned the country. Notice how Adlai Stevenson, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore got branded the derogatory term…wonk.
I disagree on the past tactics. Conservatives such as Buckley more often followed the same pattern of thinking Lakoff is criticizing. The difference is that he and his ilk were gradually marginalized, then pushed out by Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan and the Right-Wing Noise Machine. Winning became more important than facts, good governance, fairness or justice. Notice how Nelson Rockerfeller disappeared from the GOP mythos.
Back to the Science behind the book. Chapter by chapter, there are explanations on how the brain works through his frames model. It certainly appears to be an uphill battle after 30 years of the Conservatives’ lies and stereotypes; my favorite has always been the Cadillac-driving welfare queen, Reagan’s doublespeak for “Blacks are ruining America!” Their narrative has grown very entrenched in the American political conversation; their connotations tend to be the definitions as the you’ll hear numerous crap questions in any debate regarding immigration, defense or fiscal policy.
Is all lost? Of course not but it’s going to be a long-term fight. The key weapon to counter the Conservatives is empathy. Humans are mentally wired this way. If we weren’t we would not build communities. This is a stumper for the Ayn Rand worshippers to answer. Empathy can combat the Conservatives’ primary tool authority.
An example in my life has been arguing with an ex-friend who always believes poverty is a moral failing, namely the mortgage mess. “They shouldn’t have borrowed money for a house they couldn’t afford! I don’t think I have to clean up their mess.” Never mind how he always overlooks the party responsible for loaning the money in the first place…banks. Didn’t their loan officers, accountants and other experts research the financial solvency of these people? Credit reports? No wait, the banks found a way to make billions in fees and then sweep the inevitable crisis under the proverbial rug knowing the government they bought through K Street would pass the bill on. This does present a hard choice. Through his authoritarian mindset, the ex-friend says a sizable percentage of the country should be allowed to collapse; it could be as bad as one in five households. Somehow he thinks he’s immune because he has a job, he has a house, etc. By his flawed logic, if he were alive when the Bubonic Plague ravaged Medieval Europe, he would also believe that his wealth and Christian faith would protect him from dying in a grisly fashion.
Through my counter of empathy, I have argued how it would be wiser in the long term to adjust the terms on as many mortgages as possible to lessen the severity. Then the regulations and oversight, which were weakened during the Eighties and Nineties, are given their teeth back to avert future meltdowns. Financial experts agree with me: Allan Sloan makes this point; or as he once taught me on his radio segment, smart lenders will work something out because they have nothing to gain from the customers’ failures.
Again, Lakoff makes the overall point again and again. His language is quite technical. It’s probably better understood by those with advanced communication degrees (namely the Chomsky school) or recent Psychology graduates. I still highly recommend it to my friends in my political camp. Those friends who have succumbed to Angry Irrational White People Disease…it’s a waste of their time and mine. Much like I won’t waste a calorie on Glenn Beck’s “proof” (really what his ghost writers scribble) about the deficit.
