Review: Don't think of an elephant

Just finished .

Yes, I read the leftist too. George Lakoff is one of those liberal conspiracy theorists that subscribe to the whacky belief that somehow the “right wing” has hoodwinked an entire nation into electing a Republican majority with an agenda in total opposition to the real interests of the country. Similar to Thomas Frank. While Frank comes across as just so many sour grapes, Lakoff actually has a more interesting approach to the standard “the commies have brainwashed us” argument. Lakoff is a linguist. He studies framing. He correctly notices that the Republicans have done a much better job than the Democrats at investing in think-tanks and long term “strategic” projects that frame debates with terms favorable to them. Here is an example: “Tax relief” is much more popular today than “tax reform”. What is the connotation? Relief connotes some form of malady, oppression, something wrong that needs fixing. Everyone wants “relief” from the ills that afflict us. Put “tax” in front of it and taxes become the malady for which we need relief. Whenever the Democrats debate “tax relief” they are arguing a frame that favors the Republicans. The presumption is that we need relief from the tax malady. Lakoff (with no minor amount of self-interest) correctly points out that taxes do have a positive frame. Taxes pay for the infrastructure that built the country, roads, public libraries, courts, justice systems, prisons, education, public health. I don’t mind taxes per se. I voted for an increase in the sales tax here in Washington to fund education. I don’t want my children to grow up with dummies around them. There are valid things the government does. If the Democrats would frame taxes as part of our responsibility as citizens and essential for a civil society, they may have a better chance. The problem is that when you start off in the “relief” frame, you are behind. The Republicans are arguing a value and the Democrats are arguing facts. Values trump facts every time.

Lakoff also highlights the differences in world view between liberals and conservatives. He calls them “nurturant values” and “strict father values”. This dichotomy is similar to the “unconstrained” and “constrained” world visions described in A Conflict of Visions (review coming).

Here is Lakoff’s (short) description of the “strict father” view of the world:

*The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels god, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good.
What is needed in this kind of world is a strong, strict father who can:
*

• Protect the family in the dangerous world,

• Support the family in the difficult world, and

• Teach his children right from wrong.

What is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong. The rationale behind physical punishment is this: When children do something wrong, if they are physically disciplined they learn not to do it again. That means that they will develop internal discipline to keep themselves from doing wrong, so that in the future they will be obedient and act morally. Without such punishment, the world will go to hell. There will be no morality.

Such internal discipline has a secondary effect. It is what is required for success in the difficult, competitive world. That is, if people are disciplined and pursue their self-interest in this land of opportunity, they will become prosperous and self-reliant.

In this model there is also a definition of what it means to become a good person. A good person - a moral person - is someone who is disciplined enough to be obedient, to learn what is right, do what is right and not do what is wrong, and to purse her self-interest to prosper and become self-reliant. A good child grows up to be like that. A bad child is one who does not learn discipline, does not function morally, does not do what is right, and therefore is not disciplined enough to become prosperous. She cannot take care of herself and thus becomes dependent.

When the good children are mature, they either have learned discipline and can prosper, or have failed to learn it. From this point on the strict father is not to meddle in their lives. This translates politically into no government meddling.

Lakoff describes the nurturant parent world view as gender neutral:

Both parents are equally responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good and can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents’ job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nuturers of others.

What does nuturance mean? It means two things: Empathy and responsibility. If you have a child, you have to know what every cry means. You have to know when the child is hungry, when he needs a diaper change, when he is having nightmares. And you have responsibility - you have to take care of this child. Since you cannot take care of someone else if you are not taking care of yourself, you have to take care of yourself enough to be able to take care of the child.

In addition, all sorts of other values immediately follow from empathy and responsibility. Think about it.

First, if you empathize with your child, you will provide protection. This comes into politics in many ways. What do you protect your child from ? Crime and drugs, certainly. You also protect your child from cars without seat belts, from smoking, from poisonous additives in food. So progressive politics focuses on environmental protection, worker protection, consumer protection, and protection from disease. These are the things that progressives want the government to protect their citizens from. But there are also terrorist attacks, which liberals and progressives have not been very good at talking about in terms of protection.

In the last chapter, Lakoff takes a stab at some framing the Democrats could use to move the debate to their territory. He also begs for investment in think tanks that will push the agenda (not surprisingly his own). I actually agree with some of the “progressive” values he frames, but disagree with far more. I don’t believe the primary job of the government is wealth re-distribution and picking up the slack for those who don’t feel like it. Lakoff does and believes his “reframed” issues can convince the rest of us. I doubt it.

See your politics here? The book is a quick read and worth it for a quick review of your own politics. Lakoff spends too much time promoting his much weightier tome though, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Despite the obvious cross-selling, this one delivers enough unique value for the quick read that it is.

Overall, I would rate this a 2 of 5. Content is low. Concept is high. Thought provoking factor is above average. Conclusions are wrong and wishful thinking.