Wednesday, November 17, 2004

We are also confused about the meanings of key words, especially liberal and conservative. Favoring private property, concern for fellow human beings, desire for an ethical society, preserving what is good, avoiding war, or tending to side with tradition? Which goes with which?   Starting in 2003 I was part of  a small group consulting  to one of the campaigns on the use of language,  and, noticing the difficulty the “progressives” had entering imaginatively and compassionately into the possible thought process of the right,  I worked up a seminar called "what is on the minds of the Republicans."  There were two core ideas.   That both progressives and the right feared bigness, but projected it on to the other, and did not take responsibility for their own ties to bigness. The right feared big government and its bureaucracy, and the left (using these as token words, filled with abstraction and error) feared big business and big military. The left was tied to government and high tech business, and the right to business (especially large old style: energy, agriculture, pharmacy and energy) and the military, and to some degree church.   The right was afraid of a government bureaucracy that could undermine family responsibility with welfare, but was happy with farm subsidies and military pensions. and the left feared big business with its concentration of wealth and ties to a media which "determined" peoples' point of view.   Each side demonized the other in order to prevent the confusion that came from seeing how close their values were. They all believe in education, justice, security, love of nature, healthy families, and a home with access to good food, health and hope.   The divergences, of which there are many and real, were not understood for what they meant - such as gun control and abortion, or Justice and Iraq and the nature of security, and the increasing marginalization in the economy of many - to the other side.   At the same time, George Lakoff's work on political Language ( see his book Moral Politics) became the buzz. He saw the left as favoring a kind of government acting like a nurturing tolerant family with care and concern for losers. The right was drawn to the image of the paternalistic one right way family building strength of character to win in a tough world.   I could see the advantages of both views. It seems to me that the two together: fear of bigness and image of the family, combined,  could "explain" lots of political behavior and the use of language to appeal to voters.   I think these can reduce to fear of change and technology, increasing alienation and the destruction of the ideas around human nature. The left stresses the need for support under change and the right favors retrenchment (and reaching out to religious community) to avoid the changes.   Fundamental issues, such as corporate charters, are not present in the larger debate, but polls I’ve seen and a few informal ones I’ve done suggest that the increase in corporate power,  loss of environment,  and threts to children are powerful issues.   What we on the progressive side need is to honor the fears on all sides, see our own side in an alliance with corporations and communications technology (for which a major customer is military), and tell a story that is attractive, not articulated in hate or slander.   A business climate that was regulated to protect the environment, maximizing hi-tech and even biotech, with an encouragement of entrepreneurial activity on a regional bases, new forms of more expressive and creative education, mortgage deductions only for houses under say 200,000, and an international policy of fairness and multilateral efforts, making the world safe for travel of people, not just money, protect social security, and rethink medical aid for the vast majority of non exotic illnesses…plus a clear denunciation of the war in Iraq, new efforts to rethink oil so that we don’t victimize the ME by either staying or leaving, new initiatives with Latin America and China (and an interesting plan for Cuba that is humane), and election reform that is clear and transparent. Boldness would have won this election. above posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 5:18:07 PM