Share

The Palin Choice: The Reality of the Political Mind

by: George Lakoff  |  Daily Kos

photo
Vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. (Photo: Getty Images)

    This election is about realities. But the election campaign depends on the political mind-how people understand the candidates and the realities. Democrats have mostly criticized Sarah Palin as unqualified to deal with the realities we face as a nation. But the choice of Palin had to do with the way the political mind works in elections. In dealing with the McCain-Palin ticket, Democrats must take the way voters think into account, in addition to the external realities.

    This election matters because of realities-the realities of global warming, the economy, the Middle East, nuclear proliferation, civil liberties, species extinction, poverty here and around the world, and on and on. Such realities are what make this election so very crucial, and how to deal with them is the substance of the Democratic platform .

    Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters' minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

    The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their Vice-Presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be taken with the utmost seriousness.

    The Democratic responses so far reflect external realities: she is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.

    All true, so far as we can tell.

    But such truths may nonetheless be largely irrelevant to this campaign. That is the lesson Democrats must learn. They must learn the reality of the political mind.

    The Obama campaign has done this very well so far. The convention events and speeches were orchestrated both to cast light on external realities, traditional political themes, and to focus on values at once classically American and progressive: empathy, responsibility both for oneself and others, and aspiration to make things better both for oneself and the world. Obama did all this masterfully in his nomination speech, while replying to, and undercutting, the main Republican attacks.

    But the Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the "issues," and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind-the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse.

    Our national political dialogue is fundamentally metaphorical, with family values at the center of our discourse. There is a reason why Obama and Biden spoke so much about the family, the nurturant family, with caring fathers and the family values that Obama put front and center in his Father's day speech: empathy, responsibility and aspiration. Obama's reference in the nomination speech to "The American Family" was hardly accidental, nor were the references to the Obama and Biden families as living and fulfilling the American Dream. Real nurturance requires strength and toughness, which Obama displayed in body language and voice in his responses to McCain. The strength of the Obama campaign has been the seamless marriage of reality and symbolic thought.

    The Republican strength has been mostly symbolic. The McCain campaign is well aware of how Reagan and W won-running on character: values, communication, (apparent) authenticity, trust, and identity - not issues and policies. That is how campaigns work, and symbolism is central.

    Conservative family values are strict and apply via metaphorical thought to the nation: good vs. evil, authority, the use of force, toughness and discipline, individual (versus social) responsibility, and tough love. Hence, social programs are immoral because they violate discipline and individual responsibility. Guns and the military show force and discipline. Man is above nature; hence no serious environmentalism. The market is the ultimate financial authority, requiring market discipline. In foreign policy, strength is use of the force. In fundamentalist religion, the Bible is the ultimate authority; hence no gay marriage. Such values are at the heart of radical conservatism. This is how John McCain was raised and how he plans to govern. And it is what he shares with Sarah Palin.

    Palin is the mom in the strict father family, upholding conservative values. Palin is tough: she shoots, skins, and eats caribou. She is disciplined: raising five kids with a major career. She lives her values: she has a Downs-syndrome baby that she refused to abort. She has the image of the ideal conservative mom: pretty, perky, feminine, Bible-toting, and fitting into the ideal conservative family. And she fits the stereotype of America as small-town America. It is Reagan's morning-in-America image. Where Obama thought of capturing the West, she is running for Sweetheart of the West.

    And Palin, a member of Feminism For Life, is at the heart of the conservative feminist movement, which Ronee Schreiber has written about in her recent book, Righting Feminism. It is a powerful and growing movement that Democrats have barely paid attention to.

    At the same time, Palin is masterful at the Republican game of taking the Democrats' language and reframing it-putting conservative frames to progressive words: Reform, prosperity, peace. She is also masterful at using the progressive narratives: she's from the working class, working her way up from hockey mom and the PTA to Mayor, Governor, and VP candidate. Her husband is a union member. She can say to the conservative populists that she is one of them-all the things that Obama and Biden have been saying. Bottom-up, not top-down.

    Yes, the McCain-Palin ticket is weak on the major realities. But it is strong on the symbolic dimension of politics that Republicans are so good at marketing. Just arguing the realities, the issues, the hard truths should be enough in times this bad, but the political mind and its response to symbolism cannot be ignored. The initial Democratic response to Palin - the response based on realities alone - indicates that many Democrats have not learned the lessons of the Reagan and Bush years.

    They have not learned the nature of conservative populism. A great many working-class folks are what I call "bi-conceptual," that is, they are split between conservative and progressive modes of thought. Conservative on patriotism and certain social and family issues, which they have been led to see as "moral", progressive in loving the land, living in communities of care, and practical kitchen table issues like mortgages, health care, wages, retirement, and so on.

    Conservative theorists won them over in two ways: Inventing and promulgating the idea of "liberal elite" and focusing campaigns on social and family issues. They have been doing this for many years and have changed a lot of brains through repetition. Palin will appeal strongly to conservative populists, attacking Obama and Biden as pointy-headed, tax-and-spend, latte liberals. The tactic is to divert attention from difficult realities to powerful symbolism.

    What Democrats have shied away from is a frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology. I think Obama is right when he says that America is based on people caring about each other and working together for a better future-empathy, responsibility (both personal and social), and aspiration. These lead to a concept of government based on protection (environmental, consumer, worker, health care, and retirement protection) and empowerment (through infrastructure, public education, the banking system, the stock market, and the courts). Nobody can achieve the American Dream or live an American lifestyle without protection and empowerment by the government. The alternative, as Obama said in his nomination speech, is being on your own, with no one caring for anybody else, with force as a first resort in foreign affairs, with threatened civil liberties and a right-wing government making your most important decisions for you. That is not what American democracy has ever been about.

    What is at stake in this election are our ideals and our view of the future, as well as current realities. The Palin choice brings both front and center. Democrats, being Democrats, will mostly talk about the realities nonstop without paying attention to the dimensions of values and symbolism. Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney. They share values antithetical to our democracy. That needs to be said loud and clear, if not by the Obama campaign itself, then by the rest of us who share democratic American values.

    Our job is to bring external realities together with the reality of the political mind. Don't ignore the cognitive dimension. It is through cultural narratives, metaphors, and frames that we understand and express our ideals.

    --------

    George Lakoff is the author of "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 20th Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain." Contact: lakoff@truthout.org

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Is the author implying that

Is the author implying that Democrats don't employ the exact same tactic?

The author gives the

The author gives the American voter too much credit. It's all about self interest and special interest. Americans do not know what special interests really are, they just like the sound of it.

As usual, I find Lakoff very

As usual, I find Lakoff very interesting and, I think, correct in his analysis of what the Democrats are doing and not doing in their framing of the issues. However, and also as usual, he is short on specifics on how the Dems should frame their arguments. That is, exactly what should they say? Any ideas out there?

One of the ironies of the

One of the ironies of the Palin selection is that the mother in this "strict father family" is already publicly compromised. The pregnancy of an unmarried 17 year old girl suggests some failures in parental transmission of values. And Palin is publicly involved in her sister's custody battle with the sister's ex-husband. Palin reportedly fired the brother-in-law's boss because he wouldn't fire the brother-in-law. There's a conflict in Palin's maternal role. She has 5 children, but has not been a stay-at-home mom as one version of the conservative family values would insist on. She returned to work 3 days after the birth of her most recent baby. And even feminists of every political stripe are wondering how the mother of an infant can take on the demanding role of national campaigning. The "strict" father has a DWI on his record. They are not a poster family for conservative family values. On that score, the Romneys would have done better. I don't think the Democrats have to say anything. Leave it to the Republicans to figure out how to explain why Gov. Palin is just the candidate of their conservative dreams.

As I said in another thread

As I said in another thread don`t say anything McCain`s self admitted consistent failures resulting from his "quick pick" mentality will serve to finish what Bush started...CHANGE

"... frontal attack on

"... frontal attack on radical conservatism itself as an un-American and harmful ideology." Isn't this a specific suggestion by Lakoff as to what the Democrats should be doing?

Basically, what he says is

Basically, what he says is that the truth will get you into a whole lot of trouble with the mental giants who cheer USA USA during a WWF match between a wrestler from Texas and one from Kansas. In an American election the first candidate to speak the truth loses. I beg to offer a remedy. Rather than the candidate with a majority of votes winning the election, why not have a system where the candidate who receives the fewest votes wins? Then you'll see candidates speaking about issues in a desperate attempt to turn off all those nit wits who vote on such perceptions as does he like dogs.... If the United States political system were a building, it would have a condemned sign on the door.

Lakoff is merely reminding

Lakoff is merely reminding us that one of the reasons there are still Confederate flags in America is that the message of the Confederacy was planted in fertile soil. It made sense. It was framed in a way that both the landed and the planter of the South could understand. It resonates yet. I think Lakoff is correct about the power of symbolism and suggestion. You don't have to be an athlete to use sport metaphors; you don't have to be honest and law-abiding to use those references. If this election is to be won by Obama/Biden, I suspect the campaign will have to grapple with the reality that images will trump reality nine times out of ten. Re-framing and finding a new articulation for old ideas will be key. On the other hand, if McCain and his eventual VP choice are to win, they must sow confusion about reality and make the voters believe that slogans are fact and a challenge is the same as a victory. No matter what McCain does with Palin, the Republicans, right now, have the advantage. They know more about their play-book than the Democrats do and more's the pity.

Very enlightening! Very

Very enlightening! Very insightful. What Lakoff describes as "bi-conceptual" arises from the psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance. It is precisely this condition that is clouding the awareness and distorting the vision of so many Americans, subjecting them to the brutal buffeting of our cultural complex. The dissonance stems from holding two distinct centers of belief simultaneously: We are all one (our planet as a single complex organism), yet it is every man for himself! An economy that thrives on competition situated atop an ecological reality that requires cooperation. Until this dichotomy is resolved we will continue like the frog placed in a cool pot of water and then put on a burner. Will humanity recognize its predicament and adjust accordingly? Or will we be held captive by our fear of change and simply endure our fate?

No one ever said that

No one ever said that Republicans weren't shrewd and clever. A fox in a henhouse is clever. That's a whole lot different than being basically intelligent and concerned with others. The common good is at stake here and now, considerably more than in the past--and I can speak knowingly of the past because I've lived 79 years of it. I can remember the FDR years, the Depression, half a dozen wars . . . Palin certainly has an appeal to a lot of grass-roots Americans and definitely will draw a great deal of focus away from the simplistic, deluded and self-aggrandized character of John McCain. Conservatives will readily rationalize her faults and shortcoming into their ruts of flag-waving, bible-thumping, and wish-that-were-I thinking. Liberals, on the other hand, are an altruistic lot, always have had a driving belief in the dignity of each and every individual. Unfortunately, too many oblivious voters, on their merry way, are unconcerned with or unable to grasp that sort of concept. And Republicans presently are attempting to paint Obama as something less than a champion of all who are deprived, disenfranchised and/or just plain disregarded. Palin is no way that sort of champion, and McCain is about as far removed as one could get.

It is startling how simple

It is startling how simple it was to foce the "liberal elite" debate back to the front over a weekend. Put up a weak candidate who has had zero national exposure, hide an obvious fact (pregnant daughter), wait for random media outlet to notice, pounce on media for exposing (which takes messy tabloid forms, talking about the issues significance, dismissing/elevating tasteless opinions). It worked way too smoothly. Drudge's headline this morning indicated the final stage of the initial phase. If you missed it, you just blinked through what is basically a real tangible psy op. They are that easy.

Respectfully, I think the

Respectfully, I think the author, as well as the vast majority of the MSM, has missed entirely the immaculate reasoning underlying McCain’s selection of Palin. It will eventually become crystal clear that his choice is intended to galvanize the fiscal conservatives in the Republican base, given that McCain will now be able to reduce budget of the vice president’s office to 77% of its previous level.

** beyond anti-democratic

** beyond anti-democratic lies anti-life ** * there is only one reality When "realities" in people's minds do not match facts or reasonable interpretations of facts, these so-called "realities" are ideologically biased interpretations which can fit on a scale from somewhat to wholly out of touch with the only reality there is -- external reality. Or, reality simpliciter. As to evaluative claims, one can generalize Nietzsche’s comment on morals: “There are altogether no moral facts, only a moral interpretation of facts.” There are ideologies of morals (and these can be evaluated). But, there are also facts. Empirical truth is neither defined by nor tested by anyone’s state of belief. Interpretation must end somewhere -- even if it ends in mindless folly, such as the lamarkian pseudo-biology of Lysenko in Stalin’s time or the Nazi’s claim that the stars were made of ice, the Welteislehre. Eventually ideology will make an empirical claim and when it does that claim is subject to refutation just as all empirical claims are. Mr. Lakoff’s use of ‘reality’ simply buys into false dichotomy of inner/outer, mental/physical, true-for-me/true. He claims that “It is through cultural narratives, metaphors, and frames that we understand and express our ideals.” Lakoff says “Don't ignore the cognitive dimension.” * from non-cognitive mythical explanations to conceptual explanations But, of course, those narratives, metaphors, and “frames” (aka paradigms) are non-cognitive. The power of myth is emotive and non-rationally motivating -- what “understanding” comes from a mythological interpretation of nature, of human nature, or human action? Mythological explanations explain nothing. They may be psychologically satisfying, but such satisfaction has nothing to do with truth. Truth, contrary to latent idealists, is neither beautiful nor good. Western minds began moving from mythological explanation to conceptual explanation -- beginning with the skepticism of Xenophanes. Xianity from its inception has hated science and skepticism. It withers from exposure to derision and empirical knowledge. • McCain concedes his reason to the death impulse McCain's calculated cynicism at the same time betrays his lack of judgment and his frivolous nature. He’s no “maverick”. He capitulated to the death impulse of the christo-fascists (dominionists) who now control his party. Those who look forward to destroying the Constitution and who aim to speed the second coming by inciting nuclear Armageddon in the middle east. Palin’s delusions are ideological madness. McCain and Palin are small human beings, intellectually and morally. Her xianity is a dangerous ersatz for policy, domestic and foreign. Now, the choice is stark. McPain and a continued assault on the Constitution by ignorant, arrogant "servants" of impending far-right theocracy. Or, Obama-Biden and a chance to undo the harm suffered by the Republic from the Bush-Cheney reign of thuggery. bipolar2

This is an interesting

This is an interesting issue, one that Democrats seem to be poorly equipped to deal with. Dems are rational - to a fault - and seem unable to learn from Republican strategies of diversion. I'm not a Lakoff, but it would seem that addressing the obvious sins of market economics, small government for working people/big government for the wealthy, the destruction of our social safety-nets, and so much more; that it would be more effective to address these issues in ways that so many of us are experiencing in the present. Speak of these sins not as how it used to be or should be, but rather how it must be in order to retain a strong nation - a nation that serves all citizens. Lakoff is correct in that Dems must speak to the needs of the people as they exist today.

The author is absolutely

The author is absolutely right on target! Many of the voters captivated by the Republican mantra would be hard pressed to tell you what a metaphor is, not to mention how irked they would be to have it suggested that their lives are driven by symbolism and archetypes. These are non-critical thinkers, reactionary to the very core, part of public education's sometimes too heavy focus on "the under prepared," while leaving the best and brightest to "work on their own." Alas, one would think these Americans would wake up to who they are voting for again and again--shouldn't everyone realize what trouble the planet is in, after all? This is no time to focus on the irrelevant issues that divide us. Not so for these folks, because denial is the hardest wall to penetrate, and if some soccer mom, "just like them" believes that humans are not at fault, well then why not continue believing. After all, god will provide.

Ultra conservatives

Ultra conservatives (fanatics) cannot be swayed. They believe what they believe and that's it. Case closed. The GOP obviously believes they can win if they bring back the conservative base, and that can be summarized in two words: ProLife. They are one issue voters. Nothing else matters. Get them, you get the presidential chair. Palin represents a point blank attempt to get the one-issue anti-abortion voters. Regardless of who this pisses off, they don't care. In their minds, the heart of the GOP is all about money, power and control. They believe that have it, they just need access to the office. Once they're in, they'll abandon all of the fringe players in favor of continuing to escalate the money, power and influence of the core. The core is calling the shots, such as bankrupting the government, invading Iraq to establish a first-strike global outpost, etc. The one-issue voters are just a minor inconvenience that must be tolerated for two months. To the core of the GOP, I'm sure they're just sitting back chuckling at the all too easy fireworks created by adding Palin to the junta.

Existence is a balance of

Existence is a balance of forces; the planet earth and our very presence on it can be argued to be nothing more than a schism of energy in time and space. The forces that tug at each other creating a balance in nature are not unlike the human concept of good and evil. When one of these forces grows greater than the other, the system of existence falls out of balance and is threatened with instability and possible complete collapse. This is the reality of the current political landscape in the US. The latent fascism, the evil underlying conservatism withinthe political right has surfaced, become engorged and is threatening the balance. (keep in mind that the liberal left has their own underlying specters we need to be careful not to let surface and become all consuming-that's another discussion) Fascists are intolerant and want to eradicate all other life and systems that don't fit their ideal, whereas a progressive perspective is tolerant and accepting, even though the ideology might be just as self-righteous. This is what we need to focus on during this election, as the author stated, calling a fascist a fascist, when you meet one. George W, Cheney, McCain, Palin are admittedly fascists-light, but fascists nonetheless, and fascism- light unchecked leads to fascism outright . The Campaign needs to play the good value card as counter to the symbolism cards of evil and destruction, which sadly, is also a reality.

I think the author is

I think the author is suggesting that the Democrats do not employ the same tactics nearly as well -- and this curve ball from nowhere in Sarah Palin seems to suggest that the Obama campaign had best enlist some similarly talented strategists on the double. Who IS advising the Obama campaign on matters of framing, etc.? Why isn't Lakoff helping?

Reason hasn't really been a

Reason hasn't really been a primary factor in presidential political discourse since at least 1980, when Uncle Ronnie defeated Jimmy Carter with his "Morning in America" campaign. And heck, Carter's earlier win had more to do with his peanut farmer persona than reality. In fact, maybe reality has never mattered in elections. I don't think it did with Kennedy versus Nixon. Kennedy's invocation of the "New Frontier" symbolism — and then Sweat on The Evil One's upper lip — are what helped do the trick in 1960. Even Bubba's election in 1992 was as much about the political mind than reality. Yes, he ran on issues: "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID." But I think he, with the help of Carville et al, got the blending just right. Remember the whole man from Hope thing, and the "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" theme song? (I will also point out that we primarily remember him with love and hate in our hearts as Bubba — and not because of his policies on, say, free trade.) Another example: We've known for more than 20 years with fair certainty that humans have been causing the Earth to heat up. Hell, I wrote my first story about it in 1982! But reality hasn't mattered quite as much as a change in the way people view their relationship with nature. For whatever reason (you tell me), being green became cool again. I don't know quite why. But now the pendulum is swinging again. And it ain't because of reality, which is only getting more grim...

I'm impressed by the number

I'm impressed by the number of comments that assume the pro-choice position is correct, while the pro-life position is the work of extremists, fascists and -- probably -- extra-terrestials. Interestingly, the tone of these notes is presumptuous and smug. At least, that's how I read them. So, here's my suggestion. Provide an argument for the pro-choice position that you think is morally justifiable. Don't assume that everyone who reads your note will automatically agree with you. By offering such an argument, you will elevate the conversation by giving reasons rather than offering sophisticated wise cracks. I believe constructing such an argument will not be easy. Nevertheless, it's worth a try.

re: "impressed by the

re: "impressed by the number" - you asked for an "argument for the pro-choice position that you think is morally justifiable." here is mine - i marched in DC years ago with pro-lifers, and i am still opposed to abortion. however, i have learned that my religious beliefs are not shared by all, and there are those with differing but equally deep religious and spiritual beliefs, including some of whom truly believe a soul does not enter a life until sometime after birth. So when they consider their own circumstances and how an extra child will impact their family (can they afford another mouth to feed? are they old and mature enough to take on the responsibility? do they have the necessary support?) MY "life" definition may be outside of their faith beliefs. So, how can a nation founded on religious freedom FORCE anti-choice laws on others? (even my religious teaching tells me i have 'free will'). so, i am still anti-abortion, and would never consider having one, but i am ALSO pro-choice. i will not legislate what another woman must do if she is pregnant - whether by carelessness, accident, rape or intention. it must be her choice. and if she chooses 'life' as I define it, then in support of her, there must be social services to help if needed. to force a birth and NOT continue supporting the life is immoral.

The response by "pro choice"

The response by "pro choice" offers an explanation for her motivation regarding the abortion issue, but does not provide a moral justification one way or the other. It is not easy to do so, as I mentioned in my response to GL's article My purpose was to move the conversation toward a reasoned analysis, away from emotions. Here is how I would reconstruct your argument along those lines: We need a system in which those people who favor abortion rights be able to obtain abortions when they need to do so. Those who oppose abortion are free not to seek refuge in such a procedure. Ergo, everyone should be satisfied, especially when we acknowledge the role of tolerance in our culture. We are compelled to acknowledge that people are entitle to their opinions. Actually, that is the system we have today. However, the conundrum here is that many people believe that ending a pregnancy is taking a human life, i.e. it's murder. Also, the pro-life people have constructed some very refined arguments. They have frequently moved away from highly emotional positions and insisted that the pro-choice side consider the premises on which their position rests. I rarely see a pro-choice argument that rises to that level. My implicit concern with GL's article is that it suffers from an irony he does not appear to recognize. He offers dismissive jabs at the other side and expresses is concern with the mythical elements in our political system. I have similar concerns, but jabbing is not arguing. It's emotional -- and emotion is the source of power within mythical expression. All that said, I would ask that you come up with an argument that is devoid of sentiment and see how people react.