Don’t Think Like a Donkey: A Critical Analysis of the Ideas of Dr.

George Lakoff
Chapter 1: The Ramifications of Nurturant Morality
In his various works, Dr. George Lakoff describes a concerted effort by the right to impose a Conservative worldview by coining and repeating certain phrases that carry with them a part of the Conservative Worldview or “Frame.” He describes the differences between Nurturant and Strict Father Morality and how these two world views can be reflected in different Frames. In a chapter on arguing with conservatives he advises: “Never Answer a Question Framed from your opponent’s point of view. Always reframe a question to fit your values and your frames.” This is important because Dr. Lakoff believes it is the prevalence of certain Frames that win elections, not thinking about Facts. Dr. Lakoff says there is “a set of Myths believed by Liberals and Progressives… The First one goes like this: The Truth will set us free. If we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusion.” “Neuroscience’s tells us that each of the concepts we have—the long term concepts that structure how we think—is instantiated in the synapses our brains. Concepts are not things that can be changed just by telling us a fact. We may be presented with facts, but for us to make sense of them they have to fit what is already in the synapses of the brain. Otherwise the facts go in and then they go right back out. They are not heard, or they are not accepted as facts, or they mystify us: why would anyone have said that? Then we label the fact as irrational crazy or stupid. That is what happens when progressives just “confront conservatives with the facts.” It has little or no effect, unless the conservatives have a frame that makes sense of the facts. Similarly, a lot of progressives hear conservatives talk and do not understand them because they do not have the conservatives’ frames. They assume that conservatives are stupid.” Or more simply put, “Just speaking truth to power doesn’t work. You need to Frame the truths effectively from your perspective ” because certain frames “force a certain logic” In other words, Dr. Lakoff believes Truth is never objective, but is relative to the observer’s Worldview. Dr. Lakoff says that articulation of these frames (or worldviews) “Need to be repeated over and over again and refined until they take their rightful place in our synapses.” It is as if Dr. Lakoff is saying “If you say something enough times, it becomes true” The Scientific Method, however, relies upon the assumption that reality behaves the same regardless of which observer is put in place. One Frame is going to more accurately mirror the objective conditions in the real world no matter how many times a false frame is repeated .


The Second Myth Lakoff warns Progressives against is the belief that “It is irrational to go against your self interest, and therefore a normal person, who is rational, reasons on the basis of self-interest. Modern economic policy and foreign policy are based on that assumption ” Dr. Lakoff feels this belief is wrong, because people don’t always vote for their Economic Self-interest and a Nobel Prize winner implied that the rational actor theory was wrong. An investigation of the work cited, however, reveals that the basis of a rational actor theory is not in question, only the ability of that actor to assign a proper weight to information he receives. Rather than discuss the problem of appropriate weighting, Dr. Lakoff asserts that “People Vote their identity. They Vote their values. They Vote for who they identify with. They may identify with their self-interest. That can happen. It is not that people never care about their self-interest, but they vote their identity. And if their identity fits their self interest, they will vote for that. It is important to understand this point. It is a serious mistake to assume that people are simply always voting their self-interest” Dr. Lakoff’s insistence on Rational Self-interest as a different concept than Identity in order to explain why Voters do not vote for Democrats, tells us that progressives believe a person’s best self-interest is whatever a Progressive believes it to be. Dr. Lakoff of course, fails to see that Values are called that because people think of them as valuable. Individuals are assigning a different weight to the importance of a value than what Dr. Lakoff would assign himself, and therefore they act “against their self interest” People allowed to assign their own weights may decide that protection of valuable things that are held jointly (for instance the morals of a society) is part of their self interest. Lakoff seems oblivious to the fact that what one determines to be in one’s self interest may be based on a number of factors, and on the perceived effects of different actions in the future. This is further illustrated by Dr. Lakoff ‘s explanation of the Third Progressive myth; that “political campaigns are marketing campaigns where the Candidate is the product and the candidates positions on issues are the features and qualities of the product. This leads to the conclusion that polling should determine which issues a Candidate should run on” Such an approach neglects the obvious fact that some agendas might logically conflict with others in terms of their goals or outcomes. While Lakoff denounces this approach, he implies it only fails because Progressives fail to “say what they idealistically believe” and “talk to their base using the frames of their base,” which he asserts Conservative s do much better. What this really demonstrates is that Progressives are oblivious to the real world constraints that force a need to make trade-offs. Dr. Lakoff asserts that Conservative and Progressive world views, and therefore the things they “idealistically believe”, are based on a difference between those who support a “Strict Father” Frame vs. a “Nurturing Parent” Frame of Government. He likens our Nation to a family using phrases such as “Our Founding Fathers” and “Sending Our sons to War” as proof that people conceive of a nation and a government as some sort of family. Of course, following that logic, because Edison was Father of the Electric Light,


and the Wright Brothers were the Fathers of Aviation, most people must consider Lamps and Planes as part of a family structure as well. In short, the whole idea of the “Government as a Family” is an attempt to Frame the Debate. Lakoff asserts that EVERYONE sees the Government as a sort of Family Unit, in which our leaders are the parents, and that everyone is just applying the type of family control they would like in that situation. This is obviously false. He says, “The Nuturant Parent worldview is 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 parent’s job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others. What does nurturance mean? It means two things: empathy and responsibility… .” Applied politically, this means that Progressives see themselves as Self-assigned Parents of others and therefore think Citizens are Children they are responsible for. (which goes along with the idea that hey are the ones who determine what is in someone’s best self interest) Hence their obsession with protecting everyone from Crime, Drugs, seatbelt less cars or passengers, smoking (except for Marijuana), food additives, environmental destruction (except for Cultural), work hazards, consumer hazards, and diseases (unless its AIDS because tracking the spread of THAT disease is homophobic) Dr. Lakoff often uses the same word, “Discipline”, in describing both the idea of conservative Child Discipline (exemplified by painful punishment with “sticks, belts and wooden paddles on the bare bottom”) and the idea of Adult Self-Discipline. The lack of delineation between the two ideas may either be deliberate framing in order to confuse the two and give the latter a bad connotation, or simply derives from a difficulty of thinking of other citizens as adults. Dr. Lakoff says that “Empathy” and “Responsibility” are the core Progressive values from which the other Progressive values are derived: "Responsibilit y implies protection, competence, education, hard work and social connectedness; empathy requires freedom, fairness and honesty, two-way communication, a fulfilled life (unhappy, unfulfilled people are less likely to want others to be happy) and restitution rather than retribution to balance the moral books. Social responsibility requires cooperation and community building over competition. In the place of specific strict rules, there is a general “ethics of care” that says, “Help, don’t harm.” To be of good character is to be empathetic and responsible, in all of the above ways." “If you empathize with someone and want them to be fulfilled in life and be treated fairly, then you will respect their individuality, accord them maximal freedom (consistent with the freedom of others), and you will appreciate diversity as a value.” This means that Progressives believe individual rights end where the rights of others begin but also implies that Progressives should accept any behavior that doesn’t intrude on their personal freedom. Dr. Lakoff doesn’t present any system by which conflicts in values might be resolved, implying Progressives implicitly believe that everyone will independently define the boundaries of their personal freedom at the same points. This


further bolsters the idea that Progressives do not recognize the real world constraints that result in tradeoffs and belies the fact that Dr. Lakoff still believes what he asserts to be a myth: “since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusions” “If you want your child to be fulfilled in life, the child has to be free enough to do that. Therefore Freedom is a Value….You do not have very much freedom is there is no opportunity or prosperity. Therefore Opportunity and Prosperity are progressive values” According to Dr. Lakoff, Progressives believe that everyone must be given freedom, enabled by wealth and opportunities, to execute their moral obligation to be happy and fulfilled. Of course, the wealth and opportunity that give people freedom comes from somewhere, so someone must be "freed" of their wealth and opportunity so it can be given to someone else. Unfortunately, as will be shown repeatedly, Progressives only seem to be fulfilled when they are making decisions for others. The progressive principle of freedom is really a license override the decisions of others. "If you really care about your child, you want your child to be treated fairly by you and others. Therefore Fairness is a value." Dr. Lakoff asserts "Fairness is understood metaphorically in terms of the distribution of material objects. There are three basic liberal models of fair distribution: (1) equal distribution; (2) impartial rule-based distribution; and (3) rights-based distribution. Metaphorical fairness concerns actions conceived of as objects given to individuals. One can act to the benefit of others equally, impartially and by rule, or according to some notion of rights. According to this metaphor, moral action is fair action in one of these ways." Thus it becomes evident that Progressives believe that “Fairness” is using the government to redistribute wealth, opportunities and “rights” more evenly over the population by taking wealth, opportunities and rights from some and giving them to others. Dr. Lakoff, lists other values in “Don’t think of an Elephant”, but the Rockridge Institute’s list is more concise:  "Community: Healthy communities are based on cooperation, honesty, trust, and open communication.  Cooperation: Responsibility to others requires cooperation and empathy. Cooperation is the basis for community, and requires open communication, honesty and trust.  Trust: Trust is needed for open communication and cooperation. We are trustworthy when we treat others fairly and responsibly.  Honesty: Honesty is the hallmark of open communication, and is necessary for trust and cooperation.  Open Communication: Open communication is at the heart of empathy and responsibility. To know how to care for others, we must communicate with them to understand their needs. Cooperation relies on two-way communication." Of course this can be even more concisely stated as “Progressives believe in Community Building via co-operation enabled by open communication, trust and honesty. “


In the Nurturant Model a “Community is a Family”; when expanded to society this implies Community building involves the imposition of Nurturant morality on the society Dr. Lakoff says, "The Nurturant Parent worldview is 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." "It is assumed that the world should be a nurturant place." These statements imply the following about the "progressive world view" Men and Women are the same and interchangeable when it comes to child care Parents are both responsible for raising their own children Children naturally know how to get along with others and live in a community, but parents make them better at it. The World is largely controllable, and the job of a Progressive is to impose their ideas on the world, and the others who live in it, in order to change the world for the "better" (in their judgment) In a "Nurturant parent model", "The parent's job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others. What does nurturance 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 a responsibility - you have to take care of this child." Which means, Progressives have a moral responsibility to feel for and take responsibility of their children, and teach their children to do the same to others "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 a child" Therefore, Progressives believe Individuals have a responsibility to take care of themselves before they can be allowed to help others. "Further, it is your moral responsibility to teach your child to be a happy, fulfilled person who wants others to be happy and fulfilled. That is part of what a nurturing family life is about. It is a common precondition for caring about others" Therefore, Progressives believe it is a moral duty to teach children to do whatever makes them happy and fulfilled and encourage them to accept others who are doing the same and that if someone is unhappy or unfulfilled, or doesn't accept others who are, then that person is incapable of caring about others. "And if you are an unhappy, unfulfilled person yourself, you are not going to want other people to be happier than you are. The Dali Lama teaches us that. Therefore it is your moral responsibility to be a happy, fulfilled person. Your Moral Responsibility." Progressives believe that if you are unhappy, you will automatically wish others to be unhappy. This is in direct conflict with Dr. Lakoff’s assertion that “children are born


good and can be made better.” It is immoral to be unhappy or unfulfilled, therefore moral behavior is doing what it takes to be happy or fulfilled. However, Lakoff asserts that this DOES NOT translate to "if it feels good, do it": "Conservatives seem not to understand what nurturant morality is about, both in the family and the nation. They find any view that is not strict to be "permissive""
permissive (adjective) Definition: lenient Synonyms: acquiescent, agreeable, allowing, approving, easy-going, forbearing, free, indulgent, latitudinarian, lax, liberal, open-minded, permitting, susceptible, tolerant Antonyms: intolerant, strict Source: Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved

"Nurturant parenting is, of course, anything but permissive, with its stress on teaching children to be responsible for themselves and empathetic and responsible toward others, and raising them to be strong and well-educated enough to carry out their responsibilities. The conservatives parody liberals as permissive, as supporting a feel-good moralitydoing whatever feels good. The conservatives just don't get it. They seem ignorant of the vast difference between responsibility and permissiveness" Accordingly, the only morally acceptable way to be "happy and fulfilled" is by being responsible and empathetic towards others. Moral Behavior is Responsible behavior. Parents have the ability to discipline their children through "promotion of responsible behavior via empathetic connection, the example of responsible behavior set by the parents, the open discussion of what the parents expect (and why), and, in the case of non-cooperation, the removal of privileges that go with cooperation" However, Dr. Lakoff asserts Moral Authority is a metaphor in the Strict Father model, and " is patterned metaphorically on parental authority, where parents have a young child's best interests at heart and know what is best for the child. Morality is obedience. Just as the good child obeys his parents, a moral person obeys a moral authority, which can be a text (like the Bible or the Koran), an institution, or a leader. " Since Nuturant Parents have no Moral Authority, only Parental Authority, it is hard to see how they can morally remove privileges from their children or determine that certain behaviors are right or wrong. Instead, Dr. Lakoff asserts that Progressives believe that children become responsible by caring about and watching parents who do whatever it takes to make themselves happy and fulfilled. Therefore, progressives believe that parents have the authority to morally remove privileges that allow their children to be Happy and fulfilled, in order to discourage children from behavior deemed by the parents to be irresponsible. "Nurturant parent morality contains a structural feature that guarantees that experiential morality is not overridden, namely, that moral empathy has the highest priority in that moral system. The idea that Morality is Empathy entails that if you feel what others feel, you will abide by experiential morality since, by empathy, you yourself will experience any harmful effects of what you do to others." In conclusion it appears that the Progressive moral code can be reduced to caveat on a feel-good philosophy: "If it feels good and you "empathize" with the person, do it " If you 6

don't experience (empathetic) pain when you do something, then it is morally right to do it. Dr. Lakoff says "Empathy includes empathy with nature.... liberals have empathy even for criminals (and thus defend their rights and are against the death penalty) " Dr. Lakoff fails to explain how Progressive s have evolved to have perfect and reliable empathy with others, including an ability that includes completely different lifeforms like animals and plants (Gaia) or even inanimate objects. Progressives believe they understand what motivates a burglar, a murderer, or a pedophile, and can feel those things along with them. It is more likely that Progressive merely assume their empathy is accurate, since it is a huge investment of time and energy to get to know people, and even then there are limits to the knowledge. In conclusion, Dr. Lakoff appears to assert that Progressives can accurately read other peoples minds. A conclusions that is bolstered by Dr. Lakoff’s own words: "Empathy itself is understood metaphorically as feeling what another person feels. We can see this in the language of empathy: I know what it's like to be in your shoes. I know how you feel. I feel for you. To conceptualize moral action as empathic action is more than just abiding by the Golden Rule, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule does not take into account that others may have different values than you do. Taking morality as empathy requires basing your actions on their values, not yours. This requires a reformulation of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. " Apparently a Progressive "Feels For Others" in the literal sense, ignoring any feelings that the individual might have on their own. Dr. Lakoff's version of the golden rule dictates you must accept another person’s values if you are to act responsibly, morally, and according to empathy (and hence this will lead you to be happy and fulfilled). Progressives believe that no one has the right to judge anyone else, except by their own value system. This leads to a Progressive expectat ion that they will be judged based on their intentions, not on what actually follows from their actions. In a Progressive view, what it takes be moral, responsible, happy and fulfilled varies from person to person, demands respect and acceptance of other peoples moral systems and ultimately results in a system that lacks an ultimate moral authority that defines right and wrong within a society. This conclusion seems especially odd because many of Dr. Lakoff’s ideas are judgments on the relative merits of conservative morality. One must assume that such judgments cause Dr. Lakoff no empathetic pain, and therefore must be morally correct. "Strict Father morality allows one to impose experiential harm on others in the name of the abstract metaphorical principle that Morality is Strength. In short, strict father morality allows you to hurt people in the name of morality. That violates experiential morality, which is the foundation of every abstract moral system. " ”In the place of specific strict rules, there is a general "ethics of care" that says, "Help, don't harm." Dr. Lakoff asserts that, from the perspective of Strict Father Morality, "multiculturalism is immoral, since it permits alternative views of what counts as moral


behavior. Multiculturalism thus violates the binary good-evil distinction made by Moral Strength... " Dr. Lakoff has the following to say about "moral strength": "A major part of the Moral Strength metaphor has to do with the conception of immorality, or evil...Moral strength ... is required if one is to stand up to some externally defined evil. The metaphor of Moral Strength sees the world in terms of a war of good against the forces of evil, which must be fought ruthlessly. Ruthless behavior in the name of the good fight is thus seen as justified. Moreover, the metaphor entails that one cannot respect the views of one's adversary: evil does not deserve respect; it deserves to be attacked! The metaphor of Moral Strength imposes a strict us-them moral dichotomy. The metaphor that moralit y is strength induces a view of evil as the force that moral strength is needed to counter. Evil must be fought. You do not empathize with evil, nor do you accord evil some truth of its own. You just fight it....The metaphor of moral strength does not occur in isolation. It defines a cluster of other common metaphors for moralit y” which include the metaphors of Moral Authority (defined above) and Moral Bounds: "moral action is seen as motion within prescribed bounds or on a prescribed path. Immoral people are those who transgress the bounds or deviate from the path. The logic of this metaphor is that transgressors and deviants are dangerous to society not only because they can lead others astray, but because they create new paths to traverse, thus blurring the clear, prescribed, socially accepted boundaries between right and wrong." Therefore, a person with a "Nurturant Parent" Morality confronting a person with "Strict Father" morality must either submit to the moral judgment (moral strength) of the "Strict Father" system or they must adopt a Nuturant principle of "Moral Strength" that allows the Nurturant system to (immorally) ignore the values of the other. "liberals too have the metaphor of Moral Strength, but it is in the service of empathy and nurturance. The point of moral strength for liberals is to fight intolerance and inhumanity to others and to stand up for social responsibility. " Hence, Progressives do have a belief in evil, moral authority, and moral bounds after all; however since their Moral Strength serves Nurturance and Empathy, anyone NOT exhibiting those values becomes evil. Since a "strict Father" system, implicitly does not exhibit those values, to Progressives any Strict Father Morality system is Evil. This may explain why many Progressives are so hostile to Religions in general, and Christianity in particular. Nurturant Morality is in truth only tolerant of others with "Nurturant morality", since people with "Strict Father" moral systems will put "moral strength" (right and wrong) before "experiential morality" (empathy). Through the Concept of Progressive Moral Strength, one can surmise how a conflict between individuals with different moral values would be resolved in the Progressive view (like deciding between nurturing your child or nurturing a pedophile that wants to have sex with your child.) If a progressive has an empathetic feeling that someone is unhappy, or have reason to believe that they don't care about others, then that person MUST be immoral and irresponsible (because they are not happy), and therefore evil. A


progressive may then assume a moral authority over the "evil" that justifies all further actions. Since there are no "specific strict rules" each Progressive Individual is an independent and autonomous Moral Authority. In effect, progressives believe they can proclaim moral authority over anyone at will based only on their own individual opinion of another’s motives or actions. Remembering that Moral authority is "patterned metaphorically on parental authority", we can now surmise as to how a Progressive Parent claims moral authority over their "child". Anyone who (in a progressive's opinion) does not practice "experiential morality" (Responsibility and Empathy), or who is “unhappy and unfulfilled" must be a metaphorical child. Dr Lakoff confirms this with the following: "The metaphor of morality as nurturance can be stated as follows: -The Community is a Family - Moral agents are Nurturing parents - People needing help are Children needing care - Moral action is Nurturance This metaphor entails that moral action requires empathy, involves sacrifices, and that helping people who need help is a moral responsibility. " Therefore, An adult to a progressive is any self-reliant person who is happy and fulfilled that assumes responsibility for others (a nurturing parent.) A Child to a progressive is anyone who needs care (in their opinion and via their highly accurate powers of empathy) Dr. Lakoff states that Progressive Principle of Equity mandates : "If you work hard; play by the rules; and serve your family, community, and nation, then the nation should provide a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security and opportunity" "morality is conceptualized as uprightness, it is natural to conceptualize one's degree of morality as physical height, to understand norms for the degree of moral action as height norms, and to therefore see the possibility for "moral growth" as akin to physical growth. Where moral growth differs from physical growth is that moral growth is seen as being possible throughout one's lifetime." Growing is, of course, what children do until adult hood. What "Moral Growth" in effect means, is that any individual who does not follow Nurturant Morality; who doesn't work hard or follow the rules; who doesn't serve family, nation or country, is, in effect "still growing". Therefore, Progressives believe that individuals should be given a lifetime of dependency and nurturance , if that is what they need to "grow", even if they are recidivist criminals, or just engage in detrimental and irresponsible behaviors (laziness, drug use etc). To make such things possible, Progressives believe that no one should suffer any adverse consequences as a result of making poor personal choices. "The world is filled with evils that can harm a child, and it is the nurturant parent’s duty to be ward them off. Crime and drugs are, of course, significant, but so are less obvious dangers: cigarettes, cars without seat belts, dangerous toys, inflammable clothing, pollution, asbestos, lead paint, pesticides in food, diseases, unscrupulous businessmen, and so on. "(Dr. Lakoff does leave some conspicuous omissions such as of Islamic Jihadists, Pedophiles, and other criminals, presumably because Progressives Empathize with them) "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 you 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 citizens from." Therefore, Progressives believe they have the (moral) right to make decisions for other people (who are metaphorical children) as to how much risk they are allowed to take, as well as how much they will give to charity, what kind of house you can build and where, what school you your kids attend and its curriculum, etc. It is the operation of this belief that leads many to label Progressives as elitist and undemocratic.


Chapter 2: Misunderstanding the Conservative Viewpoint
Dr. Lakoff describes "Strict Father Morality" as the Belief that "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 good, not what is right. Therefore they must be made good." This description of the Conservative mindset (or Frame) is fairly accurate. It also closely resembles the real world conditions observed: It can be empirically shown that people are killed or injured by natural calamities, disease, wars, criminals, accidents and irresponsible behavior. Thus the world is, in fact, dangerous, and has been for centuries and is likely to remain so. Likewise it can be empirically demonstrated that People must compete for natural resources, be it by warfare, barter or by the more civilized method of a monetary system. In addition there are obvious differences in the talents and abilities of all individuals, which will enable them to excel in some areas and lead them to fail in others. In order to establish a civilized society, some rules of conduct (right and wrong) must be established to enable individuals to predict the societal response to a given behavior. There is no civilized nation that has endured that lacked these rules, and the fall of the Roman Empire gives testament to how important they are to the continuation of a society. Finally, anyone who has cared for a 2 year child knows that they lack knowledge of right and wrong, and teaching them such knowledge is as vital for their survival in society as it is for the survival of the society. Hence, as Dr. Lakoff says: “Preserving and extending the conservative moral system (Strict Father Morality) is the highest priority”In short, the conservative world view is in tune with empirically collected facts about the common reality we inhabit. Dr. Lakoff errs in interpreting “Strict Father Morality” because he attempts to understand the motives and actions of conservatives in terms of (moral) absolutes, instead of considering them to be the result of living in an environment of trade-offs such as the one presented by the real world. Lakoff arrives at these conclusions because he assumes anything considered to be beneficial or “good” by a conservative value system, is also automatically considered “morally right” by conservatives as well. This is, in fact, more axiomatic of Progressive thinking and the Progressive Frame. Conservatives believe that trade-offs are integral in life, and as such, may accept an “immoral system” if it produces beneficial results that outweigh (in the conservatives opinion) the perceived detriments of the system. Conversely, a Conservative may condemn a “moral” system, if it achieves results that they find to be detrimental or immoral. In the end, Conservatives concede, they cannot have their cake and eat it too, and sometimes unpleasant decisions are required. Conservatives also believe that there are degrees to any process, and degrees to any outcome, so they may find one degree of a process acceptable and a different degree unacceptable . Dr. Lakoff’s descriptions of Conservative Beliefs deny the existence of moral and physical trade-offs, and assume an absolute moral principle is in operation .


Dr. Lakoff asserts that The Strict father model assumes “ that the only way to teach kids obedience – that is, right from wrong—is through punishment, painful punishment, when they do wrong” Lakoff misses the fact that this is a trade-off, where the conservative will weigh the system against the result. Few conservatives believe that painful punishment should be administered in anger and few believe there is no such thing as child abuse. Most Conservatives believe in using both a system of rewards as well as a system of punishments (including physical punishments) to teach obedience to children, based on a given systems effectiveness with a given child. Conservatives believe that “it is moral to pursue your self-interest” because “if everyone pursues their own profit, then the profit of all will be maximized by an invisible hand— that is, by nature – just naturally” Lakoff applies this reasoning ad-nauseam when contemplating the poor. Consequently he says conservatives believe “The Poor, therefore, deserve to be poor and serve the wealthy. The wealthy need and deserve poor people to serve them.” and “The Wealthy have earned their wealth, that they are good people who deserve it” Conservatives believe that Free Market Capitalism naturally results in a more efficient distribution of resources, resulting in more wealth produced at lower costs, than what might be obtained via other systems. Empirical examination of modern economies and the spectacular failures of communist systems demonstrate this belief to be in line with the real world. However, it does not follow that pursuit of self-interest (economic or otherwise) is considered by conservatives as a moral good or absolutely beneficial under all circumstances. As Lakoff himself suggests, conservatives believe the operation of Free Markets is a natural phenomenon, without a moral significance. Most would consider sunlight to be beneficial and therefore good, but it doesn’t follow that sunlight is morally good. In general, conservatives are opposed to “if it feels good, do it” and other such self-interest first philosophies. Conservatives who are Strict-Father Christians will deny that the pursuit of self-interest is moral in any sense. Free-Market Capitalism is supported by Conservatives, not because of its moral implications, but because it provides a wider prosperity while maintaining an individuals freedom to make choices. The perceived benefits outweigh the (immoral) incentive that is provided to act selfishly. Social Darwinism is not a mainstream conservative philosophy and most conservatives recognize graft and crime present in the system (which they do feel is immoral and against the law) but accept that as a tradeoff for the other benefits. “A do-gooder is someone who is trying to help someone else rather than herself and is getting in the way of those who are pursuing their self-interest. Do-gooders screw up the system” Conservatives believe that individuals know what is in their self-interest better than 3rd parties, and that unless those 3rd parties take the time and expend the effort to find out what the other people want, there is a good chance their “help” will be a hindrance, though this may not always be the case. Conservatives do not consider helping to be immoral, any more than they consider self interest to be moral. They merely recognize that there is a cost of knowledge attached to helping and the term “do-gooder”, when


used with a negative connotation, implies the person doing the “helping” is doing so in a way that defeats the purpose. In other words, Conservatives do not believe progressives have perfect empathy. This is yet another conservative belief that can be bolstered by facts from history. Conservatives have a moral code that puts “Western Culture above non-Western Culture, America above other nations.” Conservatives believe that American Culture has produced “better” results than other cultures based on factors of human freedom, prosperity, and security. Conservatives do put America First, but not for moral reasons. Instead conservatives believe that they are citizens of a Sovereign Nation and value the freedom, prosperity, and security it provides, and do not feel making unbeneficial compromises that endanger that freedom, prosperity or security is wise. In other words, conservatives make a tradeoff between wanting their nation to act “morally”, and ensuring they continue to have a nation. Dr. Lakoff says Conservatives believe “Nature is a resource for prosperity. It is there to be used for human profit” In yet another Tradeoff, Conservatives acknowledge that survival is a matter of using the environment to create goods and satisfy wants and needs, and that there is not alternative to doing this. However, how much it is done is a matter of degree. Conservatives want the environment to be used enough that there is prosperity, but recognize that complete and wanton destruction of the environment will not be sustainable. It is a tradeoff, which Dr. Lakoff again states as an absolute moral rule. “The moral order is all too often extended to men above women, whites above nonwhites, Christians above non-Christians, Straights above Gays” All of this is in conflict with the teachings of Christianity believed by most conservatives. Western Cultures were among the first non-tribal cultures to open doors to equality to women (Suffrage), other races (ending Slavery in the United States AND the British ending it around the world), and other religions (Religious Freedom), and these actions were all undertaken for moral reasons derived from “Strict Father Morality.” For instance, the Founding Father’s “Strict father morality” dictated the freeing of the slaves, but they made a tradeoff between ending slavery and creating an enduring nation. They understood they could not have both. When conservatives put “Western Culture” first it is because of the perceived benefits of that culture vs. what other cultures have to offer. If all cultures were equal, it would not matter if your daughter was raised under Islamic Law and Customs or American Law and Customs. However, if presented a choice, many would be very clear on which one they preferred and why. Christianity teaches its followers to love all people regardless of religion (for instance the parable of the Good Samaritan) or race, and promotes a partnership between men and women using complementary roles that take into account the differences between the sexes. No one is presumed morally superior to anyone else; Christianity teaches that everyone is a sinner in the eyes of God. It should also be noted even in the case of Straight vs. Gay, the homosexual act is believed to be a sin, not the homosexual him or


herself. And many conservatives consider the tradeoff of considering homosexuality as a sin with the value of individual freedom, and are willing to support Civil Unions and tolerate the behavior. As can be seen by the above, Lakoff entirely misses the Conservative tendency to weigh options against their moral and practical ramifications. This implies that progressives make no such distinctions. This results in a progressive black and white categorization of behavior, where the only acceptable solutions are those that have both a moral means and a moral end as judged by a progressive value system. The idea of a compromise is an anathema to them, and further supports the idea that they see no need to make tradeoffs.


Chapter 3: The Culture War – Nurturant vs. Strict Father Morality
Dr. Lakoff asserts: “On the whole, the right wing is attempting to impose a strict Father ideology on America and, ultimately the rest of the world. Many progressives underestimate just how radical an ideology this is…. ” Dr. Lakoff says Conservatives believe that  “God makes laws—commandments —defining right and wrong”  “one must have discipline to Follow God’s Commandments” ,  The moral order is “God above man, man above nature, adults above children, Western Culture above non-Western Culture, America above other nations. The moral order is all too often extended to men above women, whites above nonwhites, Christians above non-Christians, Straights above Gays”  “morality can only be maintained through a system of rewards and punishments”  Free markets are “a mechanism for the disciplined (stereotypically good) people to use their discipline to accumulate wealth.”  “Competition is good; it produces optimal use of resources and disciplined people”  “By giving people things they haven’t earned, social programs remove the incentive to be disciplined, which is necessary for both Morality and prosperity”  “Education should promote discipline, and undisciplined students should face punishment (for instance paddling), and intellectually undisciplined students should not be coddled, but should be shamed and punished by not being promoted."  “There are right and wrong answers, and they should be tested for.”  “Testing defines fairness: those who pass are rewarded; those not disciplined enough to pass are punished”  “Because immoral, undisciplined children can lead moral, disciplined children astray, parents should be able to choose which schools they send their children”  “it is the responsibility of parents to take care of their children. To the extent that they cannot, they are not living up to their individual responsibility. No one has the responsibility of doing other people’s jobs for them”  “Nature is a resource for prosperity. It is there to be used for human profit”  “Corporations exist to provide people with goods and services, and to make profits for investors” “Those are the basics. Those are the ideas and values the right wing wants to establish, nothing less than a radical revolution in how America and the rest of the world functions ” One might notice that most of these “radical“ ideas are the same ones held by the Founding Fathers, and most of Western Civilization for the last 5000 years. These ideas certainly do not represent a change in thinking, and have persevered through the centuries because different people, in different cultures, have found them to be empirically true and useful in conducting their lives. These principles represent the “tried and true’ beliefs of


many cultures. This is not to say that they are the best system that be devised, nor that the effects that proceed from them are the most efficacious for a human society. However, these ideas set the benchmark by which other, newer ideas can be measured. “I believe that progressive values are traditional American Values, that progressive principles are fundamental American principles, and that progressive policy directions point the way to where most Americans really want our country to go. The job of unifying progressives is really the job of bringing our country together around its finest traditional values” To prove that Nurturant Morality was part of Early America, Lakoff asserts that Early settlers consisted of “Groups like the Quakers, who had a nurturant view of God, and Groups like the Puritans who had a strict father view of God. The New England Colonies were mainly Puritan, though John Winthrop had a nurturant view of the colony he was establishing, and the nurturant view of god has existed side by side with the strict one in this country ever since” John Winthrop led the Massachusetts Bay Colony across the Atlantic and served many terms as its Governor. He participated in the ousting of Roger Williams for advocating the separation of Church and State, and denying the Puritan belief that they were God’s chosen to fulfill a Manifest Destiny that included stealing land from the Native Americans. Roger Williams left and founded Rhode Island. This incident was followed shortly by the exile of Anne Hutchinson in which Winthrop was a major participant . In his famous “City on a Hill” sermon , John Winthrop called for brotherhood but also recognized man’s fallen state (essentially evil) and man’s inherent differences (rich vs. Poor etc.) In short, John Winthrop was a strict-father morality based Puritan, who held a belief in certain liberties, which included a right to keep his property and laws that applied equally to everyone, and also asserted the right of a religious theocracy to govern. Perhaps Dr. Lakoff gets the idea that Winthrop was “nurturant” because he wanted to use the State as a Totalitarian power to enforce a certain brand of morality. Dr. Lakoff’s statement that progressives mirror “the values the country was founded on – the idea of a community where people pull together to help each other. From John Winthrop on, that is what our Nation has stood for.” is simply absurd. John Winthrop himself said “it is without question, that he is worse than an infidel who through his own sloth and voluptuousness shall neglect to provide for his family” John Winthrop called for voluntary charity in times of dire need. The Massachusetts Bay colony’s circumstances were indeed dire when they arrived in America, but there is no basis of comparison between this and the Progressive idea of Charity by force of Government espoused in modern times. The idea of forced contributions has no similarity to a man who simply started to work building the houses of others in hopes others would join him.


Dr. Lakoff asserts that “Progressive values are the best of Traditional American Values. Stand up for your values with dignity and strength. You are a true Patriot because of your values” “Remember that right wing ideologues have convinced half of the country that the strict father family model, which is bad enough for raising children, should govern our national morality and politics. This is the model that the best in American values has defeated over and over again in the course of our history- from the emancipation of the slaves to women’s suffrage, Social security and Medicare, civil rights and voting rights acts, and Brown Vs. the board of education and Roe vs. Wade. Each time we have united our country behind our finest traditional values” Dr. Lakoff is apparently unaware that the Strict Father Morality of our Founding Father’s ALWAYS dictated slavery was a blight on the nation’s character . Women’s Suffrage was fought for by women who held viewpoints that today would be considered "conservative". In fact, the suffragettes were so conservative that they ousted Elizabeth Cady Stanton from the movement when she wrote the Woman’s Bible. Social Security is a pyramid scheme with mandatory participation that would be illegal if any other organization tried it, and more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act than did Democrats. The final two court decisions are examples of Judicial Activism where the Supreme Court legislated their own decisions upon the American people, in violation of the principles of Representative Government. For Dr. Lakoffs approbation of these events, it can be surmised that Progressives believe that Historical Revisionism and Elitist Rule are patriotic values. Ironically, Dr. Lakoff says “Conservatives have parodied liberals as weak, angry (hence not in control of their emotions), weak-minded, softhearted, unpatriotic, uninformed, and elitist. Don’t give them opportunities to stereotype you in any of these ways” “What they [conservatives] have done is to create, via framing and language, a link between strict father morality in the family and religion on the one hand and conservative politics on the other. This conceptual link must be so strong that it can overcome economic self-interest. The method for achieving this has been the cultural civil war— pitting American with Strict Father Morality (called conservatives) against Americans with nurturant parent morality (the liberals) who are portrayed as threatening the way of life and the cultural, religious, and personal identities of conservatives” Dr. Lakoff says that “without a Civil culture war, the conservatives cannot win” and to “Remember once more that our [Progressives] goal is to unite our country behind our values, the best of traditional American Values. Right wing ideologues need to divide our country via a nasty cultural civil war. They need discord and shouting and name calling and put-downs.” “the ideas that the right wing wants to establish, [are] nothing less than a radical revolution I how America and the rest of the world functions. The Vehemence of the culture war provoked and maintained by conservatives is no accident. For strict father morality to gain and maintain political power, disunity is required.” “radical conservative ideologues are unwilling to compromise, and insist on the most rapid and complete change possible.”


But what exactly is changing? Dr. Lakoff says “conservatives see the strict father family, and with it their political values, as under attack. They are right” This statement confirms that Conservatives are DEFENDING, not attacking. They did not instigate a culture war, but are defending long standing institutions, ideas and even the definition of words from relentless attack. Dr. Lakoff says, “Abortion is a stand in for the larger issue: Is strict Father morality going to rule America?” “opposing same sex marriage is thus reinforcing and extending strict father morality itself, which is the highest calling of the conservative moral system. Same-sex marriage is therefore a stand-in; it evokes the larger issue, namely what moral system is to govern our country” Abortion as a Natural Right and Same-sex marriages are changes to the Status Quo, both of which are being instituted following a process that denies the right of the people to determine their own laws. Conservatives are defending against un-ratified changes to their social compact , not instigating the “Culture War” Dr. Lakoff says Progressives assume “that the world should be a nurturant place." (emphasis his) This is a tacit admission that it is currently NOT a Nurturant place and that is something the Democrats wish to change. Dr. Lakoff defines “Hypo-cognition [as] the lack of ideas you need, the lack of a relatively simple fixed frame that can be evoked in a word or two…Progressives are suffering from massive hypo-cognition.” And says “Common sense is reasoning within a common place accepted frame” These two statements admit that Progressives believe their ideas are NOT common, and are not accepted, and do not jive with common sense. To a certain degree liberals revel in this idea, because they feel this makes them unique, superior and better able to guide mankind. Contrastingly, “Conservatives can appeal to an established frame, that taxation is an affliction or burden, which allows for the two word phrase tax relief” “The conservatives used to suffer from [hypo-cognition] . When Goldwater lost in 1964, they had very few of the concepts that they have today.” “Conservatives have worked for decades and spent billions on their think tanks to establish their frames, create the right language, and get the language and the frames they evoke accepted. It has taken them awhile to establish the metaphors of taxation as a burden, an affliction and an unfair punishment —all of which require “relief.” They have also, over decades, built up the frame in which the wealthy create jobs, and giving them more wealth creates more jobs.” It would be difficult to come up with a Conservative Frame that is not at least 200 years old, if not older. (Think about how many Strict-Father Conservative Frames are in the Bible). Conservative frames are established and propagated from one generation to the


next because they do in fact correspond to the empirical reality and therefore common sense. The Founding Fathers agreed with the “Conservative frame” that “taxes are a burden” as discussed in the Federalist 36 : “Many specters have been raised out of this power of internal taxation, to excite the apprehensions of the people: double sets of revenue officers, a duplication of their burdens by double taxations, and the frightful forms of odious and oppressive poll-taxes, have been played off with all the ingenious dexterity of political legerdemain.” And the idea of the wealthy creating jobs is discussed in Adam Smith’s (The father of Modern Economics) The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III : “Those unproductive hands, who should be maintained by a part only of the spare revenue of the people, may consume so great a share of their whole revenue, and thereby oblige so great a number to encroach upon their capitals, upon the funds destined for the maintenance of productive labour, that all the frugality and good conduct of individuals may not be able to compensate the waste and degradation of produce occasioned by this violent and forced encroachment. “ This is further expounded in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part IV Chapter 1 “The rich ... divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal proportions among all its inhabitants.” These conservative frames for wealth have held true to the empirical data for centuries. If we are to abandon these frames for the Progressive view, shouldn’t the real world behavior be taken into account? Apparently, Dr. Lakoff believes he has only to repeat his belief enough times and the real world will begin to mirror his words. Dr. Lakoff’s plan for winning the culture war is to take Progressive frames and repeat them “over and over again, and [refine] them until they take their rightful place in our synapses. “ In other words, their plan is to brainwash people into accepting views of the world that have been looked at, tried, and then rejected. In doing this Lakoff advises Progressives to “Avoid a shouting match. Remember that the radical right requires a culture war, and shouting is the discourse form of that culture war. Civil Discourse is the discourse form of Nurturant morality. You win a victory when the discourse turns civil” and to “Never answer a question framed from your opponents point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames” This, in effect, makes it impossible to have a rational conversation with a Progressive. If it is impossible to have a discussion that compares the frames to the empirical reality, there is no way to discover the truth. IN stead, Dr. Lakoff advises Progressive to deny the other frame exists. Lakoff suggest Progressive “tell a story. Find stories where your frame is built into the story. Build up an effective stock of these stories” or to “use


rhetorical questions: wouldn’t it be better if..? Such a question should be chosen to presuppose your frame. Example: “Wouldn’t it be better if we had a President who went to war with a plan to secure the peace?” Anecdotal stories can be fiction: they can carry a point that does not correspond with the common empirical reality, or if true, may simply be a statistical aberration; the exception that defines the rule. Rhetorical questions like the one Lakoff suggests, presuppose not only a Liberal frame, but a lack of real-world constraints. No war in the history of man has ever been fought with a plan to secure the peace after the war, and certainly never with the idea that the plan, once written, would correspond so perfectly with the real world situation that nothing would go wrong. Progressives want to frame their ideas so they are judged on the morality of their intentions, rather than on the real consequences in the world of practical application. They do not believe the path to hell is paved with good intentions. In fact, Progressives often act as if they believe a virtuous intention will always result in a benefit, and that an evil intention (say a profit motive spurred by Greed) will always result in a detriment. Lakoff offers further advice “Hold your ground. Always be on the offense. Never go on defense. Never whine or complain. Never act like a victim” Dr. Lakoff should realize that most Progressives rely on considering themselves either the victims of something (to cover a poor personal performance) , or as the defenders of those victims (self-righteous moral preening). Victim-hood is at the root of claims of sexism, racism, “exploitation” by the wealthy and even environmentalism where the victim is the planet (which will be around long after the human race will have passed from its surface) Lakoff also proposes his own Wedge and Slippery Slope issues: “Imagine a campaign for poison free communities, starting with mercury as the poison of choice, then going on to other kinds of poison in our air and in our water, around us in various forms. That could be made into a wedge issue, splitting conservatives who care about their won and their children’s health from those who are simply against government regulation. The very issue would be a frame in which regulation favors health, and being against the regulation endangers health. This is also a slippery slope issue. Once you get people looking at how and where mercury enters the environment – for example from the processing of coal and other chemicals —and you get people thinking about cleaning up mercury, and about mercury poisoning, and how it works in the environment, you can go onto the next poison in the environment, and the poison after that, and the poison after that.” One might notice that there is no mention of the empirical fact that there will be radioactive materials in our food, contaminants in our air and water, and other environmental hazards no matter what steps we take. The questions of “HOW MUCH RISK?” or “HOW MUCH WILL MITIGATING THE RISK COST?” are ignored because they are unimportant to Dr. Lakoff. Apparently, Dr. Lakoff is a proponent of the idea that creating unfounded hysteria is a good way to attain power. Cleaner water,


cleaner air, cleaner food and cleaner fuels drive up the cost of these resources, and products derived from their use, thus making those things more difficult for the poor to obtain. These considerations never enter the mind of the Progressive because of the intrinsic belief that they are the elite intellectuals who must protect humanity from its own stupidity. Dr. Lakoff suggests that conservatives believe that “The hated liberals, who are effete elitist, unpatriotic spendthrifts, are threatening American culture and values, and have to be fought vigorously and continuously on every front. It is a threat to the very security of the nation, as well as morality, religion, the family, and everything real Americans hold dear“ Given the Progressive support for removing decisions from the hands of individuals and their representatives, confiscating and redistributing wealth and opportunities, driving up the cost of living, silencing dissenting opinions via speech codes and prohibitions on public religious expression, changing the definitions of family and morality and ignoring the frames and principles of our founding fathers, attitudes such as this should not come as a surprise. They are founded on empirical experience with Progressives . There is a Culture War, but even Dr. Lakoff’s own rhetoric betrays the fact that it is traditional beliefs, institutions and values that are under attack by people that hope to play God, change the world, and remake it in their own image.

Chapter 4: The Role of Government
Dr. Lakoff defines Progressive Values as: Freedom, Opportunity, Prosperity, fairness, open communication, community building, community service and co-operation, trust and honesty. Based on these values, Dr. Lakoff defines several Progressive Political Principles, which will be examined in turn: The Progressive principle of “Equity” means that “if you Work hard, play by the rules; and serve your family, community and nation, then the nation should provide a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security and opportunity” and Lakoff even asserts “America Promises a decent standard of living in return for hard work” No Progressive-backed social programs require anyone to work hard, or “follow the rules”, other than the administrative one for getting paid. Attempts to introduce accountability or responsibility into these systems are routinely blocked and opposed by progressives. Furthermore, there is nothing anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that promises citizens a decent standard of living in return for hard work. It is true that America is one of the few places in the world where hard work is a characteristic that is often rewarded, but that does not result in a guarantee. Again, Dr. Lakoff is using framing to obscure the actual operation and actual results of Progressive Social Programs, which are, in effect to take money by force from those who have earned it by contributing to the 21

society and giving it to others who have not. The progressive principle of Equity in effect is equality of economic results, more commonly known as socialism or communism. The Progressive principle of "Equality" means “To do everything possible to guarantee political equality and avoid imbalances of power. “ Progressives believe that equality means selected minorities should be on the same political footing as majorities . This principle is illuminated by Progressive’s stance on Senate Filibusters (Preventing a Majority from Voting) , Affirmative action (Taking opportunities from a Majority and giving them to a minority) , welfare (taking wealth from the majority and giving it to a minority) , Gay Marriage (allowing a minority to redefine a word used by the majority) , and Religious Displays (Allowing a Minority to control what ideas are allowed in public) In effect, the progressive principle of equality means a rejection of the principles of Majority Rule and Representative Democracy. This is further illustrated in Dr. Lakoff’s definition of a corporation: “In the law, corporations are (metaphorically) persons. They are not really persons. They are collective legal entities, intended to serve the needs and interests of the real individuals in a society. The needs and rights of individuals therefore should take precedence over the needs and rights of corporations.” This is a firm assertion that progressives believe the needs and rights of certain individuals should take precedence over the needs and rights of a group of individuals. Lakoff says maximizing stakeholder environment “Corporations are chartered by and accountable to the public. Instead of only shareholder profits, corporations should be chartered to maximize well being, where shareholders, employees, communities and the are all recognized and represented on corporate boards.”

Thus, Progressives DO NOT support the right of free association and believe that decisions made by any group of freely associated individuals should be subject to the review of 3rd parties who represent Progressively defined “stakeholders ”. Ironically, Lakoff claims "Democracy" is a Liberal Principle in which Progressives attempt to “Maximize citizen participation, minimize concentrations of political, corporate, and media power. Maximize journalistic standards. Establish publicly financed elections. Invest in Public education. Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not just stockholder control” However, Progressives support unhampered and unregulated Labor unions which are a huge source of political power and money. Likewise Progressives support government funded and progressive controlled entities like PBS and NPR (Media) and an ever expanding federal government, including a government funded school system that teaches progressive values and frames. Dr. Lakoff asserts that groups of Private Citizens (Corporations) should have Progressively defined “stakeholders” thrust into their private decision making process. He says “The airwaves must be kept public, and media monopolies (Murdoch, Clear Channel) broken up.”, thus asserting a progressive agenda


that allows the Government to decide and censor what can be broadcast on its “public airwaves”. He singles out Murdoch as a entity that must be broken up, but ignores Time Warner and Disney which are both larger enterprises. Dr. Lakoff also provides this example of Progressive Journalistic standards: "The Media Does not have to accept the right wing’s frames. What can a reporter ask besides “do you support gay Marriage? Try this: “Do you think that the government should tell people who they can and can’t marry?” or “Do you think the Freedom to marry who you want is to a matter of equal rights under the law?” or “Do you see marriage as the realization of love in a lifetime commitment?” or “Does it benefit society when two people who are in love want to make a public lifetime commitment to each other?” Reframing is everybody’s job. Especially Reporters… It is a duty of reporters not to accept this situation and simply use those right-wing frames that have come to seem natural. ” From these examples it is clear that Progressives support using private and public assets to support and expand Progressive institutions and political powers to advance a Progressive Agenda while using government power to simultaneously curb, regulate and check conservative power structures. Thus the Progressive principle of Democra cy means expanding Progressive Media Outlets while silencing Conservatives . Dr. Lakoff is simply using framing to obscure the real agenda of state sponsored censorship and the squelching of free speech. Dr. Lakoff says “Our values apply to business. In the course of making money by providing products and services, business should not adversely affect the public good, as defined by the above values” Thus is defined the principle of "Ethical Business" Applying the above values implies that Progressive’s believe Ethical Business is the Progressive right to serve as self-appointed judges over other people’s decisions on how, when, and where they may try to earn a living. The Progressive principle of a “Values based foreign policy” means “The same values governing domestic policy should apply to foreign policy whenever possible” “An ethical foreign policy means the inclusion of issues previously left out: women’s rights and education, children’s rights, labor issues, poverty and hunger, the global environment and global health” In fact, this means that they are justified in imposing Nurturant Morality on the world ( and thus maintaining Progressive’s illusion of their own moral purity and superiority ). The Final progressive principle is “Government for a better future” in which “Government does what America’s future requires and what the private sector cannot do or is not doing—effectively, ethically or at all. It is the job of government to promote and, if possible provide sufficient protection, greater democracy, more freedom, a better environment, broader Prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life, less violence, and the building and maintaining of public infrastructure” In Practice, this means more government (progressive) control of all areas of life. Progressives want to government to provide “secure harbors, industrial facilities and cities” and “safe neighborhoods (community policing) and schools (gun control); safe


water, air and food (a poison-free environment); safety on the job; and products safe to use… health care for all, pre- and postnatal care for children, a focus on wellness and preventive care, and care for the elderly (Medicare, Social Security and so on)”. In addition they want the government to impose “gay rights, affirmative action, women’s rights (abortion)” without the consent of the governed. They want the government to decide when labor is being exploited (without labors consent) and force businesses to provide “living wages, safe workplaces, [and] no intimidation” in the ways specified by the government. The government should control how much an individual can earn and decide who has "earned the right to living wages and health care." Progressives believe the Government should decide that “The economy as a whole should decently compensate those who hold it up” and redistribute income if it fails to do so. The government should tell people what kind of art should be produced an what curriculum should be taught because “Art and education are parts of self-fulfillment” In fact, ”beauty, and self-knowledge are part of human fulfillment, and so the government must see to it that institutions promote such forms of human nurturance” In his presentation “Take Back America” George Lakoff asserts that the role of Government from a progressive point of view is to “provide protection, freedom, fairness, political equality, prosperity, the best possible natural environment, healthy communities, and a reasonable standard of living: decent housing, food, clothing, firstrate public education, and health care.” All of which are defined by Progressives. In other words Progressives believe the Government has the right to decide on the type of fairness applied (equal results), the types of protection offered (not property rights), the degree of freedom offered (Abortion is available, Guns are not.), the political representation in the government, how much prosperity each person is allowed to have, what environment people will live in, what kind of communities we will have and the values they will support, the quantity and types of housing, food, or clothing each person should have, the type of education that will be offered and the curriculum and values it will impart, and when, where and how an individual will be allowed to seek medical attention and with what drugs or procedures, what a person can smoke for recreation (marijuana, but not tobacco), and when, where, and how an individual will be allowed to seek or offer employment, and all in complete disregard to the social compact ratified by the people. Or put more simply Progressives believe the role of government is to impose their decisions on other people using the power of the State often while ignoring or overstepping the Constitutional limits placed on that power. Ghandi said: “I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor.” In Contrast, Dr. Lakoff say Conservatives believe that the proper role of Government is “to protect the lives and the private property of Americans, to making profit seeking as easy as possible for worthy Americans (the disciplined ones), and to promote


conservative morality (strict father morality) and religion” This is an opinion that is shared by our Founding Fathers: “Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government.” Federalist # 54 “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.” James Madison) “The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares. By multiplying the means of gratification, by promoting the introduction and circulation of the precious metals, those darling objects of human avarice and enterpris e, it serves to vivify and invigorate the channels of industry, and to make them flow with greater activity and copiousness. The assiduous merchant, the laborious husbandman, the active mechanic, and the industrious manufacturer, --all orders of men, look forward with eager expectation and growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toils.” (Hamilton ) Hence, in direct opposition to Progressives , Conservatives believe that the Constitution protects the Property Rights as well as the right to claim the rewards of one’s own work. However, contrary to Dr. Lakoff’s assertion that Conservatives wish for a state imposed religion, Conservatives simply believe that the First Amendment prohibits the Federal government from either encouraging OR discouraging Religion. Dr. Lakoff probably misinterprets the conservative stance on this issue because of the common Progressive belief that the First Amendment provides Freedom from exposure to Religious Thought, and hence feel that no one has the right to express religious opinions or symbols in public. However, on matters of morality, Conservatives do tend to agree with the sentiments of George Washington: “all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded


to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Washington’s Farewell address Conservatives feel that Religious beliefs promote the maintenance of an important pillar of civilization, and that religious beliefs in our leadership preserve our liberty. According to Lakoff, Conservatives believe “It is immoral to give people things they have not earned, because then they will not develop discipline and will become both dependant and immoral. This theory says that social programs are immoral because they make people dependent.” Conservatives are “Against Social programs that take care of people. That is what they see as wrong. That is what they are trying to eliminate on moral grounds.” and “What they really want to do away with is social programs – programs which invest in people, to help people help themselves.” More accurately , Conservatives believe it is immoral to use government force to steal from people who have earned their wealth to give it to people who are unwilling to earn it. In direct contradiction to Dr. Lakoff, Conservatives (and Christian ethics) do not see the care of people as wrong, in fact they advocate it. The conservative system’s morals simply indicate that such behavior shouldn’t be coerced. Why would conservatives who value independence and find dependence to be immoral, oppose programs that allow people to help themselves and thus become independent? Again, Dr. Lakoff is attempting to use framing to obfuscate the simple fact that Conservative s disagree with the method of providing the support, not with the support itself. Progressive social programs encourage people to help themselves by allowing them to help themselves to money in some other person's wallet. They do not promote self-sufficiency or responsibility and do not encourage beneficiaries to become productive members of the society. , and thereby avoid doing anything productive for others or the society. Conservatives are against Social programs that provide no current or long term benefits to the society because they create incentives counter-productive to the goals of the program, or are otherwise ineffectual at achieving their stated goals. Copious amounts of data have shown that dependency on the Government is increasing, so how are these programs helping people to help themselves? Conservatives believe that different incentives (positive or negative) will have an effect how people currently behave, and that people will make future plans based on their perceptions of those incentives. Lakoff observes “Conservatives are not against [funding for] the military, they are not against homeland defense, they are not against the current department of justice, nor against the courts, nor the Departments of Treasury and Commerce” “Conservatives don’t really want smaller government. They don’t want to eliminate the Military, the FBI, of the treasury and commerce departments, or the nine-tenths of the courts that support corporate law. It is big government that they like.” U.S. Constitution, Section 8 (The powers of Congress) : “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts


and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerc e with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;To establish Post Offices and Post Roads Post ;To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries ;To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grantLetters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;To provide and maintain a Navy;To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings ; AndTo make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” (Emphasis Mine) The items highlighted by Dr. Lakoff are enumerated in the Constitution as legimate Federal powers. Dr. Lakoff might also observe that the Constitution DOES not enumerate Welfare programs of any kind as being a power of the Federal government, and the Federalist Papers clearly say that the clause “General Welfare” is clarified by the following specifics. “Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.” Critics against ratification of the Constitution argued that the General Welfare phrase would be abused by unscrupulous men to expand the power of the Federal Government. . Madison responded to these critics :” Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these


writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. “ Plainly stated, Conservatives believe that the Federal government should be kept within its Constitutional boundaries. Lakoff says “Strict Father values are seen as central to democracy – to the empowerment of individuals to change their lives and their society by pursuing their self-interests:” Conservatives believe that individuals should have the freedom to pursue (and determine) their own happiness, and where those pursuits conflict, Democracy is used to settle the dispute. “Suppose you are a moral authority. As a moral authority, how do you deal with your children? Do you ask them what they should do or what you should do? No, you tell them. What the father says, the child does, no back talk. Communication is One-Way. It is the Same with the White House” Conservatives believe that a President, elected to be in charge, is in charge within the bounds of his office as described in the Constitution, until the President’s term is over or is removed from office by Constitutional means (impeachment) Lakoff then suggests that to Conservatives “ Rights must be consistent with Morality… thus there is no right to an abortion, no right to same-sex marriage, no right to health care (or any other government assistance), no right to know how the administration decides policy, no right to a living wage and so on” This is more true of the Progressive worldview where moral absolutes rule. Conversely, Conservatives believe that Rights are limits on governmental power concerning legal protections retained by the people when forming the United States or their State Governments (via ratification of a Constitution and amendments) It must be said that most conservatives will not support rights inconsistent with their morality, but it does not follow that they wouldn’t submit to the rule of the majority if they were ratified modifications to the societal compacts that they live under. In contrast, this suggests that Progressives believe that Rights are benefits given to some at the expense of others, by dictatorial order, rather than by majority rule.


Chapter 5: Tax Relief or Delinquent Dues?
One of Dr. Lakoff’s main examples of “conservative framing” is the term “Tax Relief”, which carries with it, the “conservative worldview” that Taxes are an affliction that need to be relieved. Dr. Lakoff believes that the Progressives need to frame and use similar two-world phrases that invoke the Progressive world view, rather than being forced to explain their position in detail. Dr. Lakoff compares taxes to a country club. “Taxation is paying your dues, paying your membershi p fee in America. If you join a country club or a community center, you pay fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the squash court, but you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise they won’t be maintained and will fall apart” Most “Country Clubs” do not let people who do not pay dues come in and use the club, which is exactly what happens with most liberal Social programs, and the tenants of government provided housing certainly neglect to ‘wipe down” the squash court before they leave. Most Country Clubs also don't round people up in the middle of the night and force them to join under pain of imprisonment. In the end, this is an attempt as misdirection to avoid admitting that Progressives believe people who pay should provide benefits to people who do not. Or, in Dr. Lakoff’s words: “Just as in a nurturant family it is the duty of older and stronger children to help out those that are younger and weaker, so in a nation it is the duty of citizens who are better-off to contribute more than those who are worse-off. “ Dr. Lakoff also compares Taxes to Investments: “Our parents invested in the future, ours as well as theirs, through their taxes…Today we have assets – highways, schools and colleges, the internet, airlines—that come from the wise investments they made. ..Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make is money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce departments, and the Judicial System, where 9/10 of cases involve corporate law… The Wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back” Dr. Lakoff suggests at first that the returns on the investments of taxes are the assets that become availabl e to everyone, but then asserts some have to pay for the use of those assets out of the benefits they derived from their use. So, in the progressive frame, The Government is a for-profit business that collects fees from the successful for the use of the National infrastructure in order to provide a dividend to the original investors (the taxpayers) some of whom never invested a dime. Of course, Dr. Lakoff doesn’t explain what percentage of a given tax-payment is new investment vs. a fee for using the infrastructure, or how much is due as a dividend to an individual who has "invested". To use Dr. Lakoff’s own example of a Country Club from the above, a Champion Swimmer


that makes a million dollars a year not only owes dues to his country club for the right to use the swimming pool and other facilities, but also owes the other members of the club a cut of his income, because they also “paid their dues” to help maintain and improve those facilities. This interpretation is confirmed by Dr. Lakoff’s statement: "The more wealth you accumulate using what the dues payers have provided, the greater the debt you owe to those who have made your wealth possible." If taxes worked as investments as Lakoff suggests, the government would issue shares for each investment made in new infrastructure, and would pay out the most in dividends to those who put the most in, instead of the current system where 10% of the population pays over half of the tax burden, and use the fewest of the governments services. In addition, the Dr. Lakoff suggests the Government also invested in “•The highway system •The internet, semiconductors -- computers •The satellite system, and cell phones •The scientific and medical establishment. •The stock market” Therefore, according to Dr. Lakoff, taxpayers owe the Government a return on their initial investment for using those things too, even though most are now owned by private enterprises . This implies that the government should be allowed to seek its economic selfinterest via a profit motive, while individuals should be restrained from doing so. Dr. Lakoff says, "Prosperity is for everybody. Government makes investments, and those investments should reflect the overall public good." However, this is in direct contradiction to the idea that taxpayers made investments, on which a return should be paid. In effect Progressives believe that taxes are funds owned by and invested by the Government, and not funds held in trust to be spent for the benefit of the taxpaying public. Hence Dr. Lakoff believes that the Government is owed a return on the investment, rather than the taxpayer. Dr. Lakoff believes these “these are accurate views of taxes. But they are not yet enshrined in our brains. They need to be repeated over and over again, and refined until they take their rightful place in our synapses.” It is hard to say what two-word phrase Lakoff would like these ideas to be enshrined under. Perhaps Dr. Lakoff would prefer the term “Fee Delinquency” rather than “Tax Relief.” Regardless of what two-word phrase is picked, it should be evident there is no power on Earth that will make the ideas described by that phrase an accurate view of taxes. Dr. Lakoff says: 'Propaganda is an attempt to get the public to adopt a frame that is not true and is known not to be true, for the purpose of gaining and maintaining political control”


Chapter 6: Education or Indoctrination?
Dr. Lakoff asserts that “no Child Left Behind” is Orwellian speech “The Clear Skies Initiative, Healthy Forests, No Child Left Behind. This is the use of language to mollify people who have nurturant values, while the real policies are strict father policies… Imagine if they [conservatives] came out supporting a “Dirty Skies Bill” or a “Forest Destruction Bill” or a “Kill Public Education” bill. They would loose. They are aware people do not support what they are really trying to do. “ While at the same time, Dr. Lakoff asserts conservatives believe that “preserving and extending conservative morality is the highest goal, education should serve that goal. Schools should teach conservative values. Conservatives should gain control of school boards to guarantee this.” This appears to be a contradiction: WHY would conservatives want to destroy public education if they planned to use that infrastructure to expand conservative moral systems, and that expansion was “the “highest goal”? The simple explanation is that Conservatives only want control of their OWN child’s education, and the public education system as it exists today does not allow for that flexibility. Again, Dr. Lakoff is attempting to use framing to avoid the real point of contention : Who is in control of what people learn? “Why an education bill about school testing? Once the testing frame applies not just to students but also to schools, then schools can, metaphorically fail—and be punished for failing by having their allowance cut. Less funding in Turn makes it harder for the schools to improve, which leads to a cycle of failure and ultimately the elimination of many public schools” One must admit that if a group is given a task (like educating students), and that task is not accomplished, it is not a success. Is it a metaphorical failure? No, it is a failure plain and simple. At first, it may seem that Progressives believe there should be no accountability, rewards or consequences for doing your job well or not at all. However, in reality, it may simply be that Progressives believe that the role of the Public School system is to spread Nuturant morality at which it excels. Dr. Lakoff says Progressive educational policy should provide “A vibrant, well-funded, and expanding public education system….where teachers nurture children’s minds and often the children themselves, and where children are taught the truth about their nation” “Every child’s brain is shaped crucially by early experiences. We [Progressives] support high-quality early childhood education.” “Empathy and responsibility are to be promoted in every area of life, public and private. Art and education are parts of self-fulfillment and therefore moral necessities”


Therefore Progressives believe they are morally obligated to spread Nurturant Morality using public facilities , including the public school system. Ironically, this is exactly what Dr. Lakoff accuses his political opponents of. One must wonder why Conservative parents who want their children taught “Strict Father Morality” should be forced to support an educational environment where “Nurturant Morality” and its attendant values are taught, and where the “truth” about our nation is “framed” from a progressive point of view (“Reframing is telling the truth as we see it— telling it forcefully, straight forwardly and articulately, with moral conviction and without hesitation.”) Thomas Jefferson, often cited as the Father of Public Education also believed this: “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern” - The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. (Thomas Jefferson) Dr. Lakoff asserts: “Less funding [for schools] in Turn makes it harder for the schools to improve, which leads to a cycle of failure and ultimately the elimination of many public schools” In actuality, the Public Schools are currently funded 6 times better (in adjusted dollars) than they were in 1960 (when academic achievement was higher) and increasing funding over the last 30 years has resulted in lowing academic achievement. Dr. Lakoff gives no rationalization why continuing in this manner will be likely to provide better results in the future. Dr. Lakoff says that, for Conservatives, “What replaces the public school system is a voucher system to support private schools. The wealthy would have good schools—paid for in part by what used to be tax payments for public schools. “ ”Vouchers and school testing are not ultimately about school vouchers and school testing; they are about conservative control of the content of education” “Because immoral, undisciplined children can lead moral, disciplined children astray, parents should be able to choose to which schools they send their children… Since preserving and extending conservative morality is the highest goal, education should serve that goal. Schools should teach conservative values” “ Currently, many parents choose to pay for their child’s education twice, once in taxes and a second time in tuition, none of which is in their economic self-interest. (one must assume that they side with “identity” when they choose a school – or maybe they simply believe that the academic achievement, a good classroom environment (the definition of which varies per child), or an environment which teaches and fosters their own values


(Strict Father Morality) is more important than money ) In short, Conservatives believe that Parents should decide what the best academic environment for their children is. Apparently Dr. Lakoff’s definition of “Conservative control” means “a lack of Progressive Control”, as vouchers put the decision in the hands of parents who may be either Progressive or Conservative. Voucher Programs remove the decision from the hands of the government and hamper Progressives ’ abilities to make decisions for others, and this is the reason Vouchers are unacceptable to Progressives. Vouchers provide a choice for student trapped in a failing school, a school that teaches values contrary to those of the parents, or a school whose permissive policies (some mandated by Liberal judges) make it unsafe to attend. Testing sends a clear message to the school to concentrate on teaching rather than on furthering “Nurturant Morality” and enhancing the power of the Teacher’s Unions. D. Lakoff asserts vouchers mean “The poor would not have the money for good schools. We would wind up with a two-tier school system, a good one for the “deserving rich” and a bad one for the “undeserving poor” “The vouchers given to poorer (less disciplined and less worthy) people will not be sufficient to allow them to get their children into the better private and religious schools. Schools will thus come to reflect the natural divisions of wealth in society” If the poor had “good schools” under the current system, why would they use their voucher given choice to switch? This statement implicitly admits that the current Public Schools for the poor are NOT GOOD. If they were, the vouchers would NOT be used, and the public schools would loose no funding. The wealthy (and a high percentage of public school teachers) already send their kids to private school, and a two class division exists under the current system. Vouchers would give Poor children access to the choices that Rich families have, granting them access to the school system of the “deserving rich”. Further, does a Student need to go to Harvard in order to get a decent education, or will a State School do? Harvard is a “better” school, but this says nothing about the quality of the education received. The intent of vouchers is to allow the poor to escape a bad school and trade-up for a "better" one. If they can't, they are not obligated to use the voucher. Lakoff says Conservatives believe “Uniform testing should test the level of discipline. There are right and wrong answers, and they should be tested for. Testing defines fairness: those who pass are rewarded; those not disciplined enough to pass are punished…Education should promote discipline, and undisciplined students should face punishment (for instance paddling), and intellectually undisciplined students should not be coddled, but should be shamed and punished by not being promoted… “Teachers should be strict, not nurturant, in the example they set for students and in the content they teach”


To clarify, Conservatives believe that tests indicate if the student has achieved an understanding of the subject. Conservatives believe that many subjects like Math, Science, Grammar, History contain facts about which questions can be asked, and that these questions have correct answers. Conservatives believe that those who “follow the rules”, “work hard” and achieve the intended goal should be advanced, where as those who do not, should be forced to obtain the required education. Conservatives believe Schools exist for the education of youth, and understand (along with our founding Fathers (such as Madison and Jefferson)), that values are a part of that education. As such Conservatives should be enabled to claim the right of Conscience in deciding what values should be taught to their children. Progressives, on the other hand, want to remove children from their parents' influence early, teach them progressive values, and do so with public funds coerced from the parents.


Chapter 7: Majority Rule and the Right to Kill
Dr. Lakoff believes Conservatives oppose abortion because “there are two stereo-typical cases where women need abortions: unmarried teenagers who have been having “illicit” sex, and older women who want to delay child rearing to pursue a career. Both of these fly in the face of the Strict Father Model….. Pregnant teenagers have violated the commandments of the strict father” and “Career women challenge the power and authority of the strict father. Both should be punished by bearing the child; neither should be able to avoid the consequences of their actions, which would violate the strict father model’s idea that morality depends on punishment” Apparently, Dr. Lakoff feels that Childbirth and its attendant responsibilit ies are a Punishment. Conservatives, contrastingly, don’t believe childbirth is a punishment, as much as it might be a consequence of immoral or irresponsible acts. Conservatives are against abortion, NOT because it allows an immoral or irresponsible person to go unpunished, but because they find killing an unborn child to be immoral. Dr. Lakoff’s use of framing to obscure this point is obtuse in the extreme. Dr. Lakoff continues: “in the strict father model, it is the father who decides whether his wife or daughter should have an abortion. As it is the father who controls his daughters’ sexuality, when the daughter takes a lover, then the father loses control. If the father is to maintains control over his family, then the women in the family cannon freely control their own sexual behavior and their own ability to reproduce” Conservatives believe that women who control their own sexual behavior and act responsibly (ensuring the use of Birth control etc) would not need an abortion, and would understand the risks involved with their actions. As a practical matter, Dr. Lakoff is arguing that women have the right to take another life as part of their sexual self-control. Conservatives also believe that Parents have a right to be notified and be required to give consent before medical procedures are to be performed on their children, because their children (being children) are not always able to make good decisions on their own. This lack of good judgment in the young can be easily demonstrated by examining how the child became pregnant in the first place. One can only surmise that the Progressive opposition to this is based on some notion that children are no different than adults and should be given all of the rights thereof. In Dr. Lakoff’s section on talking to conservatives he suggests that if a Conservative brings up abortion, the Progressive should “Raise the issue of military rape treatment. Women Soldiers who are raped (by our own soldiers, in Iraq, or on military bases) and who subsequently get pregnant presently cannot end their pregnancies in a military hospital, because abortions are not permitted there. A Military Rape Treatment Act would allow our raped women soldiers to be treated in military hospitals to end their rapeinduced pregnancies. The wedge: if he agrees, he sanctions abortion, in government supported facilities no-less, where doctors would have to be trained and facilities provided for terminating pregnancies. If he disagrees, he dishonors our women soliders


who are putting their lives on the line for him. To the women it is like being raped twice—once by a criminal soldier and once by a self-righteous conservative” This is a very good argument for why women shouldn’t be in the military or in combat, but it has little to do with the issue at hand. Dr. Lakoff assumes a moral absolutism that simply doesn’t exist. Undoubtedly there are some conservatives so dedicated to the principle of life that they would deny access to an abortion even if the pregnancy were the result of rape or a failure to abort would result in the woman’s death. However, many Conservatives want laws that evaluate the situation and make reasonable trade-offs. These laws would be passed by our elected representatives in accordance with the principles of majority rule. Progressives, however, claim the right to pre-empt such decisions by the people. For instance, Progressives oppose Partial Birth Abortions (called by Progressives a “Late-Term Abortion ”) which involves puncturing the skull of a (very likely viable) fetus in the birth canal and suctioning out its brain. Progressives believe the performance of this act is the in-alienable natural right of the mother. Dr. Lakoff states that “There are almost no such cases [of partial birth abortion] . Why to Conservatives care so much? Because it’s a Slippery Slope to ending all abortion. It puts out there a frame of abortion as a horrendous Procedure, when most operations ending pregnancy are nothing like this” Ironically, he also has this to say on abortion: “To understand this is not to ignore the real pain and difficulty involved in decisions made by individual women to terminate a pregnancy. For those truly concerned with the lives and health of Children, the decision to end a pregnancy for whatever reason is always painful and anything but simple.” If abortion isn’t a Horrendous Procedure, and that is a false frame, why is it always painful and difficult to decide to have one? In a letter Dr. Lakoff republished it was suggest liberals respond to anti-abortion conservati ves by telling them "if they are antiabortion, then by all means they should not have one." The partial birth abortion procedure makes up only 2000-5000 cases of the over 1,000,000 abortions performed in the United States every year. Should society accept 2000-5000 infants dead every year from parental abuse because infanticide makes up only a very small percentage of child abuse cases? Should infanticide be declared a natural inalienable right and a choice because it seldom happens? If someone is against infanticide, should they simply not kill their child? Again, Dr. Lakoff is using framing to obscure the real issue: Should our Society be enabled to restrict access to abortion via a democratic process, or should the society be forced to treat such access as a natural right, because 5 unelected and unaccountable people issued a (unconstitutional) fiat. It is absurd to assert that the Bill of Rights was ratified by the people with the understanding that it granted access to abortion, or that it would have taken 200 years for the court to arrive at that opinion. Dr. Lakoff says abortion is a part of the Progressive value of “Freedom”: “That includes freedom of motherhood —the freedom of a woman to decide whether, when and with whom. It excludes state control of pregnancy” If this is an example of the progressive value of freedom, then it again demonstrates that the freedom being valued is that of making decisions for others by depriving them of the democratic decision on how abortion should be handled in their society. One should also note that


access or restrictions on abortion have ZERO affect on woman’s capability to decide “whether, when and with whom”, nor would a government ban on abortion affect these decisions, it would merely remove the woman’s ability to escape the consequences of those decisions. Again Dr. Lakoff is using framing to obscure the simple fact that Progressives believe that women have a natural an inalienable right to act irresponsibly and escape the consequences of their actions by taking an innocent life that the majority cannot regulate in any form.


Chapter 8: What is in a Name?
Dr. Lakoff asserts Conservatives oppose Gay Marriage because “Same sex marriage does not fit the strict father model of the family; it goes squarely against it. A lesbian marriage has no father. A Gay marriage has fathers who are taken to be less than real men.” As such, Conservatives want to define Marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But, Lakoff says, “as anthropological studies of American Marriage have shown, they [conservatives] got the definition wrong. Marriage, as an ideal, is defined as “the realization of love though a lifelong public commitment” "With love and commitment, you have the very definition of the marital ideal—of what Marriage is fundamentally about” “Marriage is about love and commitment, and denying lovers the right to marry is a violation of human dignity” Dr. Lakoff “forgets” to document the study he was citing so no comment on it can be provided. However, American Marriage is based on the Traditions of old Europe, and Marriage as an institution exists in almost every culture in some form, including tribal cultures. Many cultures have arranged marriages, and Love is not expected to be part of it, much less a central theme. Modern Dictionaries of the English language define Marriage as: mar·riage n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ( The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) mar·riage n. 1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 MerriamWebster, Inc) You will notice that neither dictionary uses the Word “Love”. Dr. Lakoff, apparently believes he can create new definitions to words whenever he wants. Dr. Lakoff here tries to establish a false frame in order to hide the fact that the definition of marriage is being changed. As a linguist, Dr. Lakoff understands the power of words, and knows that changing a definition is tantamount to lying. Lakoff says, “Marriage is central to our culture. Marriage legally confers many hundreds of benefits, but that is only its material aspect.” Marriage consists almost entirely of legal obligations; Shared income, shared property, shared responsibility, and accountability to another person. One loses autonomy and freedom when they Marry, which most would consider far more valuable than any benefits they might obtain. Even then, very few of the legal “benefits” are not currently available to same sex couples via normal legal channels, with the largest missing one being a “one stop shop” where these benefits can be conferred together and at once. Legal documents can handle inheritance, legal proxy and other such arrangements. Most hospitals have adjusted their rules to allow same-sex partners to visit, and many


companies offer health benefits to same sex partners (and many deny them to the spouses of Heterosexual Married couples—it is an employer choice.) The Fact the Progressives believe the central point and utility of Marriage are the benefits that they obtain shows that Progressives have a Fundamental lack of understanding about the institution of Marriage. This is also why they frequently call it useless, outdated or an expression of Patriarchal society while demanding it for their homosexual brothers and sisters. Dr. Lakoff says Marriage “is the beginning of family life, commonly with the expectation of children and grandchildren, family gatherings, in-laws, little league games, graduations and all of the rest” “The ideal marriage is happy, lasting, prosperous, and with children, a nice home, and friendships with other married couples. The typical marriage has its ups and downs, its joys and difficulties, typical problems with children and in-laws. “ As Dr. Lakoff implies above, Love is not the reason the institution exists; People can love and have sex with whomever they choose and for as long as they choose outside of Marriage. Before the years of effective Birth control ( that only recently began in the latter part of the 20th century), a societal ethic of Marriage before sex was required, as babies would inevitably follow the repeated act of sex in most cases. Marriage is about the “expectation” of children. Society promotes marriage as a socio-economic cradle that allows would-be parents to prepare a home using the benefits of the division of labor, a practice that is secured by guaranteein g assets to one party that may give up a job and a steady income to participate. The Rules surrounding traditional marriage, that were once codified in law, (they were replaced with “no fault divorce”) are designed to protect the union for the benefit of the children, and the happiness of the parents was only a secondary concern. Children depend on a stable environment where they feel secure, and marriage is designed to provide that. By this token, what reasonable expectation do Same-Sex marriage couples have for a child? How many desire a child? Should this status be granted to a small segment of the population who are unlikely to contribute to the institutions purpose? If they do contribute and have children, by what methods should they be allowed to obtain them? Should two-mother, one father groupings be condoned? What effects do such configurations have upon the raising of children? What effects does having two fathers or two mothers have upon the children? These are valid questions, none of which are addressed by Dr. Lakoff. The studies that have been done have very small sample sizes, address one socioeconomic background, or deal with children that had a traditional family early in their lives. Furthermore, the social conditions in the Netherlands and other places where Gay Marriage has been adopted, Marriage seems to suffer, and many more children are born out of wedlock, and hence loose the stable environment and constant relationship needed for healthy growth. Before we change an institution that has supported every civilization on earth for millennia , it would probably be wise to understand the effects of such a


change on the institution itself and its intended product: children capable of taking up the mantle and perpetuating the society. “Gay for the right connotes a wild, deviant, sexually irresponsible life-style” There are groups of Gay Men who have demonstrated tendencies to willingly and wantonly spread AIDS and other diseases, and simply advocate unsafe sex. Should Society be advocating putting children into a family environment where at least one parent is likely to die before the child reaches maturity? Lakoff fails to address the possibility that Gay Men will continue to behave as they behave now, even when in a Marriage, and to investigate what effect that could have on the ethics and rules surrounding marriage throughout the society. Feminism has already led to “No-Fault” divorce laws which put the well-being of Parents over the well-being of their children (Statistics show that Children of Divorce are more likely to have problems than children who remain in a “conflicted” marriage (unless the conflict involves physical violence)) Does Society really wish to make it even more difficult to discipline and maintain the ethic of fidelity? Does society wish to deliberately create orphans? Also of note is that Lesbian behavior is quite different. If the debate were over Lesbian marriage, the idea would likely find more acceptance. Lakoff says “Polls show most Americans overwhelmingly against anti-gay discrimination, but equally against “gay marriage.” One reason, I believe, is that marriage evokes the idea of sex, and most Americans do not favor gay sex.” “Marriage confers a social status—a married couple with new social roles. And for a great many people, marriage legitimizes sex” Progressives often cannot tell the difference between tolerance and acceptance . Most Americans believe they should tolerate behavior that they believe imposes low or no costs on them or the society. The Strict-Father Christian Religion warns its adherents not to judge others and to leave the judging to God. Therefore consensual acts that occur out of sight in someone’s bedroom, tend to be tolerated in modern times. The word Marriage connotes a societal (and non-legal) obligation to support and accept the union. In effect, granting Homosexual Unions under the label “Marriage” forces people to accept, and not just tolerate the behavior; it legitimizes homosexual sex. It is a violation of an individual’s right of conscience to force others to publicly support a union they find sinful. “When conservatives speak of the “defense of Marriage,” liberals are baffled. After all, no individual’s marriage is being threatened. It’s just that more marriages are being allowed.” Progressives are proposing that the very definition of Marriage be changed. Changing the Use of the word “Marriage” to put both groups under the same label is repugnant to many, especially given the vastly different behavior of those groups. This isn’t about “political views,” it is about the general behavior of the group being associated. Is someone who parades down Main Street in the buff shouting obscenities and thumbing


his nose at the rules of society likely to obey the tenants of marriage? Stereotyping is based on group generalizations. It isn’t uncommon for the members of a group not causing detrimental effects on others to separate themselves from those causing the disruptions. Even the homosexuals do it as shown by this note from the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
gay n. 1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex 2. A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians. Usage Note: The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to homosexuals, in large part because it is the term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexu ality as opposed to sexual practice. Many writers reserve gay for males, but the word is also used to refer to both sexes; when the intended meaning is not clear in the context, the phrase gay and lesbian may be used. Like the other names of social groups derived from adjectives (for example, Black), gay may be regarded as offensive when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in There were two gays on the panel; here phrasing such as gay members should be used instead. But there is no objection to the use of the noun in the plural to refer collectively either to gay men or to gay men and lesbians, so long as it is clear whether men alone or both men and women are being discussed.

Lesbians use a separate word to describe themselves because they don’t want to be called gay either. They do not want to be associated with behavior (promiscuity, irresponsible sex) exhibited by others because it will taint the publics perception of their group. “Most Gay activists want more than Civil Unions. They want full-blown marriage, with all of its cultural meanings—a public commitment based on love, all of the metaphors, all of the rituals, joys heartaches, family experiences —and a sense of normality, on par with all other people.” A minority population that engages in behaviors different from the majority is by definition abnormal . It does not follow that they should be granted a sense of normality anymore than the behavior of groups like NAMBLA should be condoned as normal. Dr. Lakoff admits that the Gay activists are not interested in tolerance, but acceptance with all of the metaphors, rituals and ethics that apply to Heterosexual Marriage. Progressives who support Gay Marriage believe that individuals do not have the right of conscience protected by the first amendment, and should be forced to publicly accept and approve of acts they find immoral. Lakoff asserts “The ability of ministers, priests, and rabbis to perform marriage ceremonies is granted by governments, not by religions” The rules of who may perform and witness CIVIL marriages varies by State, but ANY community may choose to recognize or not recognize a marriage INDEPENDANT of the State. For instance, the Catholic Church officially refuses to sanction any marriage not performed within a Catholic Church. This is because the word Marriage has both a Legal and a Societal (religious) connotation. The force of state allows the enforcement of the contract via Civil Marriage, but the force of communal morality and tradition supports and upholds it. Marriage ceremonies often include a verbal commitment of those present 41

to help the couple maintain and keep the marriage contract. Members of the community are obligated by morality and tradition to council against extra-martial affairs, sex before marriage, and divorce. Such communities are often based on a religion, and Christian religions in general have the same ethics toward the institution and therefore are able to bolster each other. They form a layer of unofficial enforcement of the contract. It is this second area of moral enforcement that Gay Activists are trying to gain access to, otherwise they would be content with Civil Unions. “Progressives need to reclaim the moral high ground—of the grand American tradition of freedom, fairness, human dignity, and full equality under the law” Lakoff says “The issue is one of personal freedom: The state should not dictate who should marry whom. It is also a matter of fairness and human dignity. Equality under the law includes social and cultural as well as material benefits” Hence we find that Progressives believe the Government is entitled to regulate social and cultural benefits. To Progressives “full equality under the law” means using the force of law to compel society to produce the type of equality they see as desirable, even if achievement of that equality requires overriding the values or desires of the majority. This is why they support affirmative action and laws that treat people differently based on the color of their skin. Gay Marriage is an attempt to use the law to force people to treat Homosexuals Differently than Heterosexuals, by enabling them to marry the same sex. In short, progressives are claiming a right of government to establish a near totalitarian regime in which laws specify certain behaviors towards homosexuals and their unions, and carry a penalty for violation of those laws. Many Universities (the most Progressive Communities in America) have already put in place totalitarian speech codes that ban not only disparagement of Homosexua ls, but the expression of respectful but unfavorable opinions of their behavior. These codes are then enforced only against certain segments of the University population in order to achieve “equality”. Progressives believe the “Moral High Ground” entitles them to mandate the behavior and opinions of others, in complete contradiction of the principles of majority rule, self-government, and the right of Conscience . Contrastingly, Conservatives believe that “full equality under the law” means that the laws are applied in the same manner, regardless of who they are applied to. Marriage is an institution based on gender, not on sexual orientation. A Homosexual person is NOT denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex because of their sexual orientatio n. Heterosexual people are not allowed to marry the same gender. The rules are the same and apply the same for everyone. It is not the same case as when Black Men were unable to Marry white women. If one chooses to argue against the matter based on Gender Discrimination, the American people have already rejected the Equal Rights Amendment that attempted to proclaim Men and Women were equal (the same) In his section on how to respond to Conservatives, Lakoff reprints a letter which says “Every time someone started screaming about Gay marriage I’d ask if they want to Federal Government to tell them who they could marry. I’d go on to explain when challenged that once government has crossed the huge barrier into telling one group of


people who they could not marry, it is only a small step to telling other groups, and a smaller yet step to telling people who they had to marry.” The Government is not determining who should marry whom, and suggesting that there is a slippery slope towards a government mandated Eugenics (which the government already does by forbidding marriages to first cousins etc) of every union is absurd. It is simply yet another attempt by Lakoff to obscure the Progressive position. The government already HAS the power to determine who is involved in a Marriage and the sort of government control prognosticated above has not occurred. The argument over Gay Marriage is about restricting power the government already has, and restricting which decisions the majority can make, not giving the governmen t new powers that leap some imaginary barrier. This belies the real slippery slope: That once you forbid the government from setting standards for which groups can be involved in a Marriage, and do so against the will of the majority, there is nothing to prevent the legal challenge of Polygamists, proponents of Bestiality, Pedophiles or any other small minority group who suddenly has a desire for “acceptance” and no principle by which they may be denied. The Founding Fathers amended the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights, designed to protect minorities from the will of the majority. That agreement can ONLY be changed by an amendment approved by the Majority. The Founding Fathers did this because a minority is just as apt to produce a tyranny over the majority as vice-versa. There is not a Homosexual Amendment granting protection to Homosexuals or to those who commit Homosexual acts. Homosexuals differ from others only in their behavior, not in the color of their skin or ethnicity. The behavior may or may not be voluntary. Alcoholism isn’t voluntary either, but drunk drivers who are alcoholics are still held responsible for their actions. The High Recidivism rates of Pedophiles (and in particular homosexual pedophiles) suggest their behavior isn’t voluntary either. Should Pedophilia be legal because of that? Should we take another step and approve of it as natural and normal? American Society is blessed with an ability to decide via a Democratic process how we will react to different acts, and different lifestyles. Progressives desire to circumvent that process, and remove the right of conscience, and the right to determine, make and live by democratically enacted laws.

Chapter 8: World Despots vs. The People of the United States
The international relations community adds to the nation as a person metaphor what is called the rational actor model. The idea here is that it is irrational to act against your interests, and that nations act as if they were rational actors.-individual people trying to maximize their gains and assets and minimize their costs and losses.“ But, “There is an alternative way of thinking about foreign policy .... The premise is that when international relations work smoothly, it is because certain moral norms of the international community are being followed. This mostly goes unnoticed, since those norms are usually followed. We notice problems when those norms are breached. Given


this, is makes sense that foreign policy should be centered around those norms. The Moral norms I suggest come out of what in Moral Politics I called Nurturant Morality.” This statement asserts that the “world community” currently adheres to Nurturant Morality in their dealings with each other; Progressives feel various nations do not currently engage in bad behavior toward each other because of the threat of reprisals and possibly war, but because they feel empathy for the needs of other nations. Ironically, Lakoff also asserts “We must be the change we want! The foreign policy foreign policy. In the idea of responsibility for oneself, empathy and other forms of responsibility (protection, community development) it would lead to international interdependence” of moral norms is the only sane it remains practical. But through care, competence, effectiveness, cooperation and a recognition of

This statement implicitly recognizes that the Nations of the world DO NOT CURRENTLY follow Dr. Lakoff’s “Moral Norms”, and is, in effect, just a reiteration of the Progressive belief that others will adopt Nurturant Morality and values if they see an example. “We Must be the Change we want” is a quote from Gandhi, who was fighting a highly developed Western Nation, whose ethics had already led them to lead a war to abolish Slavery world wide (including in India). Gandhi believed the British Empire to be a benign institution, and knew that non-violence was the only tactic that an unarmed people might use to prevail over a militarily superior foe. It pre-supposes a National ethic against genocide on the part of the British. Gandhi also said “Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good” It is mere foolishness to assert that Gandhi's tactics or Moral Leadership will work universally with Atheist Dictators who abuse their own people (and who define the National Ethic in one man) , or with Islamic Radicals (Whose ethics demand death to the infidels). Moral Leadership will simply not work in these situations, and advocating such a thing is cooperation with evil. Ironically, Dr. Lakoff, says: “Radical Islamic Fundamentalists hate our culture. They have a worldview that is incompatible with the way that Americans —and other Westerners –live their lives… What about the First cause [of Islamic hatred for the U.S] -- The radical Islamic Worldview itself? Military action won’t change it. Social action won’t change it. Worldviews live in the minds of people. How can one change those minds—and if not present minds, then future minds? The West Cannot. Those minds can only be changed by moderate and liberal Muslims—clerics, teachers, elders, respected community members… we depend on the goodwill and courage of moderate Islamic leaders. To gain it, we must show our goodwill by beginning in a serious way to address the social and political conditions that lead to despair… Most Islamic would-be martyrs… have grown up in a culture of despair; they have nothing to lose. Eliminate such poverty and you eliminate the breeding ground for most terrorists – though the September 11th terrorists were relatively well-to do.”


Here, in addition to negating his own argument about poverty, Dr. Lakoff negates the idea that “Nurturant Morality” practiced by Westerners would have ANY effect on terrorists. However, even if poverty is accepted as a factor, Dr. Lakoff does not acknowledge that the source of this poverty is rulers who keep the majority of the people uneducated, and who make no expenditures on promoting a stable infrastructure of roads, schools or rule of law. “When the Bush Administration speaks of eliminating Terror, it does not appear to be talking about eliminating cultures of despair and the social conditions that lead one to want to give up his life of martyrdom” It doesn’t even occur to Lakoff that a regime change followed by a stable democracy might just accomplis h that, just as it did in 1776. Instead Dr. Lakoff says “we are supposedly fighting them [Islamic Terrorists] because they killed innocent civilians. That made them evil. If we do the same, are we any less immoral?...In Conservative morality, there is a fight between good and evil, in which lesser evils are tolerated and even seen as necessary and expected. The argument that killing innocent civilians in retaliation would make us as bad as them works for Liberals, not for conservatives” No one has ever talked about deliberately targeting and killing innocent civilians in retaliation (except the terrorists.) The intent of the Terrorists was to kill as many innocents as possible, the goal of the U.S. military is to kill a few civilians as possible while trying to eliminate our enemies. To Progressive, any war or violence would be hypocritical and a contribution to terror : “If the United States wants terror to end, the United States must end its own contribution to terror. And we must also end terror sponsored not against the west, but against others” Progressives believe that no moral principle can be carried out unless we have the resources and ability to carry it out everywhere and at the same time. These examples bolster the idea that Progressives to not understand the idea of trade-offs. To progressives there is no moral difference between those who target military enemies (and accidentally kill civilians) and those who target civilians (and accidentally might kill a few soldiers). Progressives deny that you are limited to the choices actually available, and that any outcome desired can always be selected. Contrastingly, Dr. Lakoff says Conservatives believe that “only superior strength can defeat evil, and only a show of strength can keep evil at bay. Not to show overwhelming strength is immoral, since it will induce evildoers to perform more evil deeds, because they will think they can get away with it. To oppose a show of strength is therefore immoral. Nothing is more important in the battle of good vs. evil, and if some innocent noncombatants get in the way and get hurt, it is a shame, but it is to be expected and nothing can be done about it. Indeed, performing lesser evils in the name of good is justified” Conservatives believe that sometimes one must decide between undesirable (and possibly immoral) paths and Moral Trade-offs are sometimes required to ensure survival. Lakoff says the progressive value of “Protection translates into an effective military for defense and peacekeeping” and that “Protection is part of the Progressive Moral System, but it has not been elaborated on enough. And on September 11, progressives did not have a whole lot to say. That was unfortunate, because nurturant parents and progressive


do care about protection. Protection is important. It is part of our Moral System” I believe they had little to say, because it isn’t American Citizens they are interested in protecting. Progressives have routinely tried to cut military and intelligence budgets, and Dr. Lakoff himself said of 9/11: “Justice is called for, not vengeance. Understanding and restraint are what is needed. The model for our actions should be the rescue workers and doctors – the healers – not the bombers. We should not be like them. We should not take innocent lives in bringing the perpetrators to justice” Ironically, Karl Rove was blasted by the Democratic party for saying almost the same thing. Dr. Lakoff accuses the Bush administration of propagating a false “rescue scenario [where] the victims are (1) the Iraqi people and (2) Saddam’s neighbors, whom he as not attacked but is seen as threatening. That is why Bush and Powell keep on listing Saddam’s crimes against the Iraqi People and the weapons he could use to harm his neighbors…Most of the American people have accepted the idea that the Iraq war is a rescue of the Iraqi people and a safeguarding of neighboring countries. Actually, the war threatens the safety and wellbeing of the Iraqi people” So as a practical matter, who is protected by Progressive Foreign policy? The Terrorists, the Countries that Harbor them, and the countries that have political or financial agreements with those countries. It does nothing to protect United States citizens or the victims of despots. In truth, the only thing the Progressives are really interested in Protecting is their own illusion of Moral Purity. Progressives routinely protect this illusion by opposing all actions that might be perceived as having a non-altruistic motive. Dr. Lakoff believes “The reason for the resentment against the United States, both in Europe and elsewhere, stemmed from a widespread perception that American interests really lay behind the invasion of Iraq.” “Millions of people around the world can see that the metaphors and fairy tales don’t fit the current situation… the lack of a credible link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, no WMDs found” Progressives tend to only support the U.S. where there is no obvious benefit or selfinterest and actions appear to be altruistic. Thankfully there were no Progressives running the show in France during the revolutionary war (fought over a Tax on Tea, and in which France dealt a blow to its rival superpower, England), or here in America during WWII (and there was no “credible” Link between Germany and Japan either). Progressive Foreign Policy requires a “view of ethical behavior that centers on empathy and responsibility (for yourself and others needing your help). Many things follow from these central principles: fairness, minimal violence (for example, justice without vengeance), an ethic of care, protection of those needing it, a recognition of interdependence, cooperation for the common good, the building of community, mutual respect and so on…This of course, implies (1) multilateralism, (2) interdependence, and (3) international cooperation.”


Progressives mainly support Multi-lateralism, inter-dependence and co-operation so that the blame for any catastrophe can be safely placed on the group or part of the group, thus providing an “out” that preserves the Moral Purity illusion. You can see this in effect when they blame the United States for the genocide in Darfur or the U.N.s cowardice when they left Iraq. To further protect their moral purity, Progressives think they have a right to know everything the government is doing. For example, the Rockridge site asserts : “Trust, Honesty and Open Communication are required of an open government that respects its citizens. Regular press conferences, public hearings, and open deliberations by policymakers allow the people to communicate with their elected officials, and foster trust." Since there are no caveats to this, it also must follow that Progressives believe that the Government should reveal information that puts our country or troops at risk, in order to foster Trust and Open Communication with Citizens. A good example is demanding an exit plan with dates for Iraq. Al-Qaeda would love a morale booster like a specific date American Troops will leave. Progressives also feel they have a moral obligation to cooperate with Evil by helping our enemies win the Public Opinion war, and want open disclosure of unfortunate events in Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib to assist with that. What else can be expected from people who empathize with the terrorists? “Cooperation is a hallmark of healthy communities, where everyone in a community works together to meet shared goals. Open communication requires cooperation and trust. In foreign policy, cooperation is expressed in support for the United Nations, diplomacy, and respect for international agreements and treaties. “ Dr. Lakoff seems to be a little unclear about what happens when members of the community don’t share the same goals, but it is clear that Progressives believe the U.S. should put its wealth and military resources under the control of an unaccountable, “multilateral” organization, that may or may not have the best interests of the United States (or even its continued survival) in mind. They also believe that a treaty signed by enough nations becomes “International Law” that must be obeyed by the United States. Contrastingly, “In foreign policy, a strict father nation would be giving up its sovereignty and its moral authority if it has to ask permission to act in a way it judges to be moral.” (Take back America) The “Strict Father” model “says that you cannot give up sovereignty. The United States, being the best and most powerful country in the World – a moral authority—knows the right thing to do. We should not be asking anybody else” Conservatives believe that the American Principle of Representative Government means that subservience to an unelected government is immoral and a violation of our Natural and inalienable right of self-government . The United States is a Sovereign Country whose leaders are delegated authority by an agreement with the people of the United States called the Constitution, and whose leaders are unable to legitimately give up sovereignty without breaking their compact with the people.


To progressives, “The role of the nation should be to promote cooperation and extend these [progressive] values to the world.” - Rockridge website “what is needed .. is a new kind of moral foreign policy, one that realizes that America can only be a better America is the world is a better world. America must become a moral leader using fundamental human values: caring and responsibility carried out with strength to respond to the worlds problems” “Caring and responsibility translate into caring about and acting responsibly for the world’s people; world health, hunger, poverty, and ecology; population control (and the best method, women’s education); and rights for women, children, prisoners, refugees and ethnic minorities” Progressives believe they should impose their morality and “solutions” on the rest of the world via Foreign Policy, regardless of what the people in those Nations want. This is all the more ironic, since imposing Nurturant Morality on the rest of the world, presupposes those nations can not take care of themselves; they are metaphorical children. This instead is an idea that Lakoff asserts belongs to the “Strict Father” model :in which Nations attempt to maximize their self-interest. “By the further metaphor that Nations are persons… there are adult nations and child nations, where adulthood is industrialization. The child nations are called developing nations of “underdeveloped states” In reality, these are terms that refer to the economic conditions in a country, and do not imply Conservatives view them as child nations. To further his assertion Lakoff says that Bush’s use of the words “Permission slip” was “Conservative Framing” because it “puts you back in grammar school or High Schools, where you need a permission slip from an adult to go to the bathroom. You do not need to ask for a permission slip if you are the teacher, if you are the principal, if you’re the person in power, the moral authority. The others should be asking you for permission. That is what the permission slip phrase in the 2004 State of the Union Address was about… What Bush did was evoke the adult-child metaphor for other Nations. He Said, “We’re the Adult”” Only a progressive would take the next step and assume that meant that everyone else is a child. If anything Bush was arguing from the Progressive frame in which anyone not displaying “Nurturant Morality’ is a child, and was therefore required to assert that the United States wasn't one. Conservatives instead believe that the people of other Nations, like other citizens, should be allowed to find their own paths, their own solutions, and therefore support the spread of Democracy and oppose tyrants and despots.


Chapter 9: Big Brother
Dr. Lakoff states “The conservatives have figured out their own values, principles, and directions, and have gotten them out in the public mind so effectively over the past thirty years that they can evoke them all with a ten-word philosophy: Strong Defense, Free markets, Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, Family Values. We progressives have a different ten-word philosophy, but it won’t be as meaningful yet because it will take us a while to get our values, principles, and directions out there. My nomination for our tenword philosophy versus theirs is the following: Stronger America, Broad Prosperity, Better Future, Effective Government, and Mutual Responsibility. ” “A Stronger America is not just about defense, but about every dimension of strength, our effectiveness in the world, our economy, our educational system, our health care system, our families, our communities, our environment and so forth” By his own description, Dr. Lakoff admits A “Stronger America” in effect means a more powerful centralized government that regulates all aspects of American life including the types of communities and families we may live in. Dr. Lakoff says “Broad Prosperity is the effect that markets are supposed to bring about. But all markets are constructed for someone’s benefit; no markets are completely free. Markets should be constructed for the Broadest possible prosperity, and they haven’t been.” Thus Dr. Lakoff proposes interjecting 3rd party decision making into our economic system, allowing Progressives to define who should benefit. Thus, Broad Prosperity means interposing government control between the buyer and seller (the old beneficiaries) in order meet Progressive ideals of what Prosperity should be (typically everyone having equal wealth and opportunities) “Americans want and deserve a better future – economically, educationally, environmentally, and in all other areas of life—for themselves and for their children. Lowering Taxes, primarily for the super rich elite, has had the effect of defunding programs that would make the future better in all of these areas. The proper goal is a better future for all Americans”. Therefore a “Better Future” means Higher Taxes and new Government programs to cover “all areas of life” Progressives would like to make “better” “Smaller government is, in conservative propaganda, supposed to eliminate waste. It is really about eliminating social programs. Effective Government is what we need our government to accomplish to create a better future” Progressives have never been interested in the actual effectiveness for their programs— the War on Poverty, whose stated goal was to reduce dependence on the Government, in


fact increased it. Affirmative action increases inter-race hostility and results in higher failure rates of black students. Dr. Lakoff never refutes this point, or indeed ever discusses the actual benefits of such programs in empirical terms. However, if one looks carefully at Progressive Policies and programs there is one attribute they all have in common: Creating and promoting Dependency and an expectation of entitlement from the Government:  Welfare and other Social Programs prevent provide an incentive to be dependant upon the government, rather than their own abilities.  Progressives support policies that weaken Marriage and increase the number of Single Mothers forced onto welfare  Progressive support for Universal health Care will undercut free enterpirse medicine and force the entire nation to be dependant upon the Government for Healthcare  Progressive support for massive government research programs make researchers and Higher Learning institutions dependant upon the government (Which pressures them to preach Progressive Propaganda)  Progressive Environmental laws increase the cost of energy and housing, forcing more people into Welfare and government dependence  Progressives promise support for Affirmative Action because it makes certain populations dependant on the government to provide certain opportunities via quotas in jobs and education  Progressives support expanding the public school system and other government agencies because these employees become dependant upon the government for their living  Progressive support for massive foreign aid is an attempt to make foreign nations dependant upon the U.S. Government Progressives support higher safety standards, and living wage benefits to make it harder for businesses to employ workers, and thus increase the number of people on welfare. . It is obvious there is only one thing these policies are effective at, and this is the real strategic goal of the Progressive movement. “Effective Government” means making more people dependant upon the Government. The party that supports government dependence, in effect can buy votes with public funds by promising the continuation or increase of those benefits. Were it not for this payout, the Democrats would receive few votes at all. Dr. Lakoff asserts: “Conservative Family values are those of a strict father— authoritarian, hierarchical, every man for himself, based around discipline and punishment. Progressives live by the best values of both families and communities: mutual responsibility , which is authoritative, equal two-way, and based around caring, responsibility (both individual and social) and strength” Therefore, Mutual responsibility refers to an arrangement where each individual has equal authority over everyone else (children excepted of course) that can be applied in any direction and at any time. Equal authority in effect is only Personal Authority,


without any sort of external standard and no external authority. Somehow Lakoff seems to believe Millions of autonomous individuals following “nurturant” morality will arrive at a set of compatible moral standards. However, without a higher authority, there can be no accountability to others. Even if some general standard is arrived at, someone breaking the general standard can do so by their claim to individual authority, and expect others to simply abide by it, regardless of the effects. Standards are just suggestions if no one abides by them and they can’t be enforced. Thus “Mutual Responsibility” really means a lack of universal moral standards and therefore a resultant lack of accountability for those in authority and a lack of responsibility for those they care for (the children- or any adult that “needs help” in their eyes) A good example of this principle in action is the Public School System – According to Dr. Lakoff, the teachers are not accountable for their performance as educators, and the students are not responsible for their failure to learn. Dr. Lakoff says “Hypo-cognition [is] the lack of ideas you need, the lack of a relatively simple fixed frame that can be evoked in a word or two…Progressives are suffering from massive hypo-cognition.” In fact, the opposite it true, and the Progressive ideas and frames Lakoff is discussing have been around a long time. The problem is really that Progressives and the public don’t like the sound of the short phrases that actually evoke the Progressive Ideas being discussed: The real philosophy proposed by Dr. Lakoff can be summed up as: Totalitarianism, Socialism, Higher Taxes, Welfare State, and Moral Anarchy. All of these are concepts which are widely understood, and also widely rejected by Americans. Contrary to Dr. Lakoff’s thesis, Democrats do not loose elections because they suffer from Hypo-cognition, or that “nurturant” frames aren’t commonly used or understood. They loose because it is understood all too well what the consequences of those frames are from empirical experience. This isn’t to say that Progressives don’t suffer from Hypo-Cognition in other areas. There are fundamental concepts that they lack, or find so abhorrent that they refuse to think about them: 1) Progressives don’t have the concept of a common objective reality. They are unwilling to investigate the incentives and effects of their own policies over time, or measure the effectiveness of a policy against its publicly stated goals. This is due to an unconscious tendency to value emotion over reason, and their own personal feelings of moral superiority over the real world results of their actions. Instead they tend to think that there is no empirical truth and everything is a matter of opinion. This leads naturally to multiculturalism and moral relativism because no one set of ideas or opinions can be more valid than anyone else’s (unless that person is an “evil” believer in strict-father morality) 2) Progressives don’t have the concept of a Trade-off. They believe all of their policies and moral principles operate in isolation and do not interact. (Say Environmental Protection vs. Affordable housing or Fuel for the poor, Or a “living Wage” vs. unemployment) Consequently, Dr Lakoff ascribes many Conservative beliefs and positions to a moral imperative or absolute when they in fact they are derived from a practical consideration of the trade-offs imposed by real world constraints.


3) Progressives don’t have the concept of individual freedom or understand that such freedom leads to variances (in intelligence, athletic ability, work ethic, etc) This is why they expect equal results for any given group of people, even when each individual is allowed to decide their own moral code. The Progressive concept of Freedom is the ability to make the world conform to their internal picture of how it should be, rather than dealing with the empirical reality of what it is, and what is actually possible. 4) Progressives don’t have the concept of limited human capability or knowledge. Consequently they believe that wars can be planned from start to finish, they can judge and smooth out inequities of birth and coincidence , and that all risks engendered by individual decisions (saving for retirement, unemployment or health care, smoking, riding without a helmet, etc) must be overridden with their superior decisions and Godlike knowledge. Dr. Lakoff’s approach to voicing Progressives issues via Framing may fool the inattentive , but will not succeed in occluding the real issues or in pre-empting discussion of them. Dr Lakoff is really only proposing the use of framing to initiate a Goebbels -like program of propaganda, using Orwellian New Speak to hide the true meaning of the agenda proposed. The Hypo-Cognitive areas defined above will prevent Progressives from realizing their mistake in using this approach. In effect, Dr. Lakoff is proposing that victory can only be achieved by deliberately hiding the facts and real effects of their agenda behind redefined words, and this should clearly demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the Democratic Party has become. The repackaging of old ideas so that they appear new will not result in their renewed acceptance. A Bitter pill is still bitter no matter how much sugar you coat it with. The American people will continue to reject any platform that calls for a Big Brother to come and watch over them, especially when the actions of that Big Brother will be in the control of a few self-appointed, selfimportant intellectual elites who feel they alone have the ability to guide the Society and mold it into a paradise of their own imagining.

Sources: Presentation "Take Back America " Article in American Prospect called "Framing the Dems", Metaphor, Morality, and Politics Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust Don’t Think of an Elephant


Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.