You're Right: An Answer to jerrytown

I really like NOFX and agree with their views.  But their song that jerrytown featured in his article "You're Wrong" misses the point:

Conservatives don't think they're wrong.  They don't think they're immoral.  They aren't using the same rules as liberals or progressives to judge ideas.

Take the abortion debate, for instance.  People who support abortion rights believe, quite logically, that a woman whose life is at risk by a developing fetus should be valued more than that fetus.  Some opponents of abortion believe, without any need for logic to support their view, that the fetus must be given a chance to survive no matter the cost.  Their logic begins with that assumption.

Both sides believe they have the moral "high ground".  Both sides think the other is wrong.  What are we to do?  How can we avoid the violence that is certain to result from this kind of dispute?

I believe that liberals and progressives must make an effort to understand conservatives because, for the most part, they will not understand us.  Much of their world view seems based on fears that may prevent them from easily understanding us.  George Lakoff gives us a framework for understanding them -- and us -- better.

Dr. Lakoff is a Professor of Cognitive Science and Linquistics at UC Berkeley.  In his video, "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think", he lays the foundation on which liberals can change their approaches to understanding and trying to persuade conservatives to different points of view.

Dr. Lakoff says that the different world views held by liberals (and progressives) and by conservatives can be described by their views of the family.  Conservatives' view of the family is a "strict father" model, versus the liberals' "nurturing parent" model (which has its own problems).  The strict father model is a gendered system in that it requires a mother and a father.  You need a strict father, according to this model, because there is evil in the world, and daddy has to protect the family from evil.  There is competition in the world.  There are winners and losers, and daddy has to be a winner to support the family.  Daddy has to be strict because children are born bad; they just want to do what feels good, they don't know right from wrong, and they have to be disciplined.  In this system, morality is seen as obedience to an authority.  What's more, the discipline that allows you to be obedient to a strict father is the same discipline that allows you to become prosperous.

This leads to a fascinating conclusion: If you aren't prosperous then it's because you aren't disciplined enough.  If you're not disciplined enough then you don't have the discipline to be moral.  Because you aren't moral, you deserve your poverty.

In his compelling lecture, Dr. Lakoff relates these differing world views to taxation, regulation, and other political disputes.  His video is almost an hour long, and I recommend watching it in one sitting. But do, please, watch it.

Conservatives aren't going to learn our language.  We're going to have to learn theirs, and our languages differ more than you think.

< Free press under attack in Kyrgyzstan | Don't Ask Don't Tell >
 Display:

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.

by toosinbeymen on 06/08/2009 10:32:38 AM EST

I love George Lakoff. His work is so interesting. Great call.

by LadyFriend on 06/08/2009 10:35:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
There are many different "models" of families, with those two being somewhat dominant in our culture.  But I don't think anyone has either all one or the other or necessarily either one.  I think you can "stretch the metaphor" in more than just those two directions.  I still like Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village" idea.

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.

by AnEngineer on 06/08/2009 01:13:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
By the way, I am in favor of abortion rights and against severe restricting of access to abortion, but I don't think the "pro life" people or the "anti-abortion" people or whatever you want to call them are wrong.  I believe it's a totally fine position. So I reject this notion that on many issues there are two sides and each is incapable of understanding the other.

What IS wrong is claiming you are pro-life but using that as a wedge issue to install leaders and pass legislation that benefits the more powerful sectors in society at the expense of the weak and less fortunate.  It's the abuse of the "pro life" position that causes so much anger and conflict.

David

by yturks on 06/08/2009 11:17:02 AM EST

Maybe I shouldn't have said that "both sides think the other is wrong".  I personally think the anti-abortionists are "wrong" in wanting to forbid abortions in the sense that doing so would hurt a lot of people.

Right?  Wrong?  Maybe just using those words makes the problem harder to solve.

by AnEngineer on 06/08/2009 12:52:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think you are correct about the right vs. wrong framing of the debate. It is a topic with great nuance and wide disagreement.
To me, the bigger problem is to set of the debate as 2-sided. Some people want abortion totally criminalized. Some people want them available without restriction. Some people want parental consent. Some people want a mandatory waiting period. Some people want to get rid of the pill and Plan B (the morning after pill). Some people are pro-choice, but see abortion as morally wrong. Some people are pro-choice and see abortion in some cases as justified, but not in others. Some people are pro-choice and see abortion as justified without preconditions. There are many many many angles to this debate. I think framing it as a 2-sided issue stalls any chance of meaningful dialogue between people who disagree.
For example, I am very strongly pro-choice. My aunt is very strongly anti-choice. Most people would assume we can find no common ground. In calm and caring discussion, however, we can agree on many points of the debate. While I was not a huge fan of Obama's speech at Notre Dame, he made this point quite well.

by LadyFriend on 06/08/2009 02:53:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are 100% correct that the problem is that abortion is used as a wedge issue. Politicians definitely abuse the issue...well said.
I do think there are viable moral arguments against abortion. Anti-abortion activists, however, go a significant step further. They want abortion criminalized. To me, that makes about as much sense as criminalized marijuana. People will continue to smoke cheeba an women will continue to seek abortion criminalizing abortion is a significant public health problem. How many women will have to die from back-alley abortions for people to realize they cannot stop women from making that choice.
Finally, I know you addressed this, but I definitely reject the term "pro-life." To me, "pro-life" should mean a respect for life throughout the entire lifespan. War, healthcare, and many other issues also affect lifespan. They use this term, but they are really pro-fetus. We all know many pro-lifers support the death penalty. At least they were consistent with the Terri Schiavo debacle. Also, I find it very offensive that I would basically be labeled "anti-life" because I support a woman's ability to make the choice.

by LadyFriend on 06/08/2009 11:36:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I like life.  I think it's a fine thing that should be encouraged whenever possible.  And I sure don't promote abortion.  Maybe if the health or life of the mother is at risk, I might suggest that it's a good idea to get an abortion, but I'm not a doctor and I can't really say.  And I don't want to forbid abortions in other circumstances.  Well, maybe if the fetus is viable and the woman's health is not at risk.  But, like I said, I'm not a doctor and I'm not qualified to decide if your health is at risk or not.  And even if I was a doctor, in the end it's not my body.  What do I know about being pregnant?  I'm a man.  All I can do is watch and hold your hand and hope that you don't get mad at me.

And I absolutely oppose the death penalty. I may have wanted to kill a couple of people, but I've never found it necessary, and I've gotten over whatever it was that made me want to.

We have to take the term "pro-life" back from the anti-abortionists.  They don't have an exclusive right to it.

Here's another one: I think that government is too big and intrusive when it starts trying to decide if a woman should be pregnant or not.

by AnEngineer on 06/08/2009 12:43:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I should do better research.  Here's a clip from when Prof. Lakoff was interviewed by Cenk Uyger on June 20, 2008, about his book, "The Political Mind".  Cenk got a couple of things out of the good doctor that I didn't know about.  Now I know why Prof. Lakoff and his teacher, Noam Chomsky, have a professional spat (if I'm characterizing that right).


by AnEngineer on 06/08/2009 02:58:08 AM EST

 Display: