|
Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think is a book by cognitive linguist George Lakoff. It argues that conservatives and liberals hold two different
conceptual models of morality. Conservatives have a Strict Father morality in which people are made good thru
self-discipline and hard work. Liberals have a Nurturant Mother morality which sees people as something to be cared for
and assisted.
(The first edition of the book was published with the subtitle What conservatives know that
liberals don't.)
The book
Moral Politics has two different purposes as a book. On one hand, Lakoff attempts to use the techniques of cognitive linguistics to better understand the mental frameworks
that lie behind contemporary American politics. He strives to describe which mental concepts make up a "liberal", and which a
"conservative". (What Lakoff means by these two terms is considered below.) On the other hand, he also attempts to justify why
"liberal" morals and politics (of which the author admits to partake) are superior to "conservative" morals and politics.
The book is an objective study of the conceptual metaphors
underlying conservative and liberal politics although the closing section is devoted to the author's personal views. Lakoff makes
it clear however, that there is no such thing as an Objective study of politics, as politics is based in subjective
morality.
Lakoff wrote Moral Politics soon after the Republican Party's "Contract With America" takeover of Congress under the
Clinton presidency, and his usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative"
is strongly correlated with how those labels might have been used in the 1994 elections, the former having much to do with the
Democratic party and the latter with the Republican party; indeed, chapter 9, "Moral Categories in Politics", presents Hillary Clinton as a prototypical "liberal" and Newt Gingrich as a prototypical "conservative". (Lakoff actually puts this somewhat differently,
suggesting that Clinton is the prototypical arch-nemesis of conservatives, while Gingrich is the prototypical arch-nemesis of
liberals.)
The central problems
The major observations/assumptions and questions on which the book is founded include these:
- There is one cluster of beliefs that most conservatives share (including some kind of condemnation of abortion, a positive
emphasis on military spending, and a fixed-percentage income tax) and another cluster that most liberals share (including some
kind of support for abortion, a negative emphasis on military spending, and a progressive income tax). What is the explanation
for this clustering? What "unifies each of the lists of moral priorities?" After all, each of these beliefs seems to be logically
independent, e.g. it is possible to believe, as surely some people do, that both the right to abortion and significant military
spending ought to be supported. Nonetheless, such "mix and match" views seem comparatively rare. How come?
- Liberals and conservatives usually not only disagree with one another but view the "other side" as largely incoherent. Many
liberals, for example, see building more prisons a completely ineffective and illogical solution to crime, while many
conservatives view it as the obvious solution. Why can't the one side even begin to understand the other?
- Why do liberals and conservatives tend to use the same words to mean different things? For example, a liberal might use the
term "big government" to condemn the military, but, to a conservative, the term "big government" has nothing to do with the
military, even though the military is a significant government institution.
- Why do liberals and conservatives make different issues the focus of campaigns? For example, why did the Republican leaders
emphasize "family values" so much in their 1994 campaign, and why was similar emphasis not made by Democrats? Don't liberals also
have families and a moral framework for reasoning about families?
The proposed solution: a metaphorical model
Lakoff tries to resolve these difficulties through a model in which liberals and conservatives have different and
contradictory worldviews. These worldviews are thought to conflict in a number of ways relevant to the understanding of politics.
Nonetheless, Lakoff claims that all these differences center around the two sides' respective understandings of the ideal nuclear
family.
The family is central to Lakoff because he views it as our most common ways of understanding the country; Americans often
metaphorically understand their country as a family, the government corresponding to the parent(s) of the family and the
individual citizens corresponding to the children. Thus, one's understanding of how a family should be will have direct
implications for how the country should be.
Liberals' ideal conceptualization is in terms of the "nurturant parent" family, while Conservatives' is in terms of the
"strict father" family. Given the importance of these concepts in Moral Politics, it is important to consider what they
mean, along with how each suggests and is justified by a corresponding way of viewing the natures of child rearing, morality, and
justice.
A "nurturant parent" family is one that revolves around every family member caring for and being cared for by every other
family member, around open communication between all parties, and around everyone pursuing their own vision of happiness. It is
also correlated with the following views:
- Morality: The basis of morality is in understanding, respecting, and helping other people, and in seeking the happiness of
one's self and of others. The primary vices are selfishness and anti-social behavior.
- Child development: Children develop morality primarily through interacting with and observing good people, especially good
parents. Punishment is necessary in some cases, but also has the potential to backfire, causing children to adopt more violent or
more anti-social ways. Though children should, in general, obey their parents, they will develop best if allowed to question
their parents' decisions, to hear justifications for their parents' rules, etc.. Moral development is a life-long process, and
almost no one is so perfect as not to need improvement.
- Justice: The world is not without justice, but it is far from the ideal of justice. Many people, for example, do not seem
properly rewarded for their hard work and dedication. We must work hard to improve everyone's condition.
A "strict father" family revolves around the parents teaching their children how to be self-reliant and self-disciplined
through "tough love". This is correlated with the following views:
- Morality: Evil is all around us, constantly tempting us. Thus, the basis of morality is strong moral character, which
requires self-reliance and self-discipline. The primary vices are those that dissolve self-discipline, such as laziness,
gluttony, and indulgent sexuality.
- Child development: Children develop self-discipline, self-reliance, and other virtues primarily through rewards and
punishment, a system of "tough love". Since parents know the difference between right and wrong and children still do not,
obedience to the parents is very important. Moral development basically lasts only as long as childhood; it's important to get it
right the first time, because there is no "second chance".
- Justice: The world may be a difficult place to live, but it is basically just; people usually get what they deserve. The
difficulties in one's life serve as a test to sort the deserving from the undeserving.
Let's consider how this model can be used to answer the central questions framed above. (Please feel free to expand this
section. The original author views it as weak.) As for why we have liberals and conservatives, as opposed to a bunch of
issue-by-issue voters, Lakoff claims that one's take on any given political issue is largely determined by which model one
adopts. Thus, in Part IV, "The Hard Issues", he tries to demonstrate how the liberal and conservative worldviews outlined above
lead to typical liberal and conservative positions on a wide range of issues, including taxes, the death penalty, environmental
regulations, affirmative action, education, and abortion.
As to why liberals and conservatives view each other's as incomprehensible on an issue-by-issue basis, Lakoff claims the
trouble lies in each side not grasping the other side's worldview, and how different it is from its own. Failure to do so results
in both sides thinking the other is hopelessly irrational and immoral; an obviously unfortunate state of affairs.
As to why liberals and conservatives use different vocabulary, even to the point of using the same words to mean different
things, Lakoff would again point to his model. Liberals and conservatives have different worldviews, and words are very much
influenced by the worldview of the speaker. As Lakoff puts it,
- Words don't have meanings in isolation. Words are defined relative to a conceptual system. If liberals are to understand how
conservatives use their words, they will have to understand the conservative conceptual system. (From chapter 2, "The Worldview
Problem")
Here, he is talking about liberals having trouble understanding conservatives, but Lakoff obviously views the reverse
situation as equally problematic.
As for why conservatives and liberals make different issues the focus of their campaigns, this, too, stems largely from the
model. (Explain how.) The fact that Republicans in 1994 focused so much on "family values", while the Democrats did not,
is quite interesting to Lakoff. He views this as a sign that conservatives understand the Country is a Family metaphor that lies
behind people's views of politics much better than liberals, which has helped them to get ahead politically.
Clarifications of the model
There are several things Lakoff does not intend to mean with his model. Perhaps most importantly, Lakoff does not believe that
all conservatives are the same or that all liberals are the same. Chapter 17, "Varieties of Liberals and Conservatives", is
entirely devoted to showing a number of dimensions along which one can slide and still be a member of either camp. Among other
things, he says that one might have one way to conceptualize a real nuclear family and a separate, even opposite way of
conceptualizing a metaphorical country-family. Lakoff is certainly not trying to establish necessary and sufficient conditions
for being liberal or conservative. In the terminology of cognitive linguistics, Lakoff views both liberal and conservative as
"radical category" labels.
Another thing Lakoff does not mean is that people consciously believe in the family concepts that he has described. As a
cognitive scientist, Lakoff believes he is describing mental structures that may well be mostly below conscious level. This does
not mean, however, that they have little or no effect on one's opinions and consequent actions.
Arguments against shallow stereotypes
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" (p. 317, 1996 edition)
Second edition
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. (Has
anyone read the new book? Does this interpretation seem valid? Also, has the content of the book changed as well?)
Response
Comparison to other thinkers
Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions also seeks to explain
the inner logic behind the apparently ad-hoc collections of political views that tend to clump together. Whereas Lakoff focuses
on contemporary "Liberals" and "Conservatives" in the United States, Sowell focuses mainly on Western political writing, both
contemporary and from the past few centuries. Lakoff's being a linguist and Sowell's being an economist and political scientist
also lend rather different feels to each book. Nonetheless, the similarity between the books is compelling.
Other social scientists and political commentators have proposed a "family values" as key to understanding a conservative
mindset. In The Interest Group Society, for example, political scientist Jeffrey Berry describes "the new right movement
that developed in the late 1970s" as being founded on "a belief that the American way of life is threatened", chiefly because of
"the decline of the nuclear family." At this time, Berry says, feminism was seen as one of the greatest threats to the family,
and, therefore, "conservative groups see feminism as one of the root causes of divorce, growing welfare caseloads, out-of-wedlock
births, and many other trends they decry." (See Berry, pp. 34-35.)
George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes a fictional totalitarian regime lead by Big Brother, which
teaches its citizens a version of English ("Newspeak") in which opposition to it cannot be expressed. Some claim that Moral
Politics likens either liberals or conservatives (usually the latter) to Big Brother; the offending party is said to deliberately impose its views by repeating idioms and
altering terms of reference in debate.
What the book means to different people
The book's duality of purpose means that it will be a very different work for different people. For those sympathetic to
cognitive science in general or cognitive linguistics in particular, the book might provide
"enough" objective content to suggest a useful model of how human language and concepts are structured.
As Lakoff points out, conservatives are very firm in their belief that there is an objective view of politics. The fact that
the book shows that politics is subjective has annoyed some conservatives.
For others, the book may be uninteresting as far as scientific implications are concerned, but insightful in terms of better
understanding the political thought of either themselves or "the other guys".
Some have criticized Moral Politics as being overly ahistorical. The work certainly is fixed in a very particular
point in time, although it might be helpful to consider that Lakoff sees his job to explain politics not in terms of political
forces that act through time, but through the structures inherent in the particular human minds of the here and now. It can be
argued that both perspectives have their merit.
One could argue about whether Hillary and Newt make sense as prototypical figures
Application
Howard Dean
Presidential candidate Howard Dean was a fan of the book, citing it as
support for his activist strategy. "What you do is crank the heck out of your base, get them really excited and crank up the base
turnout and you'll win the middle-of-the-roaders," Dean told US News and World Report. Dean reasoned that since swing voters share the mental model of
both parties they will eventually go with whatever party excites them the most. "Democrats appeal to them on their softer
side--the safety net--but the Republicans appeal to them on the harder side--the discipline, the responsibility, and so forth. So
the question is which side appears to be energetic, deeply believing in its message, deeply committed to bringing a vision of
hope to America. That side is the side that gets the swing voters and wins."
While Dean ended up losing the Democratic primary he was very successful for a long time, catapulting from being a
largely-unknown governor of a small state to the front-runner a crowded primary race even though his campaign was staffed mostly
by amateurs and students. Dean's activism is widely credited with reviving a moribund Democratic Party which was afraid to take
on President Bush.
Robert Reich
Robert Reich applied similar principles in his Democratic primary bid
for Governor of Massachusetts, although he apparently did not credit Lakoff directly. However, he seems to have discovered much
the same ideas around the same time (the 1994 elections).
- That's it. Emasculation ... Blue-collar men are losing good jobs or fear they will. Their wages are dropping, and they have
to take women's jobs in fast food, retail sales, hospitals, and hotels. Their wives have to work harder. They're angry and
humiliated and scared. ... And then this guy wants to take away their guns. He wants to put gays in the army. He doesn't
stand up to a bitch from Arkansas who accuses him of hanky-panky. He puts his bossy wife in charge of health care reform, which
crashes. He handed over the family finances to her, and she wheeled-and-dealed in commodities and a land deal which went to hell.
Get the picture? ... Blue-collar men already lost one testicle before Clinton. Now they're both gone, and they're furious.
(Locked in the Cabinet, 192)
Reich had a similar success to Dean, coming in second despite having very little money.
References
Publication information:
- Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't. University of Chicago Press, 1996.
- Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. University of Chicago Press, 2002.
- Lakoff, George. Metaphor, Morality, and Politics . Social Research 62:5 (Summer, 1995).
- Berry, Jeffrey. The Interest Group Society. 2nd edition. Glenview, Illinois and Boston: Scott, Foresman/Little,
Brown. 1989.
|