Tuesday, January 27, 2004
There's a lot more I have to say about the Iraqi war, but I'm fairly sick of talking about it. So I'll save further comment for when I do Wesley Clark. Sharpton is still on schedule for tommorrow, I think.
I thought I might've been getting tired of talking about mostly politics on this site. Sandy has mentioned that it gives her a headache. So I thought I'd write a nice piece that bridged the gap between politics and other topics. It would be a discussion on philosophy, particularly a mindset that would be very revealing as to why some people think the way they do. But it wouldn't be about some stupid, conniving politician.
Well, you can talk politics without talking about politicians, and Dig The D's California Correspondant Mariela sent me a link to the following website:
"George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics"
Damnit, I can't help going after this guy. He represents the Democrats' philosophy, and a lot of people will read this story and go "I KNEW there was a reason people are becoming more conservative!"
Sorry, but no. That kind of Kool-Aid is not beneficial for the consumption of rational beings.
I'll post the introductory paragraphs here and the specific parts of the piece that I will focus on here, to save you from having to read the whole thing yourselves (lazy bastards).
Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003
BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.
You know what's sad? Mr. Lakoff has probably made his life's work the study of all of this. All of his degrees and academic accolades have allowed him to have the clout neccessary to have his theories taken seriously by the academia.
Yet a rank amateur is about to tear his arguments to shreds.
See, this is what people tend to do when the beliefs they hold start to shift to the minority. It's called denial. Nobody wants to believe that their ideals are losing support because the other side actually has more merit. So they try and blame other factors. This is an example of that process of denial manifesting itself.
Most college campuses are hotbeds for liberalism. UC Berkeley happens to be the capital. They're starting to lose their stranglehold at most colleges however, and they don't seem to like it.
From here on in, all quotes in bold are questions the interviewer asked of Mr. Lakoff.
"How does language influence the terms of political debate?
Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.
If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" — something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves.
Here's another example of how powerful framing is. In Arnold Schwarzenegger's acceptance speech, he said, "When the people win, politics as usual loses." What's that about? Well, he knows that he's going to face a Democratic legislature, so what he has done is frame himself and also Republican politicians as the people, while framing Democratic politicians as politics as usual — in advance. The Democratic legislators won't know what hit them. They're automatically framed as enemies of the people."
Oh yes, that's what those Republicans are doing: they're "framing" their posititions in order to cast themselves in the best light.
A politican, doing this? REALLY?! Shudder gasp! Say it ain't so! Who could BE so vile?!
Well, the Democrats, that's who. Consider the term "undocumented workers", obviously a euphanism meaning illegal immigrants. But liberals don't like the term "illegal immigrants", because it implys that they have done something against the law (well, shucks, what would give people THAT kooky idea?). Use the term "undocumented workers" however, and it makes those conservatives look like meanie heads.
Waahhh.
Please. The Democrats have been doing this for just as long. They just happen to have a different phrase for it: "political correctness."
"Why haven't progressives done the same thing?
There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.'"
Liberals don't need to do any of that, of course. Instead, they have Joe. Q Taxpayer foot the bill directly and call it "National Public Radio." That way they don't have to worry about any of that "profit" nonsense, so they can babble on about whatever they like regardless of whether or not anybody's actually listening to their inane drivel.
There's a reason conservatives dominate talk radio: because you can't sustain a 3 hour talk show by filling it with baseless prattle or hate mongering.
"And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.
Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better."
Liberals not letting money be wasted on administration and career development?!?! Has he ever HEARD of the public school system?!
Oh, and gotta love that last sentence, which could easily be interpreted to mean "those conservatives had the gall to build a system that can actually support itself, as opposed to wasting copious amounts of money, and that's why people actually listen to them for three hours a day."
You know, I've got the fitting slogan for the Democratic Party this election year.
Vote Democrat in '04
"Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.
Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world."
You know, I've listened to a lot of conservative talk radio, and NEVER have I heard the philosophy "children are born bad and must be made good" expressed once, by anyone. No, what they believe is that children are born irresponsible, and must be taught responsibility.
Note the language, or "framing" that Mr. Lakoff uses. He never once assigns his liberal viewpoints any negative connotations. Meanwhile, his description of the conservative viewpoint is littered with negative language. His "framing" paints his own view in the best light.
Oh, sorry, I forgot that it's only the conservatives who "frame". It's hard to keep track sometimes, what with those annoying facts getting me all confused. Bad, bad facts! ::swat::
There, that's better. Let's continue.
"So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones — those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and those who are on the way."
Hey, way to distort the conservative philosophy. I noticed you didn't provide any quotes that show a conservative putting forth this doctrine you allege that they have. It seems to me that conservatives measure worth by the things you earn, not the things you have. The facts seem to indicate that their doctrine is that anyone who works hard and puts forth effort is to be deemed a citizen of worth, regardless of monetary possessions.
Whoops, I keep forgetting that facts are what those dastardly conservatives use in order to trick us into their web of lies. I'll get it soon, I promise.
"From that framework, I can see why Schwarzenegger appealed to conservatives.
Exactly. In the strict father model, the big thing is discipline and moral authority, and punishment for those who do something wrong. That comes out very clearly in the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy. With Schwarzenegger, it's in his movies: most of the characters that he plays exemplify that moral system. He didn't have to say a word! He just had to stand up there, and he represents Mr. Discipline. He knows what's right and wrong, and he's going to take it to the people. He's not going to ask permission, or have a discussion, he's going to do what needs to be done, using force and authority. His very persona represents what conservatives are about."
Oh god, he's been drinking the Kool-Aid. This is unbelievably stupid. He knows what's right and wrong, and he's not going to have a discussion? That's what Mr. Lakoff wants you to convince you that the conservatives in this country stand for?
Utter garbage. If that's the case, then why would the conservatives, by your own admission, control talk radio? The very basis of talk radio is that people call in to discuss their viewpoints. It isn't just conservatives who call in, either. Many liberals call and talk to conservative talk show hosts. Sometimes when this happens, there is indeed yelling and screaming. However, it's far more common for a passionate but rational and respectful debate to occur, where both parties try to use facts to defeat the other person's arguments.
Yeah, conservatives are so TOTALLY against discussion. Never mind that discussion is precisely how many conservative voices make a living.
This is a perfect example of why you should never believe a statement a person makes, unless they support it with facts. People can come to very stupid generalizations about things they don't like.
Remember the 2nd most important motto in this world: "In God We Trust, all others must bring data."
"Are "progressive" and "liberal" different, or is Rockridge trying to sidestep the conservatives' successfully having framed "liberal" as pejorative?
Well, there is some of that, but both terms are kind of mushy and vague. After World War II and the Vietnam War, "liberal" came to mean someone who supports [Franklin Delano Roosevelt's] New Deal, and a strong military and foreign policy. The term "progressive" originated from people who were Democratic Socialists, but the socialism aspect has dropped away, and it's come to mean what I call "nurturant morality." It includes choosing peace whenever possible, environmentalism, civil liberties, minority rights, notions like social justice through living wages, et cetera. "Progressive" has been chosen, in part, to contrast in a forward-looking way with "conservative" — for example, as when Podesta chose the name "The Center for American Progress" for his new think tank.
Also, within traditional liberalism you have a history of rational thought that was born out of the Enlightenment: all meanings should be literal, and everything should follow logically. So if you just tell people the facts, that should be enough — the truth shall set you free. All people are fully rational, so if you tell them the truth, they should reach the right conclusions. That, of course, has been a disaster.
Meaning, for example, that if you tell people that the tax cuts are overwhelmingly benefiting the richest 1 percent of Americans at the expense of a balanced budget, liberals think people will naturally revolt against the measure.
Exactly. It never works. And liberals don't know why."
Oh god, this is so insulting.
"See, you can't count on people to understand it when we tell them our truth....uh, I mean THE truth, of course." ::takes a sip of the Kool-Aid::
"Ah, that's better. See, when we tell people the truth, they don't have the sense to take it at face value. Instead, they draw silly conclusions from it, such as we aren't telling the entire truth. They sometimes even think-and I have no IDEA how they come up with this wacky stuff- that we distort the facts intentionally! Don't they get it? You can't 'believe it when you see it.' That's counterproductive, and just not progressive thinking! You have to 'see it when you believe it!' Why can't you people grasp this simple concept?!"
Judge for yourselves. Bush's tax cut plan is laid out, nice and simple, right here. If you think the plan can be improved, fine. I do too. But if, filing as a single, you make at least $13 an hour or more (but less than $136,750 a year) and work 40 hours a week, than your tax rate is reduced by almost half. As a married couple, the amount per hour the couple has to average to receive the same tax cut is dropped to $10.87 an hour. Yes, some people don't receive a tax cut. But the numbers are right there: Bush's tax cut plan's main beneficiary is the middle class.
See? I used facts to support my claim. This is how debate works. Debate does not work by screaming something over and over again at the top of your lungs until people finally say "fine, we believe you already, whatever, but please god just shut up."
I could go on and on, but I'm going to end it after this next one. I think you've almost got the point.
"What about the phrase "free market"? Is that an example of framing?
Yes, but one that's so deeply embedded that it's difficult at first to see how. You have to start with the metaphor that the market is a force of nature, which comes from [the economist] Adam Smith, who says that if everybody pursues their own profit, then the profit of all will be maximized by the "invisible hand" — by which he means nature. There is also a metaphor that well-being is wealth. If I do you a favor, therefore making things better for you, then you say, "How can I ever repay you? I'm in your debt." It's as if I'd given you money. We understand our well-being as wealth.
Combine them, and you get the conservatives' version that says if everybody pursues their own well-being, the well-being of all will be maximized by nature. They have the metaphorical notion of a free market even in their child-rearing system. It's not just an economic theory; it's a moral theory. When you discipline your children, they get internal discipline to become self-reliant, which means they can pursue their self-interest and get along in a difficult world. Conservatives even have a word for people who are not pursuing their self interest. They're called "do-gooders," and they get in the way of people who are pursuing their self-interest.
OK, but how is that a frame, rather than a guiding ideology?
Because the "free market" doesn't exist...."
Oh god, he's a not-so-closet socialist. This should be fun.
"....there is no such thing. All markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The WTO [World Trade Organization] has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules. For example, corporations have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profit. That's a construction of the market. Now, it doesn't have to be that way. You could make that rule, "Corporations must maximize stakeholder value." Stakeholders — as opposed to shareholders, the institutions who own the largest portions of stock — would include employees, local communities, and the environment. That changes the whole notion of what a "market" is."
Okay, analogy time.
First off, the easy one. If his argument held water, then we would have to also conclude that baseball does not exist, because after all it too has rules. Wow.
Now, let's get a bit more in-depth. I'll use an example of the free market that shows exactly why there is a free market. (Again, there's that wacky notion of mine that facts decide who's right or wrong.)
I happen to know a lot about the home video game industry. I've been following it ever since I was eight, when I would bring eight video game magazines to school and read them incessantly. They weren't just code books, they went into detail as to why games and systems were priced a certain way. In other words, I learned more about economics at an earlier age than school could have ever hoped to teach me.
During the days of the original NES, the home video game market was still very much dominated by kids. The newest, best games were never more than $15 a pop. Meanwhile, the older, more serious gamers went to the arcades, which had been around for a long time. These were the rules of the market at the time.
Then the SNES came out, and the home consoles were starting to catch up to arcades in technical quality. The arcades were still more powerful, so they remained viable. But the SNES started to gain legitimaticy with the older kids. Thus the SNES succeeded in changing the market.
Now, it has been proven time and time again that not enough people are willing to buy a new console at anything above $300. But this hadn't been proven at this time. So Phillips Interactive tried to sell a new, CD based system to the public. However, CD manufacture wasn't in demand enough to support manufacturing costs low enough to get their console under $300. The CD-i Interactive was released for about $500.
The public simply will not pay that much for a home console, especially during an age in which the best games are still at the arcades. Phillips Interactive tried to change the rules of the game before the public was ready to accept those changes. As a result, they failed.
With the advent of newer, more powerful systems, the home consoles became even better than the arcade systems in terms of technological power. They changed the rules of the game by doing so. Now, arcades can no longer merely offer regular games that people would rather play in the comfort of their own home. The internet means they don't have to go to arcades to find competition.
So what did arcades do? Roll over and die? Ask for money from the government so that arcade jobs would not die out?
No. They reinvented themselves. Now an arcade is a place to have an experience you simply can't get sitting on your sofa at home. From dancing games requiring footwork to skateboarding games that actually feature a skateboard as the control interface, the arcades now offer a different experience from home consoles. Thus, they remain viable even in the face of the changing rules.
The goverment mandated none of this. It meddled in none of this. As a result, everybody from the consumer to the manufacturers to the retailers are happy.
There you go. That's the difference between me and Professor Lakoff. I will present the facts, and trust in you to be able to decide for yourselves the right position to take. Mr. Lakoff states that you are too stupid to see through shaded language, and would prefer to blame "framing" for your not arriving at the same conclusions he has.
So here's the question I pose to you.
Judging from what he and I have said above, which one of us holds the higher opinion of your intelligence? Him or me?
I thought I might've been getting tired of talking about mostly politics on this site. Sandy has mentioned that it gives her a headache. So I thought I'd write a nice piece that bridged the gap between politics and other topics. It would be a discussion on philosophy, particularly a mindset that would be very revealing as to why some people think the way they do. But it wouldn't be about some stupid, conniving politician.
Well, you can talk politics without talking about politicians, and Dig The D's California Correspondant Mariela sent me a link to the following website:
"George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics"
Damnit, I can't help going after this guy. He represents the Democrats' philosophy, and a lot of people will read this story and go "I KNEW there was a reason people are becoming more conservative!"
Sorry, but no. That kind of Kool-Aid is not beneficial for the consumption of rational beings.
I'll post the introductory paragraphs here and the specific parts of the piece that I will focus on here, to save you from having to read the whole thing yourselves (lazy bastards).
Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
By Bonnie Azab Powell, NewsCenter | 27 October 2003
BERKELEY – With Republicans controlling the Senate, the House, and the White House and enjoying a large margin of victory for California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, it's clear that the Democratic Party is in crisis. George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive science, thinks he knows why. Conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them, says Lakoff.
You know what's sad? Mr. Lakoff has probably made his life's work the study of all of this. All of his degrees and academic accolades have allowed him to have the clout neccessary to have his theories taken seriously by the academia.
Yet a rank amateur is about to tear his arguments to shreds.
See, this is what people tend to do when the beliefs they hold start to shift to the minority. It's called denial. Nobody wants to believe that their ideals are losing support because the other side actually has more merit. So they try and blame other factors. This is an example of that process of denial manifesting itself.
Most college campuses are hotbeds for liberalism. UC Berkeley happens to be the capital. They're starting to lose their stranglehold at most colleges however, and they don't seem to like it.
From here on in, all quotes in bold are questions the interviewer asked of Mr. Lakoff.
"How does language influence the terms of political debate?
Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.
If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" — something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves.
Here's another example of how powerful framing is. In Arnold Schwarzenegger's acceptance speech, he said, "When the people win, politics as usual loses." What's that about? Well, he knows that he's going to face a Democratic legislature, so what he has done is frame himself and also Republican politicians as the people, while framing Democratic politicians as politics as usual — in advance. The Democratic legislators won't know what hit them. They're automatically framed as enemies of the people."
Oh yes, that's what those Republicans are doing: they're "framing" their posititions in order to cast themselves in the best light.
A politican, doing this? REALLY?! Shudder gasp! Say it ain't so! Who could BE so vile?!
Well, the Democrats, that's who. Consider the term "undocumented workers", obviously a euphanism meaning illegal immigrants. But liberals don't like the term "illegal immigrants", because it implys that they have done something against the law (well, shucks, what would give people THAT kooky idea?). Use the term "undocumented workers" however, and it makes those conservatives look like meanie heads.
Waahhh.
Please. The Democrats have been doing this for just as long. They just happen to have a different phrase for it: "political correctness."
"Why haven't progressives done the same thing?
There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.'"
Liberals don't need to do any of that, of course. Instead, they have Joe. Q Taxpayer foot the bill directly and call it "National Public Radio." That way they don't have to worry about any of that "profit" nonsense, so they can babble on about whatever they like regardless of whether or not anybody's actually listening to their inane drivel.
There's a reason conservatives dominate talk radio: because you can't sustain a 3 hour talk show by filling it with baseless prattle or hate mongering.
"And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.
Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better."
Liberals not letting money be wasted on administration and career development?!?! Has he ever HEARD of the public school system?!
Oh, and gotta love that last sentence, which could easily be interpreted to mean "those conservatives had the gall to build a system that can actually support itself, as opposed to wasting copious amounts of money, and that's why people actually listen to them for three hours a day."
You know, I've got the fitting slogan for the Democratic Party this election year.
Vote Democrat in '04
Because personal responsibility is for nerds.
"Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.
Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world."
You know, I've listened to a lot of conservative talk radio, and NEVER have I heard the philosophy "children are born bad and must be made good" expressed once, by anyone. No, what they believe is that children are born irresponsible, and must be taught responsibility.
Note the language, or "framing" that Mr. Lakoff uses. He never once assigns his liberal viewpoints any negative connotations. Meanwhile, his description of the conservative viewpoint is littered with negative language. His "framing" paints his own view in the best light.
Oh, sorry, I forgot that it's only the conservatives who "frame". It's hard to keep track sometimes, what with those annoying facts getting me all confused. Bad, bad facts! ::swat::
There, that's better. Let's continue.
"So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones — those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and those who are on the way."
Hey, way to distort the conservative philosophy. I noticed you didn't provide any quotes that show a conservative putting forth this doctrine you allege that they have. It seems to me that conservatives measure worth by the things you earn, not the things you have. The facts seem to indicate that their doctrine is that anyone who works hard and puts forth effort is to be deemed a citizen of worth, regardless of monetary possessions.
Whoops, I keep forgetting that facts are what those dastardly conservatives use in order to trick us into their web of lies. I'll get it soon, I promise.
"From that framework, I can see why Schwarzenegger appealed to conservatives.
Exactly. In the strict father model, the big thing is discipline and moral authority, and punishment for those who do something wrong. That comes out very clearly in the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy. With Schwarzenegger, it's in his movies: most of the characters that he plays exemplify that moral system. He didn't have to say a word! He just had to stand up there, and he represents Mr. Discipline. He knows what's right and wrong, and he's going to take it to the people. He's not going to ask permission, or have a discussion, he's going to do what needs to be done, using force and authority. His very persona represents what conservatives are about."
Oh god, he's been drinking the Kool-Aid. This is unbelievably stupid. He knows what's right and wrong, and he's not going to have a discussion? That's what Mr. Lakoff wants you to convince you that the conservatives in this country stand for?
Utter garbage. If that's the case, then why would the conservatives, by your own admission, control talk radio? The very basis of talk radio is that people call in to discuss their viewpoints. It isn't just conservatives who call in, either. Many liberals call and talk to conservative talk show hosts. Sometimes when this happens, there is indeed yelling and screaming. However, it's far more common for a passionate but rational and respectful debate to occur, where both parties try to use facts to defeat the other person's arguments.
Yeah, conservatives are so TOTALLY against discussion. Never mind that discussion is precisely how many conservative voices make a living.
This is a perfect example of why you should never believe a statement a person makes, unless they support it with facts. People can come to very stupid generalizations about things they don't like.
Remember the 2nd most important motto in this world: "In God We Trust, all others must bring data."
"Are "progressive" and "liberal" different, or is Rockridge trying to sidestep the conservatives' successfully having framed "liberal" as pejorative?
Well, there is some of that, but both terms are kind of mushy and vague. After World War II and the Vietnam War, "liberal" came to mean someone who supports [Franklin Delano Roosevelt's] New Deal, and a strong military and foreign policy. The term "progressive" originated from people who were Democratic Socialists, but the socialism aspect has dropped away, and it's come to mean what I call "nurturant morality." It includes choosing peace whenever possible, environmentalism, civil liberties, minority rights, notions like social justice through living wages, et cetera. "Progressive" has been chosen, in part, to contrast in a forward-looking way with "conservative" — for example, as when Podesta chose the name "The Center for American Progress" for his new think tank.
Also, within traditional liberalism you have a history of rational thought that was born out of the Enlightenment: all meanings should be literal, and everything should follow logically. So if you just tell people the facts, that should be enough — the truth shall set you free. All people are fully rational, so if you tell them the truth, they should reach the right conclusions. That, of course, has been a disaster.
Meaning, for example, that if you tell people that the tax cuts are overwhelmingly benefiting the richest 1 percent of Americans at the expense of a balanced budget, liberals think people will naturally revolt against the measure.
Exactly. It never works. And liberals don't know why."
Oh god, this is so insulting.
"See, you can't count on people to understand it when we tell them our truth....uh, I mean THE truth, of course." ::takes a sip of the Kool-Aid::
"Ah, that's better. See, when we tell people the truth, they don't have the sense to take it at face value. Instead, they draw silly conclusions from it, such as we aren't telling the entire truth. They sometimes even think-and I have no IDEA how they come up with this wacky stuff- that we distort the facts intentionally! Don't they get it? You can't 'believe it when you see it.' That's counterproductive, and just not progressive thinking! You have to 'see it when you believe it!' Why can't you people grasp this simple concept?!"
Judge for yourselves. Bush's tax cut plan is laid out, nice and simple, right here. If you think the plan can be improved, fine. I do too. But if, filing as a single, you make at least $13 an hour or more (but less than $136,750 a year) and work 40 hours a week, than your tax rate is reduced by almost half. As a married couple, the amount per hour the couple has to average to receive the same tax cut is dropped to $10.87 an hour. Yes, some people don't receive a tax cut. But the numbers are right there: Bush's tax cut plan's main beneficiary is the middle class.
See? I used facts to support my claim. This is how debate works. Debate does not work by screaming something over and over again at the top of your lungs until people finally say "fine, we believe you already, whatever, but please god just shut up."
I could go on and on, but I'm going to end it after this next one. I think you've almost got the point.
"What about the phrase "free market"? Is that an example of framing?
Yes, but one that's so deeply embedded that it's difficult at first to see how. You have to start with the metaphor that the market is a force of nature, which comes from [the economist] Adam Smith, who says that if everybody pursues their own profit, then the profit of all will be maximized by the "invisible hand" — by which he means nature. There is also a metaphor that well-being is wealth. If I do you a favor, therefore making things better for you, then you say, "How can I ever repay you? I'm in your debt." It's as if I'd given you money. We understand our well-being as wealth.
Combine them, and you get the conservatives' version that says if everybody pursues their own well-being, the well-being of all will be maximized by nature. They have the metaphorical notion of a free market even in their child-rearing system. It's not just an economic theory; it's a moral theory. When you discipline your children, they get internal discipline to become self-reliant, which means they can pursue their self-interest and get along in a difficult world. Conservatives even have a word for people who are not pursuing their self interest. They're called "do-gooders," and they get in the way of people who are pursuing their self-interest.
OK, but how is that a frame, rather than a guiding ideology?
Because the "free market" doesn't exist...."
Oh god, he's a not-so-closet socialist. This should be fun.
"....there is no such thing. All markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The WTO [World Trade Organization] has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules. For example, corporations have a legal obligation to maximize shareholder profit. That's a construction of the market. Now, it doesn't have to be that way. You could make that rule, "Corporations must maximize stakeholder value." Stakeholders — as opposed to shareholders, the institutions who own the largest portions of stock — would include employees, local communities, and the environment. That changes the whole notion of what a "market" is."
Okay, analogy time.
First off, the easy one. If his argument held water, then we would have to also conclude that baseball does not exist, because after all it too has rules. Wow.
Now, let's get a bit more in-depth. I'll use an example of the free market that shows exactly why there is a free market. (Again, there's that wacky notion of mine that facts decide who's right or wrong.)
I happen to know a lot about the home video game industry. I've been following it ever since I was eight, when I would bring eight video game magazines to school and read them incessantly. They weren't just code books, they went into detail as to why games and systems were priced a certain way. In other words, I learned more about economics at an earlier age than school could have ever hoped to teach me.
During the days of the original NES, the home video game market was still very much dominated by kids. The newest, best games were never more than $15 a pop. Meanwhile, the older, more serious gamers went to the arcades, which had been around for a long time. These were the rules of the market at the time.
Then the SNES came out, and the home consoles were starting to catch up to arcades in technical quality. The arcades were still more powerful, so they remained viable. But the SNES started to gain legitimaticy with the older kids. Thus the SNES succeeded in changing the market.
Now, it has been proven time and time again that not enough people are willing to buy a new console at anything above $300. But this hadn't been proven at this time. So Phillips Interactive tried to sell a new, CD based system to the public. However, CD manufacture wasn't in demand enough to support manufacturing costs low enough to get their console under $300. The CD-i Interactive was released for about $500.
The public simply will not pay that much for a home console, especially during an age in which the best games are still at the arcades. Phillips Interactive tried to change the rules of the game before the public was ready to accept those changes. As a result, they failed.
With the advent of newer, more powerful systems, the home consoles became even better than the arcade systems in terms of technological power. They changed the rules of the game by doing so. Now, arcades can no longer merely offer regular games that people would rather play in the comfort of their own home. The internet means they don't have to go to arcades to find competition.
So what did arcades do? Roll over and die? Ask for money from the government so that arcade jobs would not die out?
No. They reinvented themselves. Now an arcade is a place to have an experience you simply can't get sitting on your sofa at home. From dancing games requiring footwork to skateboarding games that actually feature a skateboard as the control interface, the arcades now offer a different experience from home consoles. Thus, they remain viable even in the face of the changing rules.
The goverment mandated none of this. It meddled in none of this. As a result, everybody from the consumer to the manufacturers to the retailers are happy.
There you go. That's the difference between me and Professor Lakoff. I will present the facts, and trust in you to be able to decide for yourselves the right position to take. Mr. Lakoff states that you are too stupid to see through shaded language, and would prefer to blame "framing" for your not arriving at the same conclusions he has.
So here's the question I pose to you.
Judging from what he and I have said above, which one of us holds the higher opinion of your intelligence? Him or me?
Comments:
Post a Comment
