Compassion over Controversy

Posted on October 27, 2004 in Campaign 2004 Social Justice

Who would you rather have as a parent? A taskmaster who beats you every time you look at him cross-eyed or a firm, loving counselor who strives to help you develop your strengths while directing you away from life’s pitfalls?

George Lakoff raised a furor not so long ago when he talked about characteristics of the conservative mind. Many thought it an assertion that they were insane. The list didn’t look good: fear, use of force, and an emphasis on punishment were among the highlights of the mindset. Central to the notion was the idea that the word of the father was unquestionable:

In a Strict Father family, there’s a background assumption that the world is a dangerous and difficult place; that there is competition; that there always will be winners and losers, and that this is a good thing; and that children are born bad and have to be made good. “Bad” meaning that they will just do what feels good rather than what’s right. The assumption is that the only way this situation can be dealt with is through a Strict Father who protects the family in the dangerous world, supports it in the difficult world, wins the competitions, and teaches his kids right from wrong.

You can undoubtably see the Rod being sprung in this model and the lack of moral control over the actions of the Father. The effect of this model is that it keeps the world just as Father wants it to be: ugly. When Father wrecks things, that is just how things are. There can be no checks or balances on the parent. Which is why you don’t see conservatives criticizing George W. Bush: they can’t even though it is apparent that he is out of control. Talk about the Elephant in the Living Room!

Liberals put the accent on empathy and responsibility, on two parents consulting one another on decisions, and on making a good life possible for the child. If the opinions of violent criminals are any indication, children turned out in the liberal model seldom end up in jail because they are taught respect for others and responsibility for their own actions. In this model, the parents can be held accountable. Which is why you see Democrats prosecuting Democrats for corruption and seldom see Republicans doing the same to Republicans.

---

Daniel Redwood’s interview with Lakoff is a must read. One of my favorite passages is this:

Redwood: The Republicans have passed a number of laws with names that reflect very conscious efforts to frame the issues in ways I find profoundly misleading. Ones that come to mind are the USA Patriot Act, the Clear Skies Initiative, and the Healthy Forests Initiative. How can Democrats respond to those without strengthening the Republican framing of the issue each time we repeat the name of the law?

Lakoff :The first thing to do is not repeat the name. But let me talk a bit about the use of those names. There are two very different uses of language by conservatives. There’s one use of language that really fits what they believe. For example, they really do believe in “tax relief.” They really do believe that taxation is an affliction.

However, [Republican pollster and consultant] Frank Luntz is very clear on the issue of other uses of language. For example, last year he put out a [confidential] discussion of global warming. He basically said look, we’re losing on global warming. The Democrats have the science on their side and if Republicans are going to win, we’re going to have to do it through language. Then he points out that there are certain words that all environmentalists like because they contain environmental frames. The words are “healthy,” “clean,” and “safe.” And he says whenever you’re talking about the environment, use the words healthy, clean, and safe. That will get the environmentalists on your side. Even if you’re talking about nuclear power plants, coal plants, use these words. And, in fact, they do.

This is a use of language that is Orwellian: that is, it says the opposite of what it means. What Luntz teaches us here [unintentionally] is that you use those words when you’re weak. That is, you use language that is the opposite of what you really mean when the public is not supporting you. So, for example, they could not have called the act that increased pollution the Dirty Air Act. However, progressives can do that. The way they point to the weakness is by changing the name. Call it the Dirty Air Act! Call it the Loosening of Liberties Act. Call it the Forest Destruction Act or the Leave No Tree Behind Act. Or the Dead Billionaires Payback Act. You want to change the name to fit the reality and make an issue of it because the Republicans are actually weak there.

I believe I have made this point before. Don’t let them choose the words. Rename everything they do to fit the reality. For a start, let’s call it The Enslavement Society.

---

Likewise, we should not jump to join those who saddle Christians with Fundamentalism. Lakoff recognizes that Leftists need to organize Christian progressives if they want to achieve their values of a harmonious society. Putting to work Lakoff’s renaming principle, I say that we use this slogan when speaking about the Liberal approach (so nicely evoked by John Kerry in the second debate) to abortion: Compassion not Controversy. They’ll join us if we make it clear that we’re against the screaming and for the mother, whatever decision she chooses to make. Liberals are the force in American society that offers to help the unwed mother raise her child if she chooses. Conservatives are never there for those they consider odd or outcast.

Think about how George W. Bush and the achristian wRong use this issue and the taunt “Adoption not Abortion”. It all comes back to the Ogre (a better name for what conservatives call the “Father” who must not be embarassed in any way or denied children or women to enslave.) In the Liberal Model, you retain your empathy for the sinner and hold her accountable for being a good parent. It’s not an immoral copout and never has been. Lakoff explains quite well how this came to be. Read him to understand what we must do beginning today to reclaim our country from the achristian wRong.