(cross-posted at Deny My Freedom)
I finally got around to reading George Lakoff’s seminal work, Don’t Think of An Elephant. It was a very revealing look into the politics of psychology and just how well the Republicans have utilized it over the past 40 years. But after reading the book, I didn’t feel better off for knowing the secret to the GOP’s success. In fact, I felt a lot worse than when I had just opened the book. Quite simply, Lakoff does a very good job of explaining the ‘what’ – what the issue of framing is really seeded in – and the ‘why’ – why the GOP has been winning elections, particularly in recent years. However, it simply does not explain the ‘how’ – how are liberals and progressive supposed to utilize these lessons to avoid being out-framed?
I was born to love you
I was born to lick your face
I was born to rub you
But you were born to rub me first–Ty Webb, in the movie Caddyshack
The principal foundation for Lakoff’s beliefs on framing lie in the notion that there the two views of parenting dominate political discourse. There is the strict father model, upon which the man is the ‘decider’ and all power flows from him. Seeing conservative policies through this lens makes it extremely easy to understand why certain policies have been put in place; it removes the veil of stupidity from Bush’s childish proclamations to show something so subversively brilliant. On the other side, the perspective that liberals and progressives view things from, there is the nurturant parent model. It is grounded in the core human qualities of empathy and the belief that in order to institute policies, we have to understand what it is like to be in another person’s shoes. Just as easily, one can see how this view is replicated in our policies, from the New Deal to the Great Society.
One would think that a comparison of policies would draw a very simple conclusion: aside from the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelet and Abraham Lincoln, the Republican Party has contributed very little to American progress. It was Woodrow Wilson who won the First World War; it was FDR and Harry Truman who won the Second World War; and it was Lyndon B. Johnson who has probably been more responsible than anyone else for shaping government to its pre-Bush state. However, if one were to ask an average person who they thought the greatest president was, discounting the time before our present two-party system, I would venture a guess to say that Ronald Reagan would garner the most votes. Why has the modern-day Republican Party done so well? To me, the answer is quite clear, and it could easily be an addendum to Lakoff’s theory.
A thinking man once said, “No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” To me, the GOP has won elections solely based on fear. The Republicans have been winning elections on the federal level since 2000 based on the fear of terrorism. But even before that, the GOP would play on the fear of how one was perceived. You don’t want to be known as someone who supports welfare queens or homosexual deviants, so you let the appeals to your standing as a human being drive you to vote the other way. Nixon won by capitalizing on the South’s fear of what racial integration might mean for them. Ever since Barry Goldwater’s campaign since 1964, Republican politics has been infected with the politics of fear, and they act as the father-like figure who can make it all go away – as long as you vote for them. And it’s worked – time and again, the American people continue to send incompetent fools to Washington simply because of the words they use, not because they believe in anything more than enriching themselves or further diluting our democracy. And even though it’s been clear that since Bill Clinton left office, we’ve had politicians who could tell you how to frame a picture a thousand different ways, but it’d drive you to breaking the glass over your head.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Even though Lakoff has purportedly been invited by congressional Democrats to talk about framing, I think that it’s clear that he has failed, just as he does in his book, to impart how to frame the debate. John Kerry’s signature slogan was ‘Hope (and help) is on the way’, but he used it far too much without backing it up. The same goes for Nancy Pelosi and congressional leaders, who have completely overused ‘Culture of Corruption’; I get the impression that it was the first clever thing that had been thought of in a long time by the Democratic Party that they completely forgot that the other side has an entire vocabulary to wield against us. The strict father mindset that the GOP uses is incredibly powerful – its foundations are rooted in several thousands of years of history in which the male, fairly or not, was looked upon as the dominant figure in society. Furthermore, it is exacerbated by the fact that we play into the GOP frame on the issues to begin with. The Democratic Party runs polls on the issues, and we campaign today with a “How this policy will help you” mindset. By doing this, we are already acknowledging the strict father model – how can we – the politicians, as the parents – guard us, the children. While Lakoff states that both the strict father and the nurturant parent model is in everyone’s mind, whether it be actively or passively, it seems that only the passive strict father model can be activated. This may be due to the fact that the GOP has unlocked that door with its frames and can easily access it, whereas we are far behind in learning how to even insert the key in the door. It could also be that quite simply, appealing to the greater good in people cannot be done using a ‘magic bullet’. Defining progressive values is far more difficult because we have a much more complex worldview. To understand us, we appeal to the minds of people – but the Republican Party appeals to the heart.
As Stephen Colbert would put it, “My mind is telling me no, but my gut is telling me yes.” Progressives have great trouble appealing to the heart, and I think that, just like everyone else, we have been cowed by fear. We are afraid to reveal that yes, we may actually put the welfare of others before ours, that we care about others, that the collective is more important than the individual. This is not something we should be ashamed of; indeed, it is a virtue that is admirable. The trouble is that we don’t have the language to express ourselves, and it continues to elude us as America slips further towards the point of no return. Is there an answer out there, as Lakoff purports there to be? Or are we forever cursed because English is not designed for progressive soundbites? Like the rest of us in the Democratic Party, George Lakoff may still be searching for the solution.
