Here are some customer reviews of
Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think
: I found this book very enlightening, but also a bit depressing.I now understand exactly why it is pointless (as a liberal) to argue with conservatives about issues such as the deficit or corporate welfare, or about what I perceive as other inconsistencies within their own beliefs. Lakoff argues quite convincingly that our political views (liberal and conservative) are based not on some objective evaluation of the opposing sides of various issues, but on deeply internalized feelings about the rightness of one's "worldview." Once I understood his argument, a great many things started to make sense to me that had never made sense before. I was never comfortable with characterizing all conservatives as "stupid" or "selfish," but now I understand why, while they are not necessarily stupid or selfish, I can never, ever agree with them! His prescription for liberals to "reframe" the issues by reclaiming the language of morality from conservatives is intriguing, but his two examples at the end of the book ("The Two-Tier Economy" and "The Ecology of Energy..."), while powerful and convincing to a liberal like myself, would, I think just elicit the usual eye-rolling from conservatives - but maybe that's not the point. I just wish he had devoted even more of the book to specific recommendations like these, instead of confining them to the Afterword. On the whole, I would highly recommend this book. It expanded my thinking in a way that I did not expect, and that I believe will prove useful in staying sane during the coming election.
 I found this book highly significant and convincing in the linguistic and psychological framework of our current political structure. This book presents the frames of ideas behind liberal and conservative thinking, the psychological models that shape the two main avenues of perception and projection into all areas of life, morals; the basis behind religion and politics. The political sides, liberal and conservative are in essence only ideas that follow from these prior ideals. And what the author frames as the two models are, the two moral ideals of the Strict Father morality and the Nurturant Parent morality. Both are opposed to each other and yet, there are variants or combinations or radial categories which are gray areas which are not so clear cut. But overall, there are these two current trends that shape our thoughts.
George Lakoff goes into each model, their traits, attributes, virtue and vices. I think he does a good job at maintaining neutrality. It is only later in his book where he identifies himself under the nurturant morality and thus a liberal and later in the book attempts to argue in his thesis in that direction.
What these models boil down to is the family morality, and that of raising children. In politics it is the government as parents, the citizens as the children. And the views on raising children are the basis of frames behind political agendas. After detailed explanations of the two models, then applications to current political issues as in abortion, gun control, education methods, crime and capital punishment, welfare, affirmative action, foreign policies and so forth are discussed according to the two models.
The conservative model represents the Strict Father Morality, which is about self-discipline, self-reliance, self-strength, your on your own, rewards and punishments which includes harsh discipline or tough love. The father takes the lead, and while treating others compassionately, he is the last word. Anotherwards life is a hierarchy, God head of Christ, God and Christ head of man, man head of woman, parents head of children, humans head of animals and the planet. And so it is a strict arrangement where the harsh laws of nature as in the natural selection, survival of the fittest is applied morally.This morality represents absolutes, therefore anything different cannot be allowed since therefore it is immoral. Rights of the individual take precedence where free market fundamentalism is concerned, while individual rights that infringe on those with economic power are considered as threats. So the upper hand lies in what is considered that "best," the self disciplined who has gained more financially for their hard work, their hard won discipline and reward. The poor receive punishments and suffer due to their own lack of self discipline.
The liberal model represents the Nurturant Morality, which is about empathy, tolerance, degrees of relativity, flexibility, about open communication, about nurturance, tolerance, compassion and understanding. It allows differences and has vulnerability. It reneges some power to allow the other to grow on their own terms. Empathy is directed towards the unbalance of wealth and poverty, the economic framework, what is "fair" and equalitarian, also to the planet earth, animals, and all of life in general, under the ideas of free individual rights that do not interfere with the rights of others. Those with economic power that put their interests above others are considered as threats to the masses. The poor need a the same equal opportunities as the rich where it is not a matter of self discipline, but the lack of opportunities to advance in an unfair society.
I think what is so crucial here is the liberal's ability to turn to a higher objective paradigm of unity and equalitarianism outside all other paradigms. Like the conserative paradigm of morals, the fascist of power, the libertarian of unregulated liberty, the liberal, through the paradigm of unity and fairness, recognizes the validity of the conservative ideals, those of rewards and punishments, of tough love, of self-discipline, however here they are not absolutes, as they are relative within the particular culture, economic class, race, minority and so forth. So the liberal can very well be a conservative but only within the relativity within the group of fair values When it crosses the lines beyond fairness and equalitarian opportune justice, then the higher paradigm of flexibility in a non-absolute framework must be applied. And for this, I find liberal ideals of a higher evolutionary consciousness which works towards integral, holistic unity of peace and harmony, unlike the absolutes of conservatism which considers all outside its absolutes as immoral. There are conservative rules within each paradigm, but the moment circumstances of unequality and injustice apply, then there are no absolute blanket rules which apply to all paradigms. Adjustments are necessary, crucial for harmonious, peaceful existence.
What I mostly enjoyed was his methods for liberals to correct the problem they are in. That is to form their own think tanks that do what the conservatives have done; obtain new language and/or particular meanings to words that fit the liberal paradigm. In this way, they will not defend conservative driven meanings to words, agreeing or maintaining defense within their frame of reference, only to maintain the answers within the conservative created definitions, but rather to use another reasoning linguistically within a new liberal frame of reference in word definitions. This is not a matter of semantics, but rather a separate perceptional projection which relates the parent nurturant morality over the strict father morality.
I was visualizing a couple of years ago when Congress was passing around Clarke's book where questions were being raised on Bush and the Iraq question, that it would have been beneficial if it were this book, which I know no conservative or any one changes due to a book or persuasion, but at least it could radically wake up some liberals to understand the psychology behind their ideals. People only grow only when they're ready and willing to do so, otherwise they stay put in their model, their paradigm.
The first 80% of the book tries to be unbiased. I found it quite enlightening and I no longer think that the other side is crazy. Still wrong, but not crazy. :-) In the last 20% Lakoff comes out and states why he thinks empirical scientific evidence, mostly in the area of child rearing, justifies Liberalism.
These days, politics is getting to the point of being too personal. For some like Bush and GOP, it's an asset. For the rest of us progressives and independents, it can be a handicap more often than not. George Lakoff is out to prove otherwise. Learn the strengths and weaknesses and learn what you can do to peacefully strike back and strike forward at bad conservatives and libertarians who have been intertwining morality and politics to the point of pursuing the politics of personal destruction.
 Lakoff is a well-known cognitive scientist who has made some important contributions to that field. He has extended the linguistic research of Noam Chomsky beyond where even Chomsky thought it could go. Lakoff has shown how our neurological structure determines how we think and use language. And like Chomsky, Lakoff thinks that he has something worth saying when it comes to politics. Again, like Chomsky, Lakoff is a man of the moonbat left, who thinks that politics is a grand Manichaean struggle, or perhaps a battle between the "more evolved" and the "less evolved": Cro Magnon vs. Neanderthal. There is a ring of truth and historical inevitability behind every conclusion. Religiosity without religion. But, this isn't even the worst part of the book. Lakoff frames the difference between the left and the right as a choice between a feminine, "nurturant", well-meaning totalitarianism and that of a masculine, "strict", uncaring totalitarianism. Sounds like an unattractive choice, eh? I'd say that most people would choose the former, if these were the only choices. But, the very idea of government-as-parent, known as paternalism or maternalism, is a pathology. As adults capable of governing ourselves, why should we need parents or minders? The fatherly totalitarianism Lakoff imagines as "conservative" bears no relation to conservative philosophy. Modern American conservatism is classical liberalism with a dash of Edmund Burke. Burke said that we should "conserve the forms", meaning that we should honor and conserve the institutions (community, church, family, etc) that make us a society. This is meant as a hedge against the radicalism of classical liberalism, which seeks to free all people from the shackles of feudalism and feudalistic thinking. Conservatism is a philosophy of liberty within a moral framework. Burke said, "when we forget the laws of the heart, the laws go on the books". Unfortunately, this is true, just look at our history for confirmation.
Lakoff's description of motherly totalitarianism paints hardcore socialism in a very favorable light. I do not doubt for a moment that Lakoff, like others on the left, is earnest and honorable. But the excesses of that philosophy resulted in the slaughter of 80-100 million people in the 20th century. The motherly face put on socialist totalitarianism, whether the Year Zero of Pol Pot or the enforced famines of Stalin, does not excuse its vices or its unintended consequences. Conservatives explicitly reject the idea of utopia, no matter how attractive it is. They spend a lot of time worrying about unintended consequences. They aren't in search of a mommy or a daddy. They want government to help them as citizens. And they believe that the way a government helps a free people is by staying small. If people want government to be their parent, they are in dire need of help, and would do us all a favor by staying away from the voting booth. Since you've read this far, I assume you have an open mind. I don't wish to "convert" anyone to conservatism. But do yourself a favor and move beyond the rhetoric that we hear on political talk shows, blogs, newspapers, etc. Think about the source of your ideas: what is the pedigree of your ideas? What do you stand for, and why? If you are really interested in answering these questions, then you will avoid the bestseller list tripe, whether Franken or Moore, Coulter or Hannity. Read the classics. Know what Burke and Nietzsche and Marx and Locke and Montesquieu really said. Don't let anyone interpret them for you. Try "Confessions of a Bohemian Tory", by Russell Kirk, or "Anarchy, State, Utopia" by Robert Nozick, or "Modernity on Endless Trial", by Leszek Kolakowski. You'll be glad you did. You don't have to agree with them.
|
