Rating: 
Summary: Undeniable
Review: After reading Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant", I had to go back to "Moral Politics" for more. His is one of the first books regarding politics that has made me less angry at conservatives. Though I still wholly disagree with them, I now better understand where they are coming from, and that is so important in our current political situation. It is vital that we understand rather than demonize the other's view in order to debate and question ourselves and eachother. We have definitely lost touch with objectivity and this book made me question conservative ideas in a new light, but also rethink my own progressive values. Love it or hate it, you cannot deny the profound impact of Lakoff's thinking and models. It is exactly what we need more of and will challenge the way you look at politics.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant and well-written
Review: After reading this fascinating book I'll never look at politics in the same way again. Lakoff's theory of moral politics pulls together apparent inconsistencies and irrationalities in both liberal and conservative thinking in a way that makes everything fit. Brilliant!
Rating:
Summary: Kirk Muse
Review: An outstanding book that reveals how the other side thinks as they do. The author reveals how and why people support various political positions and candidates.People are much more likely to vote their idenity and values as opposed to "issues." The Republicans have been a lot better at packaging themselves as the morally right party. This is why George W. Bush is in the White House. I suggest the readers start with chapter 21 "Raising Real Children." Perhaps if you think that you are a "true conservative," you may not be after reading this chapter and this outstanding book
Rating:
Summary: Essential book for framing the divide within this country
Review: Everyone should read this book. Do not interpret it as a blueprint for left or right - rather a sliding scale of views based on central belief systems. The one flaw I found in the book was that there was lttle or no discussion in HOW the belief system is internalized - is it a reflection of nature or nurture. I hope that someone will take the premise of this important book and trace back the origin of one's beliefs.
Rating: 
Summary: Lopsided Frolic into another liberal mind.
Review: George Lakoff has done interesting research in Cognitive Science, but when it comes to politics he has nothing to add other then his obvious liberal bias. This book is similiar to Noam chomsky works in that the author has taken his credibility in one field and tried to pawn it off in another namely politics.
The Author Makes broad generalizations About Conservatives and Liberals, which while interesting, are merely opinions from a Berkeley hermit. Lakoff Villanizes Conservatives, While flattering Liberals with sophomoric rational. Such narrow mindedness and hubris is something best left for Moorish Political propaganda for the masses.
This Book is self affirmation for liberals, as Hitlers Racial ideology was for Facist. But beyond the warm fuzzy liberals will get from reading this, and the extra cash in Lakoffs pockets, there is little substance or anything new to learn here.
Rating: 
Summary: a cognitive scientist looks at politics
Review: George Lakoff has done some important work in the cognitive sciences, the dominant psychological paradigm, which contends, unlike earlier behaviorist thought, that the brain does not merely respond to phenomena in a simple stimulus-response reaction, but rather processes information, adding form and context before outputting a response. Lakoff posits first that we often think of our country as a family, secondly that conservatives think of the ideal family as one with a Strong Father (stressing authority and obedience) and that liberals think of the ideal family as having Nurturant Parents (stressing communication and self-reliance), and contends furthermore that people extend these attitudes about family and government to their political philosophy. He goes on to explain and predict liberal and conservative thinking, sometimes even contradictory thinking, on the death penalty, corporate welfare, conservation, abortion, gun control, fiscal responsibility, minority rights and other contemporary issues. Lakoff writes clearly and makes coherent points. I thought this was an interesting and predictive way of discussing current political differences. A self-declared liberal who nevertheless maintains a reasonably objective authorial stance, Lakoff advises liberals to couch their political arguments in the same moral terms that conservatives have been using successfully for years. Liberals are neither immoral nor amoral, as often depicted by Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich and other extremist conservative; they need to make that known and enter the political discussion on those terms. The author goes on to analyse the social utility of the two approaches to family and cites research showing that, contrary to conservative prediction, children who are raised with physical punishment in a highly authoritarian home often grow up with little external motivation or control, and consider violence an acceptable alternative to negotiation. This is a thought-provoking book for those interested in the application of cognitive science to social thought, or rationalists interested in politics.
Rating:
Summary: Well-spoken...
Review: Great stuff. I heard an interview with George Lakoff on the Majority Report, AirAmerica Radio last night (15 July 2004). He was logical and very well spoken, and I am convinced to buy the book. Also, the previous reviewer misses part of the point also. S/he states .. "Conservatives should not feel bad about being associated with the strict patriarch model. Such a model is not cruel- it produces stronger, more self-sufficient individuals. Of course the government should not occupy itself social handouts because then people do not learn to take care of themselves..." The fault with how conservative ideology is applied is that it assumes (or doesn't care) that all people start with the same opportunity, which is clearly false. If you took a Paris Hilton and a young black woman from poor urban environment, they clearly have differing opportunity. Further, in Lakoff's own words (from the Majority Report interview), the stern-farther/conservative model promotes the preservation of the status quo, including the domination of the father over the family, the US over other countries, western society over others, Chirstianity over other religions, and "whites" over other "colors".
Rating:
Summary: Why half of America can't communicate with the other half
Review: Here's why "Moral Politics" first interested me personally. As Bush and his neo-cons were telling their lies about WMD in Iraq to propagandize the nation and lead it toward an unnecessary and even detrimental war against a country that neither attacked us nor was a threat to us, I tried an experiment. I was on a list of highschool classmates and had started receiving rightwing email broadcasted by several of them. It seemed that one of them had become neo-con but most had gone over to the religious right (I grew up in eastern Kentucky, part of the Bible Belt). My experiment was to concentrate on three of my former classmates and try to shake their confidence in their illusions via reason. The experiment failed. I tried the same experiment on a close friend, a very Catholic and very intelligent mathematician married to a very Catholic philosopher. Over the years, this friend had used the word 'liberal' disparagingly in our presence several times. Again, the experiment failed. Lakoff's book discusses why my uncontrolled experiments, performed on two entirely different socio-intellectual classes, failed miserably.
"Conservatives have understood very well that their goals are not just political and economic. Conservatives want to change American culture itself. They want to change the idea of what counts as a good person and what the world should be like .... ."
"Moral Politics", pg. 222
In negative reaction to civil rights gains by Blacks and women, and also in reaction to the Vietnam War protests, conservatives over the last forty years have organized themselves extremely well (starting with the creation of 'Christian schools' in the south) and have managed systematically and successfully to define what's important in American politics. According to Lakoff's book, this organization begins in the homes, symbolized by the nurturing methods Dr. Spock vs. the striving for obedience by James Dobson in child rearing.
The battle between liberal and conservative sides is portrayed by Lakoff as belief in 'innocence of young children' (leading to nurturing) vs. belief in 'original sin' (leading to corporal punishment).Lakoff's main point is that rightwing conservatives believe implicity in the notion of a strict patriarchy held in place by threats and punishment. E.g., rightwing ideologues like Dobson teach adherence to a strict patriarchial hierarchy, so that feedback and error correction (certainly necessary for biological survival at the DNA and cellular leval) are completely eliminated. The hierarchy with lack of error correction explains why Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were able lead the nation into war by lying about 'WMD' in 2003. Lakoff emphassizes that self-righteous people listen only to themselves and judge themselves by their own set of 'moral standards'. This is why Europe was and still is impotent in trying to chllenge the words about (nonexistent!) WMD coming out of Washington.
Lakoff points out that the strict patriarch punishes his kids for disobedience, just as Bush the Partiarch punished Sadam Hussein for disobedience. For neo-conservatives, also discussed in the book, the rest of the world consists of disobedient children who must be taught a lesson by their Father in Washington. As a link, the very popular 1987 book "The Closing of the American Mind" was written by an neo-conservative, Alan Bloom. Bloom was a particularly successful with his readership because he hid his ideology so successfully, he never made clear exactly what was his proposed program (I read and reread the book seven times trying to find out). His program, the neo-con program for America and the world, was put into effect by other neo-cons like Wolfowitz, who was Bloom's student. Bloom's connection with the notion of strict patriarchy is illustrated implicitly in his advice from Plato: censor books and music for the young so that they'll grow up to be obedient, not rebellious. Only an obedient child will willingly die for an arbitrary leader in an arbitrary war like the war in Iraq.
Lakoff discusses why the strict patriarchial hierarchy leads easily into free market extremism (eliminate all government programs, deregulate everything, including schools) and helps explain to liberals why, since Reagan, American conservatives have systematically adopted the policy of trying to bankrupt the U.S. government. Lakoff emphasizes the Calvinistic fear (now propagated by conservative Southern Baptist leaders) that financial success on earth signals approval by God, so that the wealthy, not the poor, are the favored ones, the 'elect' who are headed for heavenly reward.
On page 94, 'moral self interest' and Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' are connected, showing why conservatives in the U.S. have opted for free market extremism: deregulation and the abandonment of all government programs (excepting military ones). From the standpoint of the moral absolutism of the strict patriarchy, anything that smacks even slightly of socialism is seen by patriarchial conservatives as 'immoral'. That position is not empirically justified. In my new book "Dynamics of Markets" the myth of 'The Invisible Hand' (stability and equilibrium of free markets) is exploded empirically (financial markets are shown to be unstable and far from equilbrium, there is no 'Invisible Hand' in financial markets).
On page 113 Lakoff answers the question posed by Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine": why is American Society so violent? Lakoff traces the problem back to the peculiarity of the strict patriarchial model adopted by American conservatives, bringing in the element of Calvinism vs error correcting feedback. This explains why Canadians, who are also 'gun nuts', don't kill each other. Canada is a relatively socialistic country, more like the U.S. was BRTF (before Reagan-Thatcher-Friedman). Norwegians and Swiss also have guns at home, but don't kill each other.
Chapter 21, one of most interesting chapters, discusses the ideas of leading advocates of different methods of child rearing. The teachings of the very influential rightwinger James Dobson and other more extreme Fundamentalist Christians are presented. Their message: punish kids into obedience, by beating, if necessary. But consider Scandinavia as a counterexample. Scandinavia is a relatively crime free society, with little murder of Scandinavians by Scandinavians. Women are typically brought up as feminists (anathama to Dobson). In Scandinavia, a parent can go to jail for hitting a child, 'unwed mothers' are treated no differently than are other mothers, and I can tell you from years of personal experience that one can walk anywhere in Oslo at midnight or any other time without fear of attack. The spirit of freedom and democracy seems highest in Scandinavia, where people are active and healthy, and where there is universal health coverage and (because of governmental redistribution of money) no poverty.
The strict patriarchial hierarchy is misidentified (with no empirical evidence whatsover from biology) by conservatives as 'the natural order'. Extremist interpretations of the Bible and Koran are advocated by conservatives of different stripes worldwide, in spite of massive nonuniqueness in the face of infinitely many different possible interpretations. This is, in fact, why strict patriarchy is demanded by Fundamentalists in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity: educated and informed people who think for themselves will not obey any self-declared authority, especially not one who claims that he has a direct pipeline to God.
Now for some negative comments about the book. Lakoff repeats his main ideas far too often, maybe with the notion that the reader has to see hear the idea more than once in order to grasp it. I make the same mistake in my own writing, according to my wife, but this repetition makes the book less interesting that it would have been had it been properly edited. Second, there is absolutely is no evidence presented in the text that 'methods of cognitive psychology' (whatever they are) or any empirical method at all were used to arrive at the ideas presented in the text. I want to emphasize that, with any kind of mathematical or nonmathematical modelling, there is a terrible problem of nonuniqueness: empirical data can never pick out a single model, at best only some class of models.
Finally, I'm very grateful to Dr. Angelica Frias for giving me Lakoff's book, which should be read be every liberal in the U.S. and by every social democrat in Europe and beyond.
Rating: 
Summary: Good idea but not a good book
Review: I found this book to contain an interesting idea but lacking scientific grounding and very tedious to read. The idea of looking at language for transmission of images to identify the central thought processes of persons, groups and societies is valid and has been practiced repeatedly by philosophers. Lakoff posits characterizations (stereotypes) based on imagery he thinks is found in Conservative and Liberal rhetoric.
While these images could be tested scientifically, they are not as the book lacks citations. Instead, we read Lakoff's opinions of the images that he thinks are central to Conservative and Liberal thought about the family and politics.
I found the book to be tedious through repetition. For example, from about page 70 to page 200 almost no new ideas were introduced. Instead Lakoff repeats over and over what amounts to his demonization of Conservative thought ...such as "...disobedience must be punished, preferably in a painful fashion with an instrument like a belt or a rod."
Because the book is written as a first person narration, I could not help but wonder if I was experiencing an academic's "stream of consciousness." Perhaps the repetition is Lakoff's way of trying to keep on topic while searching for the next sentence. Or maybe he is hoping that the more frequently a position is repeated the more valid the position becomes.
I liked the basic idea but found the execution to be a disappointment. There are 150 pages of thought wrapped in a 400+ page commitment.
Rating:
Summary: Mind expanding
Review: 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.
|
