Rating: 
Summary: Demonstrates the Power of Mental Associations
Review: I recently heard on NPR that since 1964, sixty-three Democrats have run for President and only two have actually sat in office (Carter and Clinton). The ideas contained within this book are probably a key to understanding why.Lakoff is a well-respected cognitive scientist who has written several books about the power of metaphors in our everyday lives (Metaphors We Live By, being one). In this book, Lakoff explains in extremely easy-to-understand language how liberals and conservatives cognitively associate their ideas for how the country should be run metaphorically with how families should function. Conservative politicians have claimed their "family" metaphor and family discourse (e.g. family values rhetoric), according to Lakoff, but liberals have not (he claims that liberals also have family values ideals, but in a different way than conservatives do). This has allowed conservatives to completely dominate the political discourse over the past few decades, letting them define the terms on which debates will take place. Democrats have had to play defensive to these attacks, never actually setting any of the conditions themselves. He gives an example of how conservatives have been able to so deliberately and efficiently make "taxes" a negative thing just recently in our political history, even though taxes can be a positive thing because they go to pay for things that everyone needs. Yet the cognitive association with taxes in many Americans' minds has fallen in line with the conservative position when it could just as easily have gone the other way if liberals (Democrats) had been able control the debate or even to get their message across better. You don't have to agree with Lakoff. Certainly, he does begin to take a position towards the end of the book. Yet if you want to begin to understand what's taking place politically in America, or are even just fascinated with how people think, this is a good place to start.
Rating: 
Summary: Thought provoking & good intro to child-rearing
Review: I thought this book really helped me conceptualize and understand the 'differences' between so-called liberals and conservatives, and to understand that perhaps many debates are not indeed framed in pragmatic or utilitarian fashions, but rather are framed around moral questions. Its helps one understand the 'other side'. Also, being a father of young children, there were many issues raised related to family life that forced me to evaluate my own methods....
I think what is missing is a detailed explanation of how one gets to the metaphors that Lakoff describes, and how they are determined. How do we know that these are the 'right' metaphors? And are these metaphors determined by nature, nurture? Are they changeable during one's lifetime? Maybe I need to start with one of Lakoff's earlier books.
Rating:
Summary: INTERESTING AND THOUGH PROVOKING
Review: It is interesting to note that the subtitle of the book changed between the first edition and the current edition. Once titled Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't, it has been rechristened as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.
The original subtitle reflected Lakoff's idea that conservatives, at least 1994 conservatives, understood the nature of American politics better than liberals. In particular, conservatives were thought to better understand the importance of the connection between the family, morality, and politics, and, especially around 1994, were able to get quite a number of votes through making this important connection explicit for their constituents. In this framework, the original subtitle can be seen as something of a call-to-arms to liberals, along the lines of: you guys better get a better understanding of politics, or you'll never get back in office again.
The new, more bland title may reflect Lakoff's disappointment with how his work was seen as more political than scientific. Thus, perhaps it is an attempt to get more attention from the scientific community, and less from political pundits.
Perhaps because some argue that he fails to rise above this, it is important to note that Lakoff claims to oppose superficial, stereotypical, and patently false characterizing of both liberals and conservatives. In pursuit of this goal, he tries to dispel some common oversimplifications about both political positions.
In chapter 7, "Why We Need a New Understanding of American Politics", Lakoff tries to refute several conceptions of "Conservatism" that he views as much too simplistic to be true. First, he claims that any liberal or conservate thinking that "Conservatives just believe in less government" is incorrect. Common misconceptions that liberals hold include that "Conservatism is 'the ethos of selfishness'" and that "Conservatism is no more than a conspiracy of the ultrarich to protect their money and power and to make themselves even richer and more powerful." Common misunderstandings of conservatives by conservatives are that "Conservatism [and nothing else] is for traditional values", and that "Conservatism is just what the Bible tells us."
In chapter 18, "Pathologies, Stereotypes, and Distortions", he tries to refute certain stereotyped views of liberals, including the viewing of them "as lovers of bureaucracy", "as defenders of special interests" and "as advocating only rights and no responsibilities"
Interesting....
Rating:
Summary: Compelling Morality Models Explain Our Nation's Divisiveness
Review: It's refreshing to see a resurgence of interest in George Lakoff's principles of cognitive linguistics as they apply to the current political landscape. After just finishing his recently published "Don't Think of an Elephant", I was more than intrigued to go back to his original treatise on this topic first published in 1996. An esteemed professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley, Lakoff is a senior fellow of the Rockridge Institute, the renowned liberal think tank that concentrates in part on helping Democratic candidates and politicians with re-framing political metaphors. He completely understands the power of words, and this book explains how those words feed his model, which render images we retain vividly within our minds regardless of what facts are presented to us.
In this revealing book, Lakoff's model suggests that the apparently contradictory positions between conservatives and liberals lie in the moral underpinnings of their respective mindsets. His treatise explains that conservatives tend to a view that favors what he calls the "Strict Father Morality" model of the family. Liberals, on the other hand, prefer the "Nurturant Parent Morality" model. Each implies a system of beliefs that determine how conservatives or liberals judge the morality of a situation. When the models are applied to the nation, the political clash ensues. He concedes that while the model's ability to predict various aspects of political decisions may not be sufficient proof of its validity, it would certainly be a strong indicator as to predict behavior based on the consistency of the model. As a good academic, Lakoff spends the bulk of the book explaining the model and presenting empirical evidence of its existence in the current political environment. Yet the most intriguing part of the book is when he explains why US politics cannot get away from these morality-based models, and of course, as a self-professed liberal, why liberals have the better moral model. The message is that conservatives, with their push for "family values," understand very well where the basis for their politics originates. Liberals will have to come to a similar understanding if they want to come to the table for political dialogue. Fortunately, Lakoff's treatise is very well written (after all, he is a linguistics professor) and does not come across as a self-absorbed polemic like works by either Ann Coulter or Maureen Dowd.
This is strong, thought-provoking work. Lakoff paints liberals and conservatives as sitting on the opposite ends of a spectrum since the moral models are radial categories. He makes a compelling case for why the models cannot intersect, which he makes clear during his discussion of conservative vigilantism, where he dissects the motivation behind the Oklahoma City bombing. If you are undecided and have a commitment to the democratic process, this is essential reading before the election. If you want a briefer treatment, I suggest you read the aforementioned book by Lakoff, a slim volume entitled "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives". You cannot afford to be without an understanding of his models.
Rating: 
Summary: Anatomy of political pathology
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Consider Morality & Governments
Review: Lakoff lays down an overarching treatment of the political worldviews held by liberals and conservatives. In so doing he suggests the competing ideologies hold distinctly different conceptions of morality.
Unfortunately, some readers have concluded that it's pointless to engage the other side in discussion and debate. I believe this misses Lakoff's point. While two individuals may utilize differing worldviews when arguing a political topic it seems reasonable to conclude that such discourse would still be beneficial. For example, reasons would still need to be given for why a position is held. In so doing those reasons revealing the speaker's worldview would either prove to be well supported or weakly asserted.
Lakoff utilizes metaphors for government options between the "Strict Father Morality" vs. the "Nurturing Parent Morality". I wonder if these models equally convey an idea of truth, morality and meaning? What I mean is, do both sides espouse a need for government to uphold moral law? If the voters are the `children' in Lakoff's model who `vote' for what type of government they want then when is it wise for voters to choose that which is best over that which may be preferred? I think Lakoff could have gone further with this analogy than he did.
One area of the book I remain unconvinced on is Lakoff's suggestion that political views are based not on objective evaluation of the opposing sides of various issues, but on feelings about the rightness of one's worldview. It seems at least some individuals have well-supported convictions regarding various issues. I wish he would have acknowledged at least some people have objectively evaluated why they believe what they believe. Not all political views are based on 'feelings about rightness'.
In the end, Lakoff's book is a needed push to rise above the common media. The media that showers participants in the political process with never-ending images and sound bites. It's Lakoff's type of big-picture thinking which truly contributes to a greater synthesis of ideas, understanding, and mutual respect.
Rating:
Summary: Almost Useful
Review: Mr. Lakoff states that Conservatives and Liberals differ in their view of the nature of the family: Conservatives believe in a strict parent; Liberals believe in a nurturing parent. He bogs down in examples. It might be useful to look, as he suggests, at the view Conservatives have of the government as a strict parent from whom we need to break away. But he is a little off base on the liberals whom he sees as looking to the government as one might look to his nurturing parent. Using his ideas about the two differing world views, I would say a more useful metaphor is that the Liberals view themselves as the nurturing parent. Unable to care for all one's "children," Liberals say that if we all work together, we can repair the bad spots in our society and maximize the potential of our children. Government is the way we get together.
Rating:
Summary: a couple people writing these reviews don't get it
Review: People writing these reviews don't seem to understand important aspects of what he is saying, both for and against the book. Logic does not rule most of our political life, but rather our 'common sense' does. Lakoff works to identify the source of this common sense and why it produces such different results, one associated with liberals and one associated with conservatives. The common sense comes from metaphorical comparison, where comparison with a family structure are used. Using such a metaphor comparison does not mean that people think the government should play the role for their parent. It does not mean people consciously choose a strict patriarch or nurturing parent. Actually people will likely switch between these models at times. I suspect its a mistake to say decisions about government morality are delegated by metaphor to decisions about family morality. But rather both family morality and government morality delegate to some more abstract model which is common to families and nations. But the comparison is still useful, the abstract set of beliefs that produces the nurturing parent or strict patriarch family model will correspondingly produce the liberal or conservative sense of morality. Its really hard to isolate personal opinions from this sort of work. 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. A strict patriarch takes care of their children by ensuring they've learned to be independent. These models aren't consciously used by individuals to make their decisions, but the models can be used to make sense of the other political position- which is something we all often struggle to do. In political discourse we act like all decisions are made through a careful series of logical inferences, and act shocked when others come to different conclusions with the same facts. But rather, Lakoff shows how metaphor plays an active role in value judgements. The family unit is often used as a metaphor, and that different senses about the family unit cause people to draw different political opinions while using the same metaphor.
Rating:
Summary: A lot to think about
Review: Political Morality is a thought provoking attempt to create metaphorical models of liberal and conservative mindsets. Conservatives use the Strict Father model while liberals use the Nurturing Parent model. These two models do an amazing job of explaining the beliefs of the two opposing sides in such disparate subjects as abortion, education, welfare, love of country and so on.
In one respect Moral Politics is rather bleak as there seems to be no possible détente between the two sides. Mr. Lakoff seems to see this as a zero sum battle. For instance, in education liberals prefer to teach children various views and beliefs, even including conservativism. Conservatives, however, see this as cultural and moral relativism. Conservatives push conservative values at the exclusion of all others. There is no middle ground, either conservatives win or liberals win.
Although Mr. Lakoffs' cognitive models are as good as any I could imagine, he does upon occasion seem to shoehorn beliefs into one or the other. For instance he argues that Newt Gingrich's desire to take children away from welfare mothers and place them into orphanages follows the Strict Father model because the welfare mothers are without a doubt failures at parenting. Better to let the state take over in order to instill those Strict Father values. I would argue that Gingrich's proposal has less to do with his desire to satisfy his Strict Father beliefs and more to do with the fact that he despises welfare mothers.
It almost seems that the words conservative and liberal have been entirely absconded by politicians. There was an article in American Conservative magazine, after the 2004 election, titled "Bush 2, Conservativism 0". The gist of the article was the Bush was literally killing conservativism, meanwhile Bush is seen as the standard bearer of conservative values. Pat Buchanan wrote a book claiming that liberals had infiltrated the White House in the guise of neo-conservativism. So who's correct, American Conservative, Pat Buchanan or the Bush backers? It seems that conservatives are whomever self proclaimed political conservatives declare themselves to be.
Without a doubt Moral Politics gives the reader a LOT to think about. George Lakoff is able to make coherent sense out of conservatives desire to ban abortions while they work towards cutting funding for pre and post natal care. In a age where the rate of infant mortality in the United States is one of the worst of any industrialized nation it boggles the liberal mind how conservatives can place the welfare of an unborn, unwanted child above one that is wanted. Solving that conundrum alone is worth the price of admission.
Rating:
Summary: Conservatism and liberalism revealed
Review: Political positions are usually cast as being either "liberal" or "conservative." But what is the basis of liberalism or conservatism? How is it that conservatives, disapproving of big government, can support rolling up large deficits or extending "welfare" to corporations. Where is the logic? According to the author, the explanation lies in morality. What best explains the politics of conservatives and liberals is their fundamentally different moral worldviews. Those views are grounded in models of family morality. The "Strict Father" model of family morality that conservatives subscribe to is based on the hierarchical authority of the father who sets and enforces rules of behavior. Children are expected to learn self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority. Obedience is emphasized; questioning of authority is little tolerated. Governmental social programs are seen by conservatives as rewarding a lack of self-discipline, of failing to becoming self-reliant. However, spending for the preservation of the moral order, for protection of the "nation as family," whether it is for defense or for building more prisons, is morally required. Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to a "Nurturant Parent" model. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for, respected, and, in turn, caring for others. Open communications is emphasized; even the questioning of authority by children is seen as positive. Desired behavior is not obtained through punishment. Empathy and a regard for fair treatment are priorities in this model. Social programs are seen by liberals as helping both individuals and the greater society. The maintenance of fairness is a priority for government. Particularly instructive is the role that competition plays in these models. For conservatives, competition is essential to determine who is moral, that is, who is sufficiently self-disciplined to be successful. Understandably the prototypical conservatives are businessmen who have succeeded in the competitive marketplace. They are at the head of a hierarchical moral order, of a "meritocracy of the self-disciplined." Interestingly, governmental largesse for economic elites is viewed as deserved, unlike assistance for the poor. But liberals view fierce competition as bringing out aggressive behavior that is hardly consistent with a desirable nurturant personality. Liberals would also contend that there are class and social forces that are essentially inescapable by those on the lowest rungs of society. The ubiquity of the conservative "Ladder of Opportunity" is largely a convenient myth. The author explains the liberal and conservative position on any number of contemporary issues, from taxation and gun control to the environment and abortion. Invariably, conservatives take a Strict Father moral position and liberals use the morality of the Nurturant Parent. The book lacks any real historical or geographical perspective on these two models. Although the Strict Father model may seem close to traditional morality, the author does not identify at what point in our history these models clearly emerged, or why. Or have there been changes in these moral models over time, either in basic tenets or in who subscribes to them? Furthermore, what are their connections with such 19th century political philosophies as republicanism or producerism, or for that matter, democracy? Are these models unique to the United States? Why is social democracy so prevalent in Western Europe? Is there little Strict Father morality there? In slightly hedging his message, the author does note that individuals can use different moral systems in different spheres of life, in addition to acting pragmatically within a moral model. The author complains that the "issue" orientation of news organizations, as well as claims to "objectivity," can be misleading because of unconscious moral system slant. But beyond that point, the author has nothing to say about the influence of the vast oligopolistic media empire. He does note the rise of conservative think tanks and their ability to influence public debate. Have these developments impacted adherence to the Strict Father moral model? It should be said that the author is not neutral concerning the soundness of these two moral models. He cites considerable evidence that Strict Father childrearing has unintended consequences. Moral strength is often not the outcome and violent behavior seems to be reproduced. In addition, Strict Father morality countenances little in the way of subtle interpretations of morality, which the author points out is not particularly consistent with the way we actually think. The book is rather lengthy with considerable redundancy in describing these two moral models. The author should have provided historical and philosophical context. His models do seem to comport with political behavior despite the fact that much of that influence may act unconsciously. I think the book would be interesting for those trying to understand political behavior.
|
