Defining the Progressive Philosophy
I just picked up a copy of George Lakoff's new book Don't Think of an Elephant. The new book is a condensation of his more academic 1996 work Moral Politics and contains more useful advice for progressives. Nathan Newman Ralph Taylor offers his review here.
Without getting into Lakoff's thesis (about which I will probably have more to say later) I thought that his attempt to create a ten word summation of the "vision" of the progressive movement was important enough to re-post here.
The conservatives have figured out their own values, principles, and directions, and have gotten them out in the public mind so effectively over the past thirty years that they can evoke them all in a ten-word philosophy: Strong Defense, Free Markets, Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, Family Values. We progressives have a different ten-word philosophy, but it won't be as meaningful yet because it will take us a while to get our values, principles, and directions out there. My nomination for our ten-word philosophy versus theirs is the following:
PROGRESSIVES CONSERVATIVES Stronger America Strong Defense Broad Prosperity Free Markets Better Future Lower Taxes Effective Government Smaller Government Mutal Responsibility Family Values
Lakoff is all about framing, so as an experiment, I constructed a another table with opposites of these values (i.e., we're for a Stronger America, so you are for a Weaker America).
| PROGRESSIVES | Opposite | CONSERVATIVES | Opposite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stronger America | Weaker America | Strong Defense | Weak Defense |
| Broad Prosperity | Selective/Stratified Prosperity | Free Markets | Restricted Markets |
| Better Future | Worse Future | Lower Taxes | Higher Taxes |
| Effective Government | Ineffective Government | Smaller Government | Bigger Government |
| Mutal Responsibility | Selfishness | Family Values | Immorality |
posted by Luke Francl @ 8:34 PM |
| 
10 Comments:
*applause*
I've been really excited about Lakoff lately. As soon as I'm bored with Robert McChesney's Rich Media, Poor Democracy I'm going to get into this book or Moral Politics.
I like your ten. The only one I wonder about is "broad prosperity." I mean, who's not for that right? But it sounds like a flattening of wealth (which it is), dangerously close to socialism. I wonder if the words "fair" and "opportunity" could be leveraged to get at the same idea in a different way.
Decaf9,
I was just trying to show what the conceptual opposite of the philosophy is.
The idea being that Democrats believe the opposite of Republicans, so if Republicans are for a "Strong Defense", well, the opposite of that is a Weak Defense.
Regarding "Stronger America", Lakoff chose that term so it applies not just to the military but to all aspects of strenght: a healthy environment, good schools, economic prosperity, etc. So a local candidate would be able to say that he's for a Stronger America by listing those things.
Right, and don't you think those local Republicans get elected in part because of "Strong Defense"? We're talking about core values here -- they need to be represented all the way down the line if we're going to compete with Republicans. A local candidate has to be able to say "I'm concerned about a stronger America... building and improving our community and making it a place worth living in and defending."
Well, it is just his suggestion ("nomination") he calls it.
What's your Ten Word Philosophy for the progressive movement?
Yeah, I like the bright/better future idea. That's definitely something that differentiates us. Conservatives borrow from the future (economically) and look to the past (morally).
One thing the Republicans have gotten really good at is tying politics and policy together. A great example is the "tort reform" Bush has been highlighting lately. We know from the CBO report (or maybe it was GAO), that tort reform isn't likely to actually cut healthcare costs. What it will do though is simultaneously punish strong democratic donors (trial lawyers) and reward strong republican donors (insurance companies). Plus “frivolous lawsuits” is a pretty easy talking point to make.
It may not fit in with your 10-word philosophy, but I think we need to figure out popular legislation that achieves our policy goals and also hurts the republican donor base. The best thing I can come up with is environmental legislation in the form of pollution control.
Anon,
Yeah, good point. Lakoff talks about that in his book. He calls them "slippery slope" initiatives. With one public goal, they aim to achieve another (private) goal. It's hard to fight against directly.
Lakoff talks about the "tort reform" in the book, as well as another examples: deficits as a mechanism for cutting social spending.
I haven't got my copy with me here, but he suggests that progressives fight back against this by reframing (of course) -- "torts" become "public protection" -- and by coming up with some slippery slope proposals of our own, like the Apollo Initiative for energy independence. I would also suggest that health care (particularly for children) is a progressive slippery slope initiative that would further our goals of providing more effective government and a better future for everyone.
Cool. I have to pick up that book.
It's only $10, but its short. I read it in a few hours. I think it's worth the money, though.
The book explicity states that the proposed themes are not yet accepted as are the conservative themes such as lower taxes and smaller government. Work and money must be invested to acquaint people to these ideas. I think his goals are interesting, but this is just the beginning of a discussion. Another aspect that liberals must bare in mind is the effectiveness of attacking your enemies perceived strength. Conservatives assume the advantage on war, but there is no reason for this. They have assumed it, and most liberals have ceded the ground. The current Republican majority in Congress has become what they fought against in the 1980's: currupt, wasteful, and incompetent. Their incompetence in Iraq is directly tied to their ideology: distaste for nation-building, distrust of international institutions, extreme secrecy, and strident partisanship (compliments to bienart on this intriguing observation).
Post a Comment
<< Home