Moral Politics

Moral Politics is a book by cognitive linguist George Lakoff.

(Please speak up if this term is too general to be used for just the book - that is, if a disambiguation page is in order.)

(For today, this page is really, really under construction by Ryguasu.)

The work can be seen as the product of at least two arguably contradictory motives. On one hand, it attempts to use the techniques of cognitive linguistics to better understand the mental frameworks that lie behind comtemporary American politics. In this sense, the book strives to objectively 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, it 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's form makes a distinction between the two goals; in theory, the majority of the text is devoted to objective study, while one particular closing chapter is devoted to the author's personal views. In practice, however, the separation ends up being much less air-tight; both conservative and liberal readers could probably infer from almost any single chapter in the book that Lakoff is partial to the liberal viewpoint. This liberal coloration can be seen as anything from unnecessary malice against conservatives to a successful demonstration of liberal superiority to scientific ineptitude to the unfortunate but inescapable fact that a completely neutral consideration of morality is impossible. Partly because of this, the book will mean different things to different people.

Moral Politics was written soon after the Republican Party's "Contract With America" takeover of Congress under the Clinton presidency, and Lakoff's usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" seems colored by the ideas of the Democratic and Republican parties in the 1996 elections; at one point Hillary Rodham Clinton is suggested as a prototypical "liberal" and Newt Gingrich as a prototypical "conservative". (He actually puts it somewhat differently, suggesting that Clinton is the prototypical arch-nemesis of conservatives, while Gingrich is the prototypical arch-nemesis of liberals.)

The major observations/assumptions and questions on which the book is founded include these:

1. 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? After all, each of these beliefs seems to be logically independent, i.e. 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?
2. 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?
3. Why did the Republican leaders' emphasis on "family values" prove so effective as a 1996 campaign strategy? Don't liberals also have families and a moral framework for reasoning about families?

Lakoff tries to resolve these difficulties via a model of how people conceptualize politics, the gist of which is this: people understand America as a metaphorical family, the government corresponding to the parent(s) of the family and the individual citizens corresponding to the children. The difference between liberals and conservatives, then, depends chiefly on what stereotyped view of the family is used to conceptualize the country; liberals are said to think in terms of a "nurturant parent" family for this purpose, while conservatives are said to think in terms of a "strict father" family.

...these labels apply both to a theory of how the family should be organized, given the supposed nature of morality and of childhood development, particularly moral development...

A "nuturant parent" family is one that revolves around the principle of emphathy; it is of extreme importance that both parents and children learn to understand and care for one another. The authority of the parents over the children must be legitimized through the care and respect they give their children. Children learn how to become good people by following the example of their parents. Children must learn to share, and to help one another in a spirit of cooperation.

"nurturant parent":

• 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 the ideal of justice, and we must work hard to improve it.

...therefore...

"strict father":

• morality: the basis of morality is self-reliance and self-discipline. The primary vices are sloth and gluttony. ... (the lack of self-discipline)
• Children develop self-discipline, self-reliance, and virtues primarily through rewards and punishment, through a system of "tough love". Setting a good example and being nurturant also help, but bad deeds must be sure to get punished. Obedience is very important...(say why) 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

...therefore...

...

....were much more able to exploit "the logos" or male fascination with beauty, violence, and moral certainty. Although the thesis was not new, and had been raised also by Jane Jacobs in her "Systems of Survival", Lakoff claimed that it was strongly influencing U. S. federal politics, to the point where identical policies were rationalized in two different ways for audiences of different interest groups. And, in claims remniscent of George Orwell, that English usage in late-20th-century politics reflected a deliberate attempt by "the right" to impose its views by repeating idioms and altering terms of reference in debate.

...but was generally unaware of this focus

...

Refutation of some oversimplified liberal interpretations of conservatism

...

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 and Liberals Don't (?), it has been rechristened as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. The original title reflected Lakoff's idea that 1) how one pictures the ideal family influences one's political views, and that 2) conservatives, unlike liberals, understand this connection. Because, he claims, conservatives better understand the true nature of politics, they can harness this fact and gain supporters through, for example, their extensive references to "family values". Indeed, the original edition contains something of a call-to-arms to liberals, along the lines of: if you guys don't get as good of an understanding of politics as the conservatives, we'll never win any votes and save the world. ...

Has the content of the book changed as well?

...

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. For conservatives the book's failure to provide a truly objective view of politics may render it useless as anything but an arrogant, liberal diatribe. For those who view Lakoff's "liberal" or "conservative" views as poor taste parodies of their own beliefs, the book may seem much more insulting or condescending than scientific. 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".

whether Hillary and Newt makes sense as prototypical figures

...

• Moral Politics. University of Chicago Press, 1996.