On the Contrary

Usually I write this blog with a general theme in mind, but Bits and Pieces are things that may seem unrelated, but lend to the overall malady in our country today:  So here are this weeks gems:

• I usually watch Meet the Press, Reliable Sources, and Fareed Zakaria’s GPS on Sunday with snippets of CNN’s State of the Union.  Except for Fareed, I had to turn them off.  On Meet the Press, David Gregory is no Tim Russert.  One of Tim’s great attributes was to let the guest fully answer a question without interrupting, in a sense letting them speak for themselves and giving them all the rope they needed.  David seems to have an agenda when he continually interrupts to challenge an answer.  He needs to step back and let his guests answer the hard questions fully without his constant interrupting to challenge, usually using the other side’s talking points.  By doing this he is being controlled by the opposition instead of conducting an insightful interview.
• Meet the Press also failed in their round table discussion as it was a reflection of the Washington echo chamber instead of reasoned consideration of the issues.  If you just repeat the arguments being made by politcal hacks, what good are you?  The hot button issue was the Obama mortgage bailout plan and the anger that some abusers might benefit.  But they focused on the anger, reinforcing it, instead of looking at the plan’s pros and cons, and alternatives, if there are any to the plan itself.  It was a waste of time, did nothing but reinforce misplaced anger, and did not inform.  Could they have one economist to bring some rationalism to this discussion of emotionalism or the political opinions of the day?
• Reliable Sources is usually a discussion of how the press is treating a specific subject, not the subject itself.  I lost interest when it was about Roland Burris, the lady who had the litter of kids in California, and other non-sequiturs.  I just don’t care.  Both of these people are just sideshows to the real issues we face and I don’t care if I ever hear of them again.  Illinois, get your house in order, and California, we already have enough mouths to fed which we can’t afford.
• Then we get to the bright light which was Fareed Zakaria’s GPS.  Here we had a real discussion about the efficacy of further military adventures in Afghanistan, the economy with real economists, and then a discussion of both the economy and world affairs in Asia from experts living in those areas.  It was the difference between the Washington echo chamber (just political talking points being rehashed) and real discussion of real ideas.  What a breath of fresh air.  I suggest for those who missed it, read the transcript (GPS).
• California is in big trouble and the recent settlement of the budget resolved nothing.  Once again we are hamstrung by small minds when they negotiated away the 12¢ tax on gas giving up $2 billion in revenue per year.  Since gas went up to $4/gallon and is now down around $2.50/gallon, who would have noticed the 12¢?   Yet this tax  would have created a fairly consistent source of revenue for the state that would also reflect our long term goal of reducing global warming.  In addition there is still borrowing in the plan to make ends meet.  Just how deep a hole do we want to dig?  We need a new State Constitution that gets rid of the mandatory spending, dumps the two-thirds majority for budgets, and gets rid of the term limits.  Why is the obvious so hard to do?  I do like the idea of open primaries and a rainy day fund.  It is a start.
• Governor Schwarzenegger noted recently that California (He is an acknowledged infrastructure fan) had a long-term transportation plan which is why the state is way ahead of any other in implementing high speed rail, but the nation does not.  If we continue to let Congress piece meal fund their states for transportation, we are never going to have an integrated, cost effective, and multi-modal transportation system.  Oh I am sorry, that smacks of government planning and is evil.  What was I thinking?
• The Republican’s lunacy of denying the stimulus money is based upon a short-term belief that all we need is tax cuts and the giant deficit they created just can get any bigger.  As one Republican recently said on CNN that went totally unchallenged, “We all know that only businesses create jobs, not government.”  They are oblivious to what happened from 1929 till 1945 as the government spending created almost all the jobs because businesses could not stimulate demand on their own.  Almost all economists recommend deficit spending right now, with a long term plan to deal with the deficit when the economy is back on its feet.

Finally I would like to leave you with a letter that was in the San Francisco Chronicle Sunday that kind of puts the whole Republican tax cut strategy into perspective (short term, painless, benefits the wealthy, and is ineffective):

“A comment on a blog included a long list of what a tax cut cannot do:  A tax cut cannot provide police protection.  A tax cut cannot provide a fire department.  A tax cut cannot build a road.  A tax cut cannot provide Social Security and Medicare.  A tax cut cannot provide care for the disabled and other vulnerable members of our society.  A tax cut cannot create city parks or preserve areas of our country’s natural beauty.  A tax cut cannot build schools or hospitals…and the list goes on.

As George Lakoff, professor of linguistics, suggested, we need to reframe the word “taxes” to take away the negative connotation.  Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society, one that does not feed selfish greed but cares for our children’s future, for those less fortunate and for the common good.”  Adeline Hope, Berkley, CA

The Republicans and their ideology are living in another time, still believing the Reagan Myth (which is a myth of giant porportions since he grew both the size of government and size of deficits), and Hoover economics which requires no sacrifice or long term plan but then miserably failed.  It is a strategy, as it was in the early 1930s, for total failure.  It appeals to the masses because it asks nothing of them, which is its appeal, while transferring wealth to the wealthy which simply makes things worse.  Haven’t we had enough?  Have we learned nothing?

This election is really about who we are as Americans and what our philosophy for the future really is.  The conservatives understand that the very survival of their ideas depends upon this election.  The progressives have yet to really define what this battle is about.  “Change” doesn’t begin to describe what is really at stake here and until the progressive really engage in this battle, they will forever be relegated to second place.  This battle is not about issues; it is about how we approach the 21st century and who we are as a people.

Progressives think in terms of empathy and responsibility.  They have empathy for those around us, and they have a responsibility to do something about it.  Government is for protection and empowerment:  Protect one’s physical security and rights, and empower its people to be successful (think education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc).  Progressives understand their morality in what George Lakoff* calls the nurturant parent model (NPM).  Both parents are responsible for raising their children, children are born good and can be make better, the world can be a better place, our job is to work on that, and parents job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others.  From that comes the edict that it is your moral responsibility to teach your child to be a happy, fulfilled person who wants others to be happy and fulfilled.  It is a moral world of cooperation and synergy.

Conservatives think in terms of authority and obedience to authority.  There is a moral person in charge and the role of the people is to be obedient to authority to maintain order and morality.  Government’s primary purpose is to maintain order by protecting us from threats from outside the system and enforcing the authority and discipline of the leader. Conservatives understand their morality in what George Lakoff* calls the strict father family model (SFM).  Morality in this system is obedience to authority, assumed to be a legitimate authority who is inherently good.  Note that in this system it is assumed the world is an evil and dangerous place, children are born into it immoral, and through punishment learn discipline to be obedient.  If people are disciplined, pursue their self-interest, they will become prosperous and self-reliant.  Without this strict discipline, the world is an immoral place.

This are two very different systems views of government and moral systems.  One, the progressive is open to dissent.  Progressive want to find the best possible world and they are in the mode of cooperation and discussion to find it.  Conservatives think they have found the best possible world and it is defined by small government, little regulation, non-existent taxes, open and unregulated markets where the moral will be victorious and the immoral and undisciplined will fail.  Government intervention to help these that have failed is just encouraging immorality.  Most importantly, in the strict father family, dissent is viewed as disobedience, and is not tolerated.  In their system, the self sufficient and disciplined person who seeks his and only his self-interest will prevail and there will be good for all.  That is why the huntress and fisherwoman Sarah Palin is so valued among conservatives.  She embodies these characteristics.  The problem is that these characteristics, self sufficiency and independence, which made us a great country in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, are no longer relevant in the world we live in, the 21st century.  The proof of that is in the failures in the last eight years reflected in our economy and in our standing in the world.

Conservative philosophy, unlike progressive philosophy, is a deeply held faith.  The strict father model of morality is a reflection of conservative religious beliefs.  As such, the basic underpinnings cannot be challenged.  Much for the same reason fundamentalist Christians deny evolution because it might bring their whole religious edifice down,  conservatives will not accept that their basic beliefs are no longer functional in the 21st century.  The failures of the last eight years must be due to conservatives who lost their way, lost their self-discipline.  Change to them just means finding conservatives who are pure.  Then things will be hunky dory.  Remember that conservatives feel they are morally right because they are conservatives.  The rest of us who question their basic philosophy are the barbarians that will bring chaos into the world.

The funny thing is that George Bush, other than his Neocon leanings, met the test of a good conservative.  He lowered taxes on the rich and two-thirds of business don’t pay any.  He neglected government by starving the beast and appointing his cronies instead of competent public servants since government is the problem anyway; he gutted the important roles of protecting our citizens through the FDA, securities oversight, banking oversight, because regulation stifles business; he turned the Justice Department into a political partisan organization because only conservatives have the proper morals to govern; and then he instituted torture, rendition, and waived the constitution because obedience is above all else.  Their abuse of power was systemic and is a result of the fact that they really feel they are morally superior and they don’t have to answer to the rest of us, just the discipline of their rules.  Ted Stevens come to mind?

So the battle is really between whether we are going to adopt the model of the self-reliant hunter and frontiersman/frontierswoman that was in tune with 18th century America, or are we going to adopt a model of cooperation in working together with government to address the real challenges of the 21st century.   The rest of the world is moving past us while we dither on which model will propel us forward.  The conservative model has failed and failed miserably.  The challenges of the future are not how to be self-reliant or gut a moose, they are about working together to solve massive problems that will take a partnership of both an empowered government and private enterprise.  Ask your self the following questions:

• If the economy needs a modern infrastructure to be competitive in the global market place, who is going to build it and how are we going to afford to build it as we continue think small government is the answer?
• We have a deficit that is amounting to roughly $30,000 for every man, woman, and child under conservative cut taxes and spend wildly.  How are we going to take this load off our children by reducing taxes even more?
• Most economists agree that our future depends upon our human capital, and our ability to innovate in the future.  How is this going to happen as we cut our investment in education and research and development, and depend more on competition in the school market place?  Anybody noticed the debt our graduates are carrying today?
• How are we going to have an energy strategy that really does relieve us of our burden on foreign oil and oil itself unless government invests in a massive way to help industry build the infrastructure for alternate energy systems?
• Every other industrialized nation has recognized that for profit medicine is the most expensive way to deliver healthcare.  But conservatives are terrified of this system because it threatens their whole edifice of the marketplace solves all problems.  What is it about making a profit by denying claims don’t they get?
• How does reducing taxes produce flow down to increase economic activity when we have no more room to reduce taxes and the inequality in America is growing every day?
• How can we have less regulation on businesses and avoid the Erons or Mortgage crisis melt down that is upending our economy?
• How are we winning the surge when there is no movement in Iraq and the troops and the costs are not being significantly reduced?  How much longer can we continue to afford to “win” this way?

Said another way:

• Flow down/trickle down economics (Voodoo Economics) has been a failure except for the very rich
• Seeking your own self-Interest in the extreme and hurts more people than it helps
• The marketplace is limited in a global marketplace in solving problems and righting the system
• Decreasing taxes is not a cure-all for the economy and has not substantially helped our economy in these troubled times – there is little more to cut as we go broke
• Government has an important role in both our society and our marketplace
• The welfare of all of our people is critical to our success
• We have a responsibility to help those disadvantaged so that we are all buoyed up
• We are all in this together

The problems that face America in the future are complex and difficult.  They will take a partnership of our government and our private sector to deal with them.  Government doesn’t need to be smaller when you consider the things we ask and need it to do.  It needs to be smarter.  Conservative philosophy does not recognize this complexity and looks for simple solutions that have totally failed us.  They have no plan for the future except more of the same applied more rigorously.  That is because it is their religion and their faith is unshakeable.

This election is not just about ideas, it is about our future place in the world.  If the conservatives succeed in distracting the voting public from the real state of our country with cultural wars, inciting class warfare, and emotional cheap shots (that’s why the McCain camp is now working with Karl Rove), they may win this election.  But we all may loose if we fall any further behind the rest of the world.  Four more years to prove the travesty of this approach may just be four more too many.  It is a battle worth fighting and I wish the Democrats would show the passion in this fight that the Republicans have in trying to protect their religion from reality.  It’s about our children’s future.  The Democrats do not have perfect answers but their philosophy allows for dissent and discussion.  In the strict father family of the conservatives, this is heresy.  Which world do you want to live in?  Until Democrats understand that this is a real war for the soul of our country and the emotional, not rational basis it is being fought on, they will be striking out with “the facts ma’am, just the facts.”

* George Lakoff, “The Political Mind”, “Don’t Think of an Elephant”

Most of the Democrats I know are confused about what is happening on the political scene right now.  Democrats think that if you just put the facts out there, people will see reality and make appropriate choices.  This basic belief was the basis of the Enlightenment and the formation of our government.  As George Lakoff likes to point out in his book, “Political Mind”, this is assuming that we all make rational decisions and emotions don’t play a part.  But they do in a big way and cloud real judgment about what are and are not facts.  If this were not ture then from a Democratic point of view how can you explain the following:

• The country is in sorry shape yet the party in power is successfully running a campaign on change
• The McCain campaign is full of lobbyists and advisers that have been in power and will be in power if they are elected, yet their claim of change has traction with Middle America
• The Republicans have brought us Eron, Katrina, the Mortgage Crisis, firing of Attorney Generals and hiring in the Justice Department that was politically motivated, rendition, torture, ease dropping, an outed CIA agent, runaway spending and largest deficit in our history, real economic problems, increasing inequity between the rich and poor, and stagnant middle class, and yet they are running on reforming themselves and seem to be winning on this issue
• The Republicans have nominated a vice presidential candidate who is a throwback to the old cultural wars, seems totally inexperienced to be the vice president, and has become the rallying point for change when most of her politics are more aligned with George Bush  than 90% John McCain

So if the Democrats have all the above correct, what gives?  Why aren’t Barack Obama and the Democrats running away with this thing?  The answer is that the Republicans understand the emotional game so much better than the Democrats.  It is about so much more than just facts.

What is going on that the Democrats seem to be missing is this is a war about ideology.  It not just change in a different approach, what the Obama campaign is challenging is the whole conservative orthodoxy.  The Republicans understand this and they are in this war to win, at any cost.  If you doubt that you have not been watching what has been going on in the last week.  Remember George Lakoff and the two modes of thought between conservatives and progressives.  Conservatives think in terms of authority and obedience and Progressive think in terms of empathy and responsibility.  And that is the progressives Achilles heel.  Because they are empathetic, they try to work with Conservatives.  Conservatives believe that their path is the moral one, compromise is for sissies, and have tripped up the Democrats every time on this one.  In the process they end up looking strong and the Democrats weak.

Why are the conservatives attacking the press so vociferously?  Because the press is the epitome of disobedience and lack of discipline when they question their policies.  When conservatives talk about change, they do not mean a new approach, they mean getting back to basic conservative values:  guns, religion, church, small government, less taxes, less spending, and less regulation.  They truly believe that these allow people to seek their own self-interest and the moral prosper, and the undisciplined immoral get their just deserts.  If Obama gets elected the whole edifice of conservative thought is rejected.  Sarah Palin is the epitome of this belief and is why she has reinvigorated the faithful.  John McCain was not their view of the perfect leader with the right morals, but Sarah is. That is why, and I think it will become a problem for John McCain, he appears at his events as though he is following her around like a puppy.  It is also why they can;t afford to have anyone discredit her and they will go to any lengths to prevent it.

Okay, you say, I see how that might invigorate the misguided base, but what is the deal with Middle America?  Well I have to think that people can think, like George Lakoff proposed, in either mode and it just depends on how it is activated, read emotional connection or frame.  The conservatives are using class envy through sarcasm to activate Middle America in the strict father mode.  People, especially middle class Americas who are losing ground in their standard of living resent intellect and are afraid of it. They resent the upper class (read wealthy).   That’s why they want the President to just be a guy they might want to have a beer with.  They like to simplify their lives by seeing simple solutions to our problems.  The conservatives have taped into that resentment by painting Barack as the intellectual effete east coast snob that intimidates them.  In this emotional frame, the conservative approach of authority and obedience is activated.  The funny thing is the Republicans really are the wealthy class and the Democrats more represent the middle class.

There is another problem in that the progressive response is usually measured and rational as though rational thought is what is going on here, but for these people it makes progressives look weak. The Democratic Congress and its leaders keep changing their positions (drilling is the latest) and it makes them look weak and that they don’t really believe in what they say they believe.  It feeds the conservative philosophy that the Democrats lack discipline and are immoral.  Although the Democrats may think this is a smart negotiation tactic to get what they want, they have missed the whole emotional impact of the appearance of giving in.  Once again their misunderstanding of the battle lines which has nothing to do with issues or compromise, is the root of their failure.

At the Republican Convention and afterward it was as if the Obama campaign was asleep when it didn’t respond in a tough way to the attacks by Sarah Palin.  It appeared they cowered in the corner.  Once again inaction looks like lack of direction.  Don’t you guys know you were insulted?  The progressives keep thinking rationalism will prevail.  Wrong.  It is time to respond emotionally and understand what is at stake and show how much you care.  This is what middle class fence sitters will respond to.  No, you don’t have to fight the cultural wars, which is the trap the Republicans had laid, just attack their lies and their honor with some vigor.

I believe that if you continue down this “good sense will prevail” road instead of showing real outrage at the outright lies and fighting back and hitting back with a sense of moral outrage, then the conservatives will once again win the emotional battle and you will lose an election.  Remember when you stood up and said “Enough!”  That activated the emotions and got them thinking your way, but then you let it go.  I think at this point in time Democrats would start understanding some of these dynamics but it does not appear they have lost enough elections they should have won yet.  Conservative ideology has failed this country and the fight is over whether we entry the 21st century to compete with the rest of the world or slink back to the 19th century with guns and religion.  It would be nice if you showed how important this is and how much you really care about winning this fight.  Rational arguments are not going to prevail if you don’t start activating peoples emotions with your own emotions.

Yes I watched the convention, and it took a lot of self-discipline not to throw a chair through the TV set.  Here we have this sea of rich white people telling us how they are going to reform Washington when it is they who are the reason it needs reforming.  John McCain and Sarah Palin are the agents of change according to both Lieberman and Thompson, yet McCain is now towing the Republican line on about everything he once opposed, and Palin is a throwback to conservative family values that have nothing to do with the challenges we face in the future.  This is change?  Actually this is understandable when you understand how conservatives think and since I promised to give you some insight into their logic, here goes (Note I laid out the underlying philosophy in “How Conservatives Think“).

Conservative philosophy is really a religion.  I use to think it was worship of the marketplace, but now I see how this is just a facet of their basic logical construct of the strict father model:  authority and obedience to authority, absolute right and wrong, discipline to follow the rules,  all of which lead to morality and prosperity.  They are so afraid of Democrats because Democrats believe in empathy and responsibility to help those less fortunate; read this as rewarding those who didn’t follow the rules or don’t have discipline and therefore immoral.  The end result is that the world will go to hell.  They really believe this at some very basic level.  This is why fundamentalists like Sarah Patlin are Republicans.  Follow some simple rules, ask no questions, and you will be rewarded.

But to the convention:  Fred Thompson gave the first of the two primary speeches.  First Fred talked about Sarah Palin’s small town values.  See, she is a rule follower and one of us.  Fred then launched into how they were going to “drain the swamp”.  What he is not saying is that it is a Republican swamp.  I don’t mean to say that Democrats are perfect, but they have not been welding the power.  What Fred is really saying is we are going to return to our base values, authority and obedience.  That is why Sarah Palin is a good choice; she represents the authority and thoughtless obedience to dogma of a fundamentalist Christian.  Then he launched on John McCain’s character by dwelling on his military family (all rule followers), his honor (obedience to the rules) and his brave performance as a POW (character).  The story is compelling and we all admire what he went through.  I am not sure what this has to do with how you are going to solve the problems we are facing in the future unless you understand whom he was preaching to.  See John McCain has shown the strength necessary to be our leader (strict father figure).  He has shown the character that we can trust (read be obedient to).  In the strict father family model of a nation, the strict father has to have character so he knows absolute right from wrong.  It is very important to establish this for the conservatives.

Just a couple of asides here for those of us who actually use logic as opposed to this rigid model of non-thought.  Thompson said we know he will serve us well because he was tortured and did the right thing.  I have no idea how this in any way reflects good decision making for our choices in the future.  I know a few POWs who are Democrats today, so are they all flawed?  And then of course he made the claim that we are winning in Iraq due to John’s great strategy.  My comment here is Tick, Tick, Tick.  The place is going to blow up as the Shiites take over and disenfranchise the awakening Sunnis.  He lead the charge into Baghdad and now does not admit it was a mistake.  But in a world of absolute right and wrong, this must have been an absolute right because you can’t question your strict father or the world will collapse in disarray with a lack of obedience and discipline into a moral-less pit.  Finally there was his claim that (true) this Congress is the most disrespected in history proving that the Democrats (false) are the problem.  He failed to mention that everything they tried to do, the Republicans blocked with a filibuster and used it more than any party in the history of the nation to force weak-kneed Democrats to go along with continuing the Republicans agenda.  Finally he preached to the choir about taxes.  Their slogan is “Country First”, but they don’t want to pay their fair share.  It is the old self-interest thing:  Taxes support government that helps people who are poor and in their eyes, undisciplined, and therefore promotes immorality.  They are really a very selfish bunch.

Then we have Joe Lieberman stating that he is a Democrat (hardly) but he wants to put America in front of politics.  Joe is an example of someone who thinks in both the nurturant family model and the strict family model.  But it is the character issue of the strict father model that drives Joe on McCain.  I think he is so in awe of the trials of John McCain that he puts his full non-thinking trust in him in the mode of the full obedience to the strict father.  But then Joe launched into the bipartisan rhetoric of working together.  What a joke.  It has been the Republican way or a filibuster.  The ones who won’t compromise are not the Democrats, who many of us think have compromised their values away trying to work out something with the Republicans, but the Republicans who won’t give an inch.

Notice the difference between the Democratic and Republican Conventions so far.  The Democrats talked about the problems facing American and the connection (read empathy here) that the candidates have to the common man and their problems.  Then they talked about their responsibility to solve those problems with specific programs.  It is the nurturant family model of empathy and responsibility, with government’s role of protection and empowerment.  The Republicans have focused on values and character.  Trust us, we will put a strict father figure in charge who understands absolute right and wrong, and everything will be okay if you are obedient.  They have said nothing about the pain of the common man, mainly because their policies have helped cause it, or what they will do different to solve it.  The reality is they have nothing new, they just think that if they can reestablish the strict father, with obedience and discipline, the nation will prosper and the moral, seeking their own self interest, will be rewarded,

So it is fairly obvious.  The change the Republicans want is to get more dogmatic conservatives into office.  The change the Democrats want is a government that addresses the problems we are facing with an empowered government.  It is a choice between the past and the future.  If you start to understand the underlying messages being delivered, maybe you can make a rational choice for our future.

The other evening I was over at a friends for an impromptu barbeque and I was telling the story of a elderly couple I had met at the hospital when my oldest son Travis was severely injured when he ran in front of a car as a tyke (he is healthy and fine today).  They were in their 70’s and had jumped a freight train from Southern California to come up to Sacramento to find their daughter.  The wife had severely fractured her arm jumping off the train.  They were living at the Salvation Army and I gave them a ride back to their temporary quarters and a few dollars to get home.  They never found their daughter.  I told this story to emphasize that there are many people out there that are living on life’s edge and it is going to become a big problem for us in the future as they age.

My hostess’s response was that there were a lot of irresponsible people out there that had not planned for their future.  I patiently countered that maybe there are a lot of people who don’t have the assets we do such as intelligence, education, decent parents, or an equal chance at a good life or a good job.  Maybe because of this they never had “disposable income” to invest for their future.  I got a swift kick under the table from my wife and I shut up.  But here is a prime example of the difference between a progressive and a conservative framing of reality.  Mine was one of empathy for their plight and there by the grace of good fortune go I with some feeling of responsibility for their welfare, and hers was one that put the blame on them for their situation because they lacked discipline, didn’t follow the rules, and we shouldn’t have to be responsible for them because they were imprudent and immoral.  So lets look in detail at where I think this framing comes from.

For this discussion I will be stealing and quoting a great deal from George Lakoff’s “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” and his other book, “The Political Mind” which I have found about the best way of conceptualizing how these differences in viewing reality come about.  I will try to layout the conceptual framework from which a conservative sees the world and use this in the next few days to discuss how the Republicans in their convention are framing the argument for their platform and their candidates.  Note that I already discussed how a Progressive thinks in my blog “How a Progressive Thinks was on Display Last Night”.

George Lakoff has come up with a model of how progressives and conservatives conceptualize a nation and its appropriate responses by using the analogy of the two models of a family, a strict father family, and a nurturant parent family.  I have already talked about the nurturant parent family (the progressive) who views the world with empathy and responsibility, and governments role as protection and empowerment, so I am going to focus on the strict father family model to explain how a conservative sees the world.  Here are the underlying assumptions:
➢    The world is a dangerous place because there is evil out there
➢    The world is also a difficult place because it is competitive
➢    There will be winners and losers
➢    There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong
➢    Children are born bad in that they will do what feels good and have to be made good through discipline in the form of punishment

➢    What is needed is a strong father who will:

o    Protect the family in a dangerous world
o    Support the family in a difficult world
o    Teach the children right from wrong through punishment

From this conceptualization come the following conclusions:
➢    There must be punishment if a child (citizen) does something wrong so they will learn not to do it again and develop internal discipline to do the right thing so in the future they will be obedient and moral
➢    Without punishment there would be no morality and the world would go to hell
➢    Internal discipline has a secondary benefit in that it is what is required to get ahead in a competitive world:  If people are disciplined and pursue their self-interest, they will be prosperous

Thus the strict father model links discipline to prosperity through pursuing your self-interest.  Given opportunity and discipline, pursuing your self-interest should make you prosperous.  And here is the big one:  If you are prosperous, you are moral and this wealth is a measure of your well-being.  If you are poor, you lack self-discipline and have nobody to blame but your self.  Unimpeded self interest, as Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) proposed, is the ultimate good because the invisible hand of the market place will maximize the self interest of all.  Seen another way it goes like this:

“For conservatives, the market is seen metaphorically as an institution personified as legitimate authority who makes ration decisions, as imposing market discipline , and rewarding discipline and punishing the lack of it.  Prosperity is seen as a mark of discipline, which is in turn seen as moral, since discipline is required to obey moral laws and whatever is required by those in authority.  By the logic of this system of thought, if you are not prosperous, you are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve your poverty.  It follows that if people are given things they have not earned, they become dependent and lose their disciplin and with it their capacity to obey moral laws and legitimate authority.”

Progressive thought is about empathy and responsibility, and conservative thought is about authority and obedience.  Okay it is a lot to digest, but let me give you some examples:
➢    Ever wonder why radical religious conservatives are all Republicans?  We have a strict father (God) who sets out rules (whatever scripture/dogma they believe) and if you unquestionably follow it, you will be moral and be rewarded with an afterlife, some with multiple virgins to contend with.  It is the strict father model.  Get a hint why conservative philosophy is undemocratic?
➢    Social Programs are giveaways that reward immoral people who haven’t followed the rules or shown self-discipline and make them dependent.  They reward bad behavior and break down morality.  Note that they are not against subsidies for big business because this rewards good behavior (accumulation of wealth)
➢    If your world is defined by the strict father model, then gay marriage threatens that legitimacy.  As George points out, marriage isn’t the issue, identity is.
➢    Government regulations or interference in seeking your self interest is a basic violation of the good from the competition of seeking your self-interest and thwarts your moral behavior
➢    Healthcare provided by the government will always be inferior because there is no self interest to promote the best possible healthcare.  It rewards people who lack self-discipline who have not provided for themselves
➢    Competition for resources imposes discipline and hence morality.  The discipline to be moral is the same discipline to win competitions and prosper.  Wealthy people tend to be good people, a natural elite.  The poor remain poor because they lack the discipline to prosper, and therefore deserve to be poor.  The increasing gap between rich and poor is good and natural.  Rich people are morally superior to poor people
➢    Immigrants are people who come here for a free ride and therefore must be thrown out of the country as they take jobs away from those who follow the rules.  We cannot allow one illegal immigrant to stay in the country because they are rule breakers and upset the moral system.  Lou Dobbs is the ultimate strict father
➢    God (the ultimate strict father) has dominion over nature and therefore nature is a resource for prosperity.  It should be used for human profit.  The same can be said for the animals.  If you are following the rules then global warming is not an issue nor is the demise of species.  Everything is self-correcting if government doesn’t interfere
➢    Democracy must take a second seat to the strict father who in times of threat will set the rules to keep us safe.  Questioning these rules is questioning the strict father and cannot be tolerated.  Thus we have George Bush trampling the constitution with his Republican brethren going right along with the help of some Democrats
➢    Because we are the most moral of the moral, in foreign policy, other nations must listen as we define what is right.  We are a superpower because we deserve to be through our discipline and rule following.  The free market must reign.  America must establish its view of right and wrong on the rest of the world which is a dangerous place full of undisciplined and immoral nations
➢    Ever wonder why “outdoors men” and NRA members flock to the conservative agenda?  Hunting and gun ownership reinforce the hierarchy of the strict father who provides for the family.  It reminds them of their view of the natural order of things

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea of the strict father model and how many conservative ideals come from this model applied to a nation.  George Lakoff makes the point that we all think in both modes, strict father and nurturant parent depending on how an argument is framed to activate that mode of thinking.  In the next few days I will try to point out how the Republicans are masters at activating the strict father mode.

But back to my original example:  Now I think you see what was going on.  From my hostess’s original reaction to the indigent elderly couple, the strict father figure model was in play.  They lacked self discipline, did not work hard, and were poor now.  They deserved their fate and to help them would be to encourage more undisciplined behavior and sap our tax dollars.  Ah but if the world were so simple.  You know the funny thing is that this is almost a instinctive reaction in the abstract, yet if it impacts their personal lives, they can show great compassion.

One further note on this already too long blog:  One characteristic I find in common with my conservative friends along with the idea that the poor some how caused their poorness, is that government workers are lazy flacks.  Although they make exception for the military, police, and fireman, the rest are leeches that suck our tax dollars dry.  But when you see it from the strict father model it is quite simple.  If you work for the government that provides services to people, then you are not seeking your self interest to the maximum, you are helping those that don’t follow the rules and are upsetting the natural order, and therefore you are lazy and encouraging immoral behavior.  You don’t deserve the benefits you receive because you are not competing and by paying taxes to support you, I am hurting my ability to fully secure my own self interests.   It is an interesting way to see the world.  Too bad they don’t have my 31 years of government experience to know that the majority work very hard and think there is more to measure a life by than money and self interest.

It was an interesting day for those of us who think like Democrats as we watched the opening of the Democratic Convention.  Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama gave us a window into how people in Blue States think.  For those of us that think this way, the opening was a no-duh approach to our future.  But Red Staters don’t think like Blue Staters.  So I thought I would try to highlight what was the underlying message and the thinking patterns.

George Lakoff  (“The Political Mind”) has written extensively about the two thinking patterns that separate conservatives from progressives.  He has pointed out that we all use both patterns depending on how the issue is framed emotionally.  I will focus on the progressives since that was what was on display last night.

Progressives use empathy and responsibility in viewing most political ideas.  Empathy in that they see others and can feel their suffering.  More importantly they are driven to act on that empathy because they feel they have a responsibility for doing something about it.  The expression, “there for the grace of God, go I”, captures the empathy.  Michelle Obama in her speech emphasized the responsibility portion of this equation when she described how she had been motivated by Barack to quit her law firm job and get active in helping her community.

Here is where progressives differ from conservatives.  When progressives see misfortune or suffering, they know that even if you do work hard, sometimes it is not enough.  Conservatives see the helping hand as a free ride to scofflaws who have not towed the line and are abusing the system, but more about that next week during the Republican Convention.

Progressives see government as having two roles:  Protection, and empowerment.  Both conservatives and progressive would agree with the protection part.  Government’s have a responsibility to protect their citizens from harm through both a strong military and police force.  But here is where they part ways:  Progressives see government’s role as empowering people to be able to get ahead.  Conservatives see government as getting out of the way of those who can get ahead.  One sees government as leveling the playing field, and the other as a hindrance to those who work hard.  Progressives last night were calling for affordable healthcare for all, opportunity for all to get a world-class education,  protecting the environment, and economic opportunity in the form of a livable wage for all.  They see government’s role as the major force to providing these empowerments so that people who really do work hard, can get ahead.

Progressives believe in cooperation and nurturing.  We work together to solve our problems.  Conservatives object to this because they see this role of government as making people dependent.  They see it as a free ride instead of leveling the playing field and pulling us all up in the process.  Progressive see people suffering or poor and disadvantaged and want to help.  Conservatives see people suffering or poor and disadvantaged and see people who did not follow the rules and work hard.  That is why they equate wealth with morality and success.

But the biggest difference that was on display was in the framing of the arguments.  Michelle Obama framed the argument in terms of hope, dreams, and hard work.  And the framing here is the key.  If you have hope and optimism, then you can see our problems as challenges that we can all work on together, energizing our government to work for us to be the catalyst for solving these problems.  As Michelle Obama said, “They’ll tell them (our future childeren) how this time, we listened to our hopes, instead of our fears. How this time, we decided to stop doubting and to start dreaming.”

And that is the key difference in framing.  The Progressive want you focused on what we can do, and the Conservatives want you to be afraid.  Cindy McCain is off to Georgia to access the civilian casualties.  Now one has to asked how a little rich girl is better equipped to do this than the ton of journalists on the ground that have been kicking dirt down there for months.  But that is not the point.  She is going to come back to the convention and tell you that her husband, John McMean, is the only one who can protect us from the big bad Russians.  The world is a dangerous place.  Be afraid America, don’t dream, put big daddy John in charge and he will protect you.

The two different framings elicit two different emotional responses to the path that is being laid out by both parties.  I can only hope that the fear card has finally been overplayed.