European Tribune

George Lakoff's take on Sarah Palin

by ARGeezer
Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 at 07:19:35 PM EST

George puts the Palin pick in context and points a way to an effective response.  Will Obama take it?


The Palin Choice and the Reality of the Political Mind

George Lakoff
The Huffington Post,  September 2, 2008

Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their vice presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be taken with the utmost seriousness.


The Democratic response so far is a mixed bag at best, but there are effective responses available. More below the fold.

 


The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced...about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist...; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.

All true, so far as we can tell.

But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of the political mind.

The Obama campaign has done this very well so far. The convention events and speeches were orchestrated both to cast light on external realities, traditional political themes, and to focus on values at once classically American and progressive: empathy, responsibility both for oneself and others, and aspiration to make things better both for oneself and the world. Obama did all this masterfully in his nomination speech, while replying to, and undercutting, the main Republican attacks.

But the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities...the "issues,"... But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind -- the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.

Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with family values at the center of our discourse. There is a reason why Obama and Biden spoke so much about the family, the nurturant family, with caring fathers and the family values that Obama put front and center in his Father's day speech: empathy, responsibility and aspiration. Obama's reference in the nomination speech to "The American Family" was hardly accidental, nor were the references to the Obama and Biden families as living and fulfilling the American Dream. Real nurturance requires strength and toughness, which Obama displayed in body language and voice in his responses to McCain. The strength of the Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic thought.

The Republican strength has been mostly symbolic. The McCain campaign is well aware of how Reagan and W won -- running on character: values, communication, (apparent) authenticity, trust, and identity -- not issues and policies. That is how campaigns work, and symbolism is central.

Lakoff titles the first chapter of The Political Mind "Anna Nicole on the Brain" and makes the point that you cannot understand how US politics works unless you can understand the phenomenon of Anna Nicole Smith. He could as easily used Sara Palin to illustrate and now applies those insights to her role in the campaign.

Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin.

Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan's morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she is running for Sweetheart of the West.

-Skip-

At the same time, Palin is masterful at the Republican game of taking the Democrats' language and reframing it -- putting conservative frames to progressive words: Reform, prosperity, peace. She is also masterful at using the progressive narratives: she's from the working class, working her way up from hockey mom and the PTA to mayor, governor, and VP candidate. Her husband is a union member. She can say to the conservative populists that she is one of them -- all the things that Obama and Biden have been saying. Bottom-up, not top-down.

Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so good at marketing. Just arguing the realities, the issues, the hard truths should be enough in times this bad, but the political mind and its response to symbolism cannot be ignored. The initial Democratic response to Palin -- the response based on realities alone -- indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years.

What the Obama campaign or some surrogate needs to do to turn the tables on the Republicans:  Appeal to the bi-conceptuals.  There is no "middle" between the conservatives and the liberals.  We only have two brain modes--the conservative, authoritarian, hierarchical family model and the progressive nutritive family model.  There are, however, lots of people who use one model on some things and the other model on others.  These are the "bi-conceptuals" and it is in their brains that the campaign will be won or lost.

They have not learned the nature of conservative populism. A great many working-class folks are what I call "bi-conceptual," that is, they are split between conservative and progressive modes of thought. Conservative on patriotism and certain social and family issues, which they have been led to see as "moral," progressive in loving the land, living in communities of care, and practical kitchen table issues like mortgages, health care, wages, retirement, and so on.

Conservative theorists won them over in two ways: inventing and promulgating the idea of "liberal elite" and focusing campaigns on social and family issues. They have been doing this for many years and have changed a lot of brains through repetition. Palin will appeal strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism.

What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about each other and working together for a better future -- empathy, responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration. These lead to a concept of government based on protection (environmental, consumer, worker, health care, and retirement protection) and empowerment (through infrastructure, public education, the banking system, the stock market, and the courts). Nobody can achieve the American Dream or live an American lifestyle without protection and empowerment by the government. The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That is not what American democracy has ever been about.

What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values.

The Obama campaign appears to know what it is doing when it comes to basic framing of the campaign.  The real question is if they can counter the Republican use of symbols and if they can or will convincingly portray the attitudes of McCain and Palin as the extreme views that they are.  If the field of Ideas or Worldviews is left for the Republicans alone to define, the Democrats will almost certainly loose.

The Obama Campaign could do far worse than to hire Lakoff as a master consultant and listen to him.  An alternative would be to match Lakoff with a campaign operative such as James Carvele and a source of funding, such as Move On or some 526 organization.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Cross-posted to Booman

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 at 07:26:58 PM EST
I love Lakoff's work.

Thanks for bringing this here.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 07:14:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lakoff's article builds on the model and terminology introduced in his book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think
a 1996 book by cognitive linguist George Lakoff[, it] argues that conservatives and liberals hold two different conceptual models of morality. Conservatives have a Strict Father morality in which people are made good through self-discipline and hard work. Liberals have a Nurturant Parent morality which sees people as something to be cared for and assisted.

(The first edition of the book was published with the subtitle What conservatives know that liberals don't.)



A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 07:12:20 AM EST
I'm starting to think Lakoff is a bit behind the times on this. That may have been conservatism a generation ago, but today's conservatism seems to be more about control for the sake of it.

It has much more to do with the authoritarian model, where people deal with internal chaos by attempting to dominate and control the world around them. It's reactionary in a literal sense because it's driven by emotion, not strategy.

The goal isn't effective action in the outside world, it's the frantic maintenance of a fragile self image. There's no strategy because the image has to be maintained moment to moment, so each new challenge is dealt with reactively.

Which is why Repblicans are more interested in symbols of effectiveness than in actual performance. They vote for whoever makes them feel good, not for whoever will do a good job. They like guns and blowing shit up because that makes them feel fleetingly potent, even if the long term result is less actual safety.

This kind of reactive consciousness makes ten kinds of double-think possible, and because there's so much reaction and emotion happening none of it looks rational from the outside.

It also describes the religious inflation of the fundies. The personality becomes split. One half identifies with godlike omnipotence. 'God says' becomes a stand-in for 'I say and I want', and America becomes the greatest country on earth.

The other half is cowering in terror from perceived threats, and hating anyone who can challenge that inflation and bring it to earth. Which is why torture is fine - it's reassuring that maybe some of that power is real after all.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:01:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have seen that criticism of "W" and his style.  The sort of harsh upbringing that was the norm a century ago and remains among so many of the fundamentalists can give rise to individuals who have difficulty maintaining integration of their egos in the face of threats or of personal failure.  Some refer to such individuals as having "borderline personalities," the borderline being between relative stability and psychotic collapse.

In my reading during the 70s I found descriptions that closely matched what I observed in people I was trying to understand.  Borderline personalities can be charismatic, but put them in charge at your peril.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 11:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've only read one of Lakoff's books, but I think his response to that might be that that's what they want you to think.

You're probably spot-on with the top Republicans, but if I had to summarise Lakoff in a paragraph, it would be that the average Republican voter doesn't, however it may appear, live in a different, completely amoral universe.   Because, if that were true, there would be no hope.  But their metaphors and therefore their thoughts are structured differently and liberals need to take this into account, as the right has always done, in order to get the point across and appeal to universal (American) values.

by Sassafras on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 05:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that applies only to a small-ish percentage of people voting republican, and I see the same thing among many leftists - where doomerism and fatalism are a representation of their own internal chaos more than a realistic, dispassionate read of what is going on in the external world.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 09:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Purely dispassionately, the mainstream left since has been infinitely better at predicting outcomes realistically than the right has.

The right has denied that cigarettes cause cancer, that climate change is a genuine problem, that peak oil is inevitable, that the wars in Iraq, Vietnam and others will be epic disasters, that media deregulation will be bad for democracy, and that squandering resources might not be a good thing.

The right also denied the existence of the credit bubble, of the dot com bubble, of the housing bubble, and has been desperately trying to pretend that outsourcing and wage cuts are good for the economy.

It was so-called doomers on the left who pointed out the truth about all of these, while the right tried to bury the facts.

There's nothing doomy or chaotic about accepting that world peace and prosperity don't seem imminent, and that there are interesting political, economic, ecological, and practical problems that have to be solved before peace starts to become likely - and we can stop spending a trillion a year on war which could be spent on far more interesting and exciting things.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with your comment, but it's not what I was getting at. I'm talking about the 9-11 conspiracy theorists and those who were saying after the 2006 election that "the republicans won't cede control of congress back to the democrats." These views are driven by emotional chaos.

It's reactionary in a literal sense because it's driven by emotion, not strategy.

But this applies to leftists as well. I will only cede that those voting for right wing candidates are on average slightly more biased towards their views being formed by emotion.

Which is why Republicans are more interested in symbols of effectiveness than in actual performance. They vote for whoever makes them feel good, not for whoever will do a good job.

Clinton got a lot of votes based on charisma. Obama's campaign is largely emotionally driven, and his charisma is specifically what got him to where he is now.

The other half is cowering in terror from perceived threats, and hating anyone who can challenge that inflation and bring it to earth.

And those who aim their fear and terror inward - those who would rather themselves be hurt than others - are more likely to vote left wing / democrat.

There are degrees of difference between right and left wing voters, which is why Lakoff's writing is worth paying attention to, but it's not as binary as you want it to be.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 11:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
MillMan:
I'm talking about the 9-11 conspiracy theorists and those who were saying after the 2006 election that "the republicans won't cede control of congress back to the democrats." These views are driven by emotional chaos.

No they weren't because the Republicans haven't ceded control of Congress back to the Democrats, except in a nominal and superficial sense.

That election was supposed to have consequences - specifically accountability, and an end to funding for the Iraq war - and that simply hasn't happened. Bush has vetoed bills, scribbled in notes on the side of the paper when he's wanted to, and his officers have ignored all serious attempts to bring them to any kind of justice. There's been almost every possible attempt to destroy checks and balances and set up a unitary executive. While there's been more debate about this in Congress than there would have been in the previous Congress, there's been very little genuine action.

Funding for Iraq has continued, there's been FISA, impeachment of the worst president in history has been put off the table and it's been left to people considered kooks - like Kucinich - to try to make it happen.

The chaos has very much been in the outside world on this. When you have a president who describes the most important document in a country's political history as 'just a piece of paper', says it would be much more convenient if it didn't exist, and tries hard to act as if that were true, a little hysteria isn't entirely out of place.

MillMan:

Clinton got a lot of votes based on charisma. Obama's campaign is largely emotionally driven, and his charisma is specifically what got him to where he is now.

Sure. Policy-based voters are maybe only 20% of the population. But you're missing the point that Ds and Rs rely on different kinds of emotional appeals to reach the rest. The Rs always emphasis phoney self-reliance and self-determination while actually preaching an insane gospel of 'Other people are scary and bad, and we don't believe your actions should have consequences.'

It doesn't even make sense as a meme, but it's the basis of all republican campaigning.

Ds today are more likely to try to use charisma as a payload for realistic management - if only because they'll have read Lakoff and realised they have to.

With Rs it's all charisma, all the time, and there's nothing inside it - it's the politics of personalities who have no real experience or policy skills and can only win power through threats, manipulation and cynical sales techniques.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 04:13:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where the hell are the Obama surrogates in the Dem. party?  Why aren't they speaking out more?

McCain/Palin ... total sacks of SHIT!
by THE Twank (paszeski__aaaaaaatttttt__yahoo.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 07:46:07 AM EST
Helen:
Obama has been signaling to back off on Sarah Palin


A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 07:49:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Whenever I think that Dems should do this or that, they do exactly nothing. I am completely out of touch, even if eventually right. Shall I just expect the same outcomes?

Now again, they completely refuse to define the reality of Sarah Palin's candidacy. They just let definitions to anyone else - the voters, the media and GOP itself. Instead of straight scrutiny of Palin's experience (for beginning), the media is offered lousy sexy stories. If I were to plan Obama's failure, I would do exactly that!

What is happening is that Palin's nomination gets accepted without any concerned protests or high brows. Dems cooperate exactly what conservatives need. As I already mentioned, McCain's decision signals that there is nothing abnormal or urgent with economic and political situations in America (and the world). Even a fresh governor from Alaska would be a fine president! Dems seem concur here as well. Besides lonely Gore, I never saw a Dem politician trying to argue that something extraordinary is happening. It shouldn't be so hard to point to some real agenda of McCain (and his backers). Will Dems ever try to communicate that?

by das monde on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 01:10:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think Lakoff is giving Dems enough credit here, even if most of the heavy lifting is being done by the press.  She's being defined negatively, and they're creating too many distractions around that for the Republicans to keep their message straight.

What they need to do now is define her as a trojan horse.  The pretty face of the Culture of Corruption.

And keep ramping up the "Palin is batshit crazy" stories.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 07:48:41 AM EST
... be on the Republican's side here. The juicy gossip that they love so much may simply overwhelm the "hockey mom who hunts wolves and eats mooseburgers" stuff that McCain might have been counting on in the thirty minutes he spent making the decision.

And of course, in American politics, attacking the VP pick is a sport played for 2% or 3% of the vote, with the actual swing within that range often in the hard to detect tenths of a percent ... while attacking the judgment of the nominee making the VP pick can be a game played for the main prize of a big win in the electoral college and a "mandate" in Congress.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FT.com: Palin is a true feminist role model (by Chrystia Freeland on September 2 2008)
During the Democratic primaries, Gloria Steinem, pioneering feminist and Hillary Clinton supporter, argued that the contest had revealed that gender was "probably the most restricting force in American life". She illustrated her point by imagining a female version of Barack Obama and contending that no woman with such a slender biography would be considered seriously for the presidency.

It is now clear that Ms Steinem was right - although proof comes not from the treatment of the Democratic lioness Mrs Clinton but from the responses, particularly on the left, to the Republican newcomer Sarah Palin. Less than 24 hours after the triumphant close of a convention that nominated a 47-year-old first-term senator as its party's candidate to be president of the United States, Democratic heavyweights were sputtering with horror at the idea of a 44-year-old, first-term governor as Republican vice-presidential nominee.

As the Democrats absorb Senator McCain's truly maverick decision, I suspect we will hear less of this "experience" argument. Governor Palin, who took on her own party's good ole boys and won, has as much of a record of political achievement as does Senator Obama: running a state, no matter how sparsely populated, is a bigger executive job than being a senator. More­over, you do not have to be Karl Rove to point out that the inexperienced candidate on the Republican ticket is running to be vice-president, not commander-in-chief.

Have at it.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:12:39 AM EST
Migeru:
running a state, no matter how sparsely populated, is a bigger executive job than being a senator.

Is it really? Are people happy with how she ran it?

Although I honestly would file an issue like this under my "so what?" category.

by Nomad on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is a common point made in US political analysis: Senators are prominen political personalities but presidents are more likely to have been former Governors than former Senators because the Senator is a legislative position and both President and Governor are executive positions.

I don't know to what extent the correlation holds, or what the real cause is of the correlation (perhaps a similarity in the say a Presidential and a Gubernatorial election campaign are conducted, compared to Senatorial races?).

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's because senators have to vote on huge, complex bills, so it's easy to play Gotcha.  You might vote for a transportation bill that includes an earmark for (say) a tunnel on I-87 or whatever in West Virginia.  Suddenly that means you are a pork-barrel spender, even if the rest of the bill was good.

You also have the complex voting of the Senate, in which John Kerry votes for a bill that provides Iraq money with higher taxes, and then votes against the ones that doesn't include the tax hikes.  Thus Kerry "did vote for the $87bn before I voted against it."

Governors' actions are cleaner.  You sign or veto the bill, and you have an easier time controlling the message.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:34:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
While there may be some meat to the idea that a Governor of four years has superior experience to a Senator of four years one must also consider the previous years.  Obama was a state legislator before he was in the United States senate.  Illinois has the third largest city in the United States, Chicago.  To represent that state and that city in any type of government is significant experience that can effectively prepare you for greater challenges in government.

Palin was the mayor of a tiny town just a few years ago.  Alaska consists of a small, isolated population and the kinds of challenges and decisions she was faced with pale in comparison to anything you would find in a larger state.

Further a representative of a district and a state (as is the case with Obama in the US Senate) not only represents that state but also the entire country.  A US Senator is a national politician.  Their job is to run the Federal government.  There are only 100 Senators.  Four years is sufficient time to get the hang of it.  

Anyway, this fact is being pissed on by the US media and the Republican party.  The willingness to suspend reality and accept anything somebody says often enough and loud enough is actually TAKING OVER political discourse here.  This is a terrifying reality and one that some of us have seen coming from a mile away but still lousy to have to watch unfold in front of our own eyes.  Should this tactic be victorious in November the stark reality will come crashing down, that this is no longer our country and we have to move on until the time comes when we can return.

by paving on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 12:57:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nevermind that Palin's record as an elected official is abysmal and littered with ethical challenges, legal investigations for abuse of power and outright lying.  She's barely been governor for 18 months and she's already in serious trouble.
by paving on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 12:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Plus Alaska is a very, very different type of place - they get all their money off of oil royalties, rather than taxing people they pay them money to live there. It's not like she was governor of California for a year and a half.

On Obama's side you've got that grueling campaign, which is a huge operation that he's managed quite well. It's also required him to familiarize himself with all sorts of issues, all over the country. In this case the justification behind America's grotesquely drawn out election process actually had some truth to it.

by MarekNYC on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 01:10:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's the FT. Why would anyone expect anything other than kookiness and lies from it?

This is so relentlessly silly and ignorant it's not even worth debunking in detail.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:45:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who is more influential, Freeland in the FT or Lakoff in the Huffington Post?

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course she's influential. She's a talking head who repeats the party line.

That's precisely why she's in a position of influence - she's a capitalist apparatchik in an expensive business suit. Someone with more heterodox views wouldn't be allowed within a few hundred miles of her job.

That doesn't absolve her of kookiness or being misinformed (at best) or disingenuous (at worst.)

In the longer term she's just an echo in the echo chamber, not an original voice. It's the original voices who are remembered and have real influence, even if it takes a generation or two before that influence has an effect.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:58:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of course, as with any executive position, two years is not enough time to tell how well they can run a state ... there are plenty of governors who were popular at year two and reviled by the end of their term.

Indeed, the most popular thing that Palin did was to change the oil tax in a way that increased revenue at the same time that crude oil prices were spiking, resulting in a flood of revenue. That's the source of the $1,200 checks that are being sent out to each Alaskan.

Note that increased taxes on Oil Companies and spreading the proceeds as a dividend to each and every American is not be the McCain plan ... the McCain plan is to cut taxes on oil companies.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with family values at the center of our discourse. ...

Some familiarity with C.G. Jung literature, attempting to establish empirically archetypal events and collective unconscious, would be helpful in reading Lakoff's critiques of "modern" social institutions. One of the greatest weaknesses of Lakoff's "analyses" is that the recognition of a dogmatic symbol is insufficient in itself to prompt either recognition of neurotic behavior or remedial action at the behest of either analysant or analyst. Whether mass psychotherapy is possible or practicable is question best left unanswered by "elite" political agents who obtain and retain privileges by maintaing delusions of sociology.

Jung is quite clear as to the instrumentality of religion and materialism --an other "isms"-- in compensating instinctive impulses and "forms without content" (symbols). His observations of paradox ("There are, however, lots of people who use one model on some things and the other model on others," you note.) and syzgy in semantic performances are more controversial, being vulnerable to accusations of mystic rationale by technocrats.

The strength of the Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic thought. ...

I disagree to the extent Mr Lakoff is capable of differentiating "Obama campaign" operations (reality) from "Obama campaign" rhetoric (symbolic thought). Further, a "seamless marriage" of these disparate events is not demonstrable in the texts that comprise Mr Obama's professional career prior to and after commencement of the "Obama campaign." To raise contradictory evidence to a conscious resolution presupposes a "dialectical procedure ...an inner colloquy" which risks, or endangers, the psychic comforts of symbolism, manufactured by broadcast media and inculcated in individuals by psychological intimacies.

Incidentally, "You're on your own" (YoYo) is an aphorism, coined by Jared Bernstein who is affiliated with the Economic Policy Institute, a couple years ago to describe domestic and "free trade" market failures. It was not however a motif, adopted tacitly or explicitly acknowledged by Mr Obama in his speeches, until accepting the DP nomination. In review of those texts, one will find language insulating familiar (monetary and fiscal) policy prescriptives privatizing profits, socializing risks. Read for example "Blueprint for America's Working Women and Families".

The [politically conservative] tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism. ...

Evidently, what Mr Lakoff objects to most is the content --latter day "extreme" Protestantism or evangelical culture-- of a form, called democratic government. The structural reality is however republic --"elite" domination of law and order-- leaving this reader in awe of his command of any history of US political economy ("what American democracy has ever been about"), generally, and criticism of McCain/Palin candidacy, representing the Puritan ethos of being "American," in particular.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by MarketTrustee (pbing@estudioinc.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:16:02 AM EST
For what it's worth, in Lakoff metaphor is a highly technical term with a well-defined meaning:
In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain in terms of another, for example, understanding quantity in terms of directionality (e.g. "prices are rising"). A conceptual domain can be any coherent organization of human experience. The regularity with which different languages employ the same metaphors, which are often appear perceptually based, has led to the hypothesis that the mapping between conceptual domains correspond to neural mappings in the brain

This idea, and a detailed examination of the underlying processes, was first extensively explored by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their work Metaphors We Live By. Other cognitive scientists study subjects similar to conceptual metaphor under the labels "analogy" and "conceptual blending."

This may or may not be compatible with other meanings of metaphor, e.g. in jung.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I wish I were sufficiently well-read to perform a smoking hot comparative study of "the meanings of meaning" described by different linguists, semioticians, psychoanalysts, cognitive psychologists, or "cognitive linguists" such as Lakoff whose theories are proscribed by artifactual phenomena. I'm just not that quick digging through the primary references.

Firstly, metaphor is a name for a cognitive process, i.e. a conceptual or imaginary event. What Lakoff defines "technically" is a distinction without difference in functionality. Piaget pretty much laid out --in highly technical terms-- processes of reasoning (cognition) over, like, six decades of experimental research; many mods owe their theories of "mapping" to his documentation of capability and capacity.

But consider this common reference to metaphor.

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates [sign, name, word] one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison [of what? concepts].

(Read Lacan, Barthes on "figure of speech" and instrumentality.)

2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol.

A discursion here on terminology "symbol" and "sign" and "syntax" and "semantic" usages and assignment to taxonomies of languages (various media) as well as speech competence and performance would be welcome here to draw attention to a rudimentary dichotomy evident in academic literature and as yet experimental sciences for some time.

Structure and interpretation: speaker and hearer.

Jung writes in "The concept of the collective unconscious" that symbol is the form of archetype.

There are as many archetypes as there are typical situations in life. Endless repitition has engraved these experiences into our psychic constitution, not in the form of images filled with content, but at first only as forms without content, representing merely the possibility of a certain type of perception and action. [1936: 48]

He expresses subjective "activation" pathologically in "The archetypes and the collective unconscious" where the archetype of meaning is the impulse to interpret. Lakoff asks How (e.g. "domain")? Jung asks Why?

It always seems to us as if meaning --compared with life-- were the younger event, because we assume, with some justification, that we assign it of ourselves, and because we believe, equaly rightly no doubt, that the great world can get along without being interpreted. But how do we assign meaning? From what source, in the last analysis, do we derive meaning? The forms we use for assigning meaning are historical categories that reach back into the mists of time --a fact we do not take sufficiently into account. Interpretations make use of certain linguistic matrices that are themselves derived from primordial images. From whatever side we approach this question, everywhere we find ourselves confronted with the history of language, with images and motifs [symbols] that lead us straight back to the primitive wonder-world. [1934: 32]

Second, consider the wiki article explanation of the term, "conceptual metaphor," as if a speech act were in any case a concrete object. Piaget might say this term  demonstrates "participatory realism," an infantile phase of cognitive development, when the name [sign, word] of a thing is apprehended as the thing.

A primary tenet of this theory is that metaphors are matter of thought and not merely of language: hence, the term conceptual metaphor.

The emphasis here is on an elision (a form of metaphor ;) --"not merely (the reproduction of) of language"-- denoting where linguistic canon has attenuated its study of speech acts to form (sign) and grammar (structure). Elision is one universal phenomenon that informs Chomsky et al. theories of innate or physiological structure of generative grammar.

Anyway, I wouldn't say Lakoff's and Jung's are lines of inquiry incompatible. I would say Lakoff's not terribly sophisticated. And I suspect that inadequacies of interpretations of symbols is the product of a long life of academic sequestration, "silo" intellectual history. Gracious! I know a couple for example, an engineer and physician, who've heard of Joyce but never, ever read a word of Joyce.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by MarketTrustee (pbing@estudioinc.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 02:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have referred to Carl Jung's work with respect to Palin in a comment on another diary, having found one of his Architypes rather fully realized in McCain and Palin.  This would be John the Baptist and Salome: the older prophet in company with an erotic young woman.

I found Jung to be interesting, even though I disagree with the direction some of his work takes.  I found his discussion of Architypes particularly compelling and helpful in understanding a series of dreams that I found to be profoundly integrative.  Hard to deny direct personal experience.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I wouldn't characterize myself as a Jungian acolyte. But I do recognize the axiomatic value of  observation that he contributed to psychology, literature of the mind. Firstly, his investigation of recuring symbols in dreams (personal experience) and material culture (public experience) triggered an significant break with Freud's maniacal interest in sexual pathology. I perceive now that Jung's definition of archetype, latent instinct or genetic expression of ideation, created an academic environment for discussions of "meme." The lectures are interesting reading, and I find his interest in comparative religion quite reasonable; after all, organized religion is both an historical and universal vehicle of psychological events, imaginary and physical. I don't know anything about Jung personal life. Biography never much interested me. I can't say why, other than a conviction that each human being is unique, singular.

So meme like Herod or Jung, objects, too, is a symbol in search of content, meaning, historicizing interpretation.

As for Ana Nicole and Palin, symbols of delusion: I recently finished Cokie Robert's torrid historiography Founding Mothers, the women who raised our nation. A ridiculous exercise in reproducing gossip about contemporary political figures exchanged by their perennially pregnant wives and "single parents". I suppose there's some lesson in that.

With women's education becoming more widespread [after the Anglo-US civil war], women like Judith Sarget Murray writing regularly about the status of her sex, and Mercy Otis Warren promoting her book, educated American women [?!] were ready targets when Mary Wollstonecrafts' Vindication of the Rights of Women torpedoed in from England in 1792. The though the call for women's political and civil rights stirred up a torrent of controversy, it was Wollstonecraft's personal life that attracted the most vituperative attacks [?!], since she was known to have had one illigitimate child and to have conceived a second child before she married the baby's father. (That child, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, grew up to write Frankenstein and marry Percy Byssher Shelley.)

Despite one politician's [?!] dismissal of her as "a vulgar, impudent hussy," everybody read Mary Wollstonecraft. Aaron Burr told his wife (he had married his friend Mrs Prevost, the widow of an English soldier) that 'I made haste to procure it, and spent the last night, almost the whole of it, in reading it." Eliza [G. Washington's BFF] Powel's diary records a purchase of the Vindication. Macking a crack to Abigail [G. Washington's BFF] about their son Thomas seeing too much of the ladies, John Adams interjected: "Pardon me! Disciple of Wollstonecraft." David Ramsay piously proclaimed that his wife, Martha Laurens Ramsay, read Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women but studied the Bible. Annis Stockton [G. Washington's BFF] told her daughter Julia Rush that she had had a hard time finding a copy of the work in Princeton ...

I ought not excite myself. Rather conserve to retrench until one of two events occurs, neither of which being the outcome of the 2008 POTUS election.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by MarketTrustee (pbing@estudioinc.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 03:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm curious to know Mr Lakoff's take now, because the Palins seem to have a Pastor Problem that might just top Jeremiah Wright with the Jewish community.

(in the voice of Larry King) "Century Village, Florida, hello!"

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
Yeah, the blogosphere is way too rational. Politics is not some sort of sophisticated and refined method of choosing qualified leaders. There are no political parties in the American Constitution, and George Washington warned us against them.  But the human demand for theatre, our need for stories to remember and tell and use to make sense of the world caused the parties to arise.  

They also facilitate our natural tendency to polarize issues and to compete.

The question the Republicans had to answer is;  
Who do we cast to fill the role to appeal to the audience who elected GWB ?  
Twice.

Politics ain't beanbag.  It's THEATRE.

It may be inspired casting, if she is a quick study.  We get to see how well she can speechify tonight !  She may be just the rock star they need !

She seems to have demonstrated the essential R sine qua non of  being able to grow small-town corruption to at least State level, now we see if she is ready to go National.

McCain is not out there to lose, he is out there to be a white guy, and the RIGGING of the Ship of State is still in place.

There are three very large categories of voters out there, who will:

  1. Always vote Republican
  2. Never vote for a Librul and
  3. Never vote for a person of color.

 If the Houyhnhnms outnumber the Yahoos this time, it will be the first time.

And I would never underestimate a beautiful woman, with rock-solid conservative credentials, who knows how to shoot...probably even better than Cheney.

Greatferm

by greatferm (greatferm-at-email.com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 01:25:52 PM EST
There are no political parties in the American Constitution, and George Washington warned us against them.  But the human demand for theatre, our need for stories to remember and tell and use to make sense of the world caused the parties to arise.  

Parties are not the problem, they're a pragmatic necessity, for much the same reasons labour unions are.

The problem is FPTP elections. They do Bad Things for your political culture...

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 01:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bill Maher showed her asking just what the duties of a Vice President were.  He answered: start wars, enrich your friends and shoot people in the face, judging from the current occupant of the office.  Shooting better than Cheney is a rather low bar.

Perhaps she will go down as the Spiro T. Agnew of the 21st century.  My only desideratum is that she take McCain down with her before they are elected.  I think McCain/Palin can be beat.  The question is whether the Obama Campaign and/or surrogates have the intelligence, knowledge of the political mind and the will to do what needs to be done.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 02:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If the McCain/Palin ticket can be beat it will be done by Obama/Biden.  If Obama can't defeat this ticket it is because the United States wants to go crazy.  Accept this reality and move on, I say!
by paving on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 01:02:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who do we cast to fill the role to appeal to the audience who elected GWB?

... given that the first audience did not elect him as much as get him close enough for a corrupt Republican establishment to take it, and the second audience in 2004 after experiencing the aftermath of Sept. 11 inside the US media bubble will be very hard to reproduce this year.

That was, in the end, a main reason why McCain outlasted his rivals in the Republican primary ... when all was said and done, he was seen as the one who could best appeal to the independents ... where given changes in party affiliation since 2004, many of those are disaffected former Republicans.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 at 08:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I disagree. McCain won the Republican nomination because large groups of the party vetoed every other candidate.  He was the compromise guy left after they shot everyone else down.  His military background carries a lot of weight with the macho set and you can tell from his "Country First" slogan that they are his audience.
by paving on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 01:05:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... left that will appeal to the middle without pissing off the base.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 01:43:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 
his "Country First" slogan

A substantial portion of his backers are hoping that he means "Country Club First!"  One doubts they will be too disappointed.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 03:34:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why do you seem to imply that the second audience elected Bush?
That too was major election rigging. He lost both elections, the 2004 one possibly by a bigger margin than the 2000 one.

"The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"
by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 04:57:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... in the second election, but with more practice they got better at hiding the evidence, so we will likely never know with certainty whether it was padding the margin or flipping the result. We know with confidence that Gore had enough votes to win a recount in Florida.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 06:32:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lakoff argues a lot that rationality does not work in politics anymore, but shouldn't he accentuate the "anymore" more? How was it that rational arguments did play some role before? What can be done to bring some rationality back?

Rational discourse favors realistic progressives over narrow focused conservative interests. It appears that lately those conservative impulses found a way to banalize rational reasoning (and yeah, within a restricted logic, their pro-market and social rationales are not outright false). Lakoff kind of advices to kiss the old good rationality goodbye, and embrace the modern cheerleading. But is it unthinkable to turn somewhat against that banalization current, and bring suitable rationality power back? I am not saying that this is an easy task; it's probably genuinely hard at this moment. But if the rational discourse would favor us, why not fight somehow for it? Again, I am not saying that the fight must be straightforward. And surely, charisma and symbolic matters should be taken seriously as well - but only a finite amount of theatrical competence should be needed.

The basic functionality of metaphors and symbols is for communication, nothing much deeper - and Lakoff does not crystallize this aspect clearly. Compared to conservatives, Dems are just playing with symbols, without knowing much what is working. Conservatives convey basic but essential messages - we are with you, we talk to you, we speak the same language, we want the same. This communication is more effective that rational argumentation - but deep down, it's just a more effective communication.

The fall of rational politics (and the rise of political theater) show certain good times as well - the world didn't need  thoughtful politics lately, we could get away with more political "fun", especially with new technical possibilities. Some coming hardships might bring the civilization back to reality - yet it would be nicer if that general realization would come sooner.

by das monde on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 02:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How was it that rational arguments did play some role before? What can be done to bring some rationality back?

It comes down to modern psychology and its offshoot, propaganda. Manipulation is a built-in tool of the human mind, but conscious, directed use and mass dissemination of ideas didn't appear until the 20th century. The public has developed some counter-measures, but in particular when the majority of the world's media aims at the 20th IQ percentile, we're stuck where we're at until something alters the dynamic which allows the media monopoly and its homogenized message to exist.  You can see positive change at daily kos, where the community as a whole is slowly bootstrapping itself out of the intellectually retarded morass it grew up with, and it is gaining public clout of the sort that can have influence among the broader public.

On a side note, I love looking at ads from the early to mid 20th century, because they often contain rational appeals (brand x is better than brand y for reason z). Today, advertising is purely emotionally driven (buy this product or you will never have sex again).

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 03:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Lakoff's ideas involve fighting fire with fire, which is fine for the medium term, but in the long run we need changes to the educational system to

  • develop children's minds to be more self-aware of emotional manipulation

  • allow children to develop in an atmosphere that does not allow corporate advertising to control mental development, as it does today

I cringe a bit at ideas that assume you (the reader) are smarter than everyone else, which Lakoff's writings implicitly assume.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 03:31:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not optimistic that the US educational system change into good with this political climate. Not only the ruling elites are "rationally" interested in keeping the rest of kids dumb, whatever they say in speeches. Good education is accepted as a profit generating industry by now; I wonder how much more the young generation is ripped off relatively. General education level is not taken seriously, really. Rather, education is creepily accepted as a strong differentiating factor in the "rat race".
by das monde on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 04:15:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Public K-12 education would have a very hard time teaching awareness of emotional appeals, especially in campaign ads.  It is locally run and in many locales this would be seen as almost subversive.  Programs that show how emotional appeals are made in commercial advertising would be a better way to go, but even that would be difficult to accomplish on any wide spread basis.

Such awareness is more likely to occur in college and should be part of the "General Education" core requirement.  Accomplishng even that would be a challenge.  But higher levels of education do correlate with a range of generally positive attitudes, from a progressive point of view.  For that reason alone efforts to increase the number of people who get Bachelors Degrees is a great plus.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The media manipulation is surely overwhelming, but there must be a "long tail" market for rational politics as well. Why no coherent intelligent alternative is not even offered? How much can we know how to oppose corporate propagandas if politicians are shy to even try?

Regarding the media, how much would it take to have some "rational" media counterweight? Is Murdoch's media really pandering to lowest denominators for profit, or is it stealthily educating for dumbness?

by das monde on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 04:23:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is Murdoch's media really pandering to lowest denominators for profit, or is it stealthily educating for dumbness?

Both? And I wouldn't call it "stealthy" either...

Castrating the corporate press is going to have to be the # 1 priority when the revolution comes.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 11:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A group of friends and I used to run a comedy "Top ten of those first up against the wall when the revolution comes" around the end of the eighties. I'll have to look out an old copy, when I', looking through all the old boxes.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 11:27:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh and no matter the other positions, Margret Thtcher was always in there somewhere , just in case.


Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Thu Sep 4th, 2008 at 11:35:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
spot on marek. i think there is a long tail of informed, intelligent students of current affairs, who would vote appropriately were there a suitable candidate or party to carry their memes into the forefront of the political scene.

but the road to getting there, by its media/money vicissitudes, self-selects only those who are willing to sell their souls.

very clever, shrewd operators can ride the line and pander to the status quo and inspire populist sentiments... obama is taking this to new levels, if he wins it'll be like watching someone tightrope niagara!

Peace is not the absence of war -- peace is the absence of fear. Ursula Franklin

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Sep 5th, 2008 at 04:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]