I found George Lakoff's lecture Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think facinating and very illuminating. There are several others here: http://fora.tv/s earch_video?q=lakoff
I like his metaphor of strict father and nurturing parents for con and lib thinking. But perhaps unintentionally, he's making a case for moderates. IMO, a mixture of the two parenting types makes the most sense and a parent would choose his/her approach depending on the situation. Perhaps the metaphor can't be stretched that far and I'm getting carried away.
Even more important is his observation that Dems are inept at framing and let many many opportunities slip by where they could bring down Rs' arguments by addressing it like a linguist or cognitive scientist. This is obvious to the casual observer. His way to counter bush's clear skies and healthy forests initiatives is a clear winner.
Lakoff's arguments are key, IMO, to figuring out why libs and cons don't understand each other and suggest lots of new ways to bridge the gap with the cons I seem to be surrounded with.
I really appreciate your use of the word "inept".
Lakoff's Rockridge Institute, one of the few liberal think tanks in this country, closed it's doors on April 30 because of lack of funding. Conservatives have lots of think tanks, and they keep pouring money into them. That's a big part of why they're winning arguments that they should be losing just based on outcomes, never mind the moral issues.
Liberals aren't getting their act together because, as Lakoff says, they're stuck on the "rational actor" model, which obviously doesn't work. There may be more that distinguishes progressives from liberals than just economic policies.
