On his Web site,
http://www.therightchristians.org/BlogWeek10.htm
Allen Brill has written a piece in which he starts out by saying
Nothing could be more obvious than that American progressives need
a clearer view of the "big picture" of our political landscape.
We're accused by the Right of wishing for Bush's foreign and
domestic policies to fail because that's our only hope for
victory, and when we look at much of what progressives have to
say, it must be admitted that the focus is on what's wrong with
Bush rather than what's right about Democrats.
(Brill is a Lutheran minister; his slogan is
"It is time for the Christian Right to meet the right Christians."
hence, the name of his Web site.)
Brill quotes a writer who points out
... there can be no effective media without a coherent message
Brill then goes on to develop a `Theory of Everything' regarding US
political rhetoric. He makes use of the ideas that George Lakoff
talks about in his book on the political implications of cognitive
linguistics, "Moral Politics".
Brill says:
Political scientists have long tried to describe the electorate in
terms of ideology. In its most simplified form: conservatives want
a government as small and de-centralized as possible that
interferes as little as possible in people's lives; liberals want
a large, centralized government that is very involved in people's
lives. That might have been a fairly helpful description of the
electorate during the New Deal political alignment that prevailed
through the 1930's and 40's, but that model began to lose its
descriptive accuracy and predictive power beginning with the
60's. Now those labels have lost almost all meaning. ...
....
Lakoff's research has led him to conclude that most of us use a
metaphor of our nation as a family. The government at the federal,
state and local level is thought of as the "parent" and the
citizens stand in the role of "children." Those who understand
politics in this way do not all have the same family model,
however. People that we usually think of as conservatives hold a
Strict Father worldview of the nation and politics. Liberals have
a Nurturant Parent worldview.
...
"Strict Fatherites" see the world as a dangerous place filled with
evil, and believe that survival is dependent on self-discipline
and moral strength. Their "common sense" tells them that
self-discipline is only created by strict enforcement of a system
of rewards and punishments that teach everyone, especially
children, that they must work hard, obey authority and keep
morally pure if they are to succeed. .... The government's job
instead is to punish those who do not conform to the moral
standards of the majority because otherwise, the impurity of their
behavior will spread like a disease throughout the society.
....
"Nurturant Parents" see the world very differently. Their picture
of the family places empathy, communication and respect above
discipline, strength and purity. At the heart of the moral system
is what Lakoff calls a "strong" Golden Rule:
Do unto others as _they_ would have you do unto them.
....
With so much depending on it, however, there are a few additional
considerations. I would suggest that Lakoff's model misses one
very important and growing worldview in the electorate. This
conceptual metaphor does NOT see the nation as a family. I will
call it the "Every man (and woman) is an island" worldview. The
central metaphor is this worldview is that of personal boundaries
and space. Simply stated:
No one is entited to intrude into my space if I do not intrude
into theirs. Those who intrude into the space of others are
morally bad and should be punished.
For them, the nation is not a family but not much more than the
sea in which their island sits.
Many of those who operate by this metaphor call themselves
libertarians. My unresearched guess is that they are on average
younger, less religious and less likely to be in permanent
relationships than either Strict Fatherites or Nurturant Parents.
They believe in the free market, low taxes, legalized drugs and
the abolition of any laws restricting behavior between consenting
adults. They may, however, support restrictions on abortion (if
they recognize the personhood of a fetus) and strict punishment
for those convicted of violent crime. They may also be hawks on
foreign policy following 9/11.
Brill then talks about the current metaphor used by Democrats, which
is that of interest group politics:
Interest group politics is represented by the metaphor of the
bargaining table. Groups strive for a "seat at the table" so
that they can represent and bargain for their constituencies.
To be effective, groups create organizations like the AFL-CIO
(founded: 1955), the NAACP (1909), NARAL (<1973) and the NRA
(1871) to represent their point of view. These organizations
are defined by their membership, and their issues are
determined by the common interests of that membership. While I
have no doubt that many NARAL members are sympathetic to the
gay rights movement, NARAL Pro-Choice America does not speak to
those issues. The AFL-CIO is reluctant to take an outspoken
position on abortion. The NRA does show some interest in
military actions but does not speak to Medicare reform.
The disadvantage of the "interest group" approach to politics
is that it is difficult for the electorate to discern any
coherence in the message of the political party or
candidate. .... Many voters have come to see the Democrats as a
party that believes in nothing more than pandering to a
collection of "special interests" in order to win elections.
As Brill says:
Progressives have been left to fight 21st century political
battles with a strategy and tools from the mid-20th century.
While the first worldview organization was arguably the liberal
Americans for Democratic Action formed in 1947, the Democratic
party remains overwhelmingly dependent on old-fashioned interest
groups for fund-raising and grass roots organizing. Progressives'
ineffectiveness in using the media to communicate their message,
in contrast to the Right's well-tuned "Wurlitzer," is a product of
this antiquated approach as well.
Brill conducts a test. He says,
... Let's start with just one word. Let's see how that word
combines with others to reveal it's user's worldview and to appeal
to those with the same worldview. Let's use the word: PROTECT.
He quotes a Heritage foundation article and notes that it is
... an excellent synopsis of Strict Father morality applied to
international development. What must be protected are property
rights.
and goes on to say
The language consistently communicates to appeal to the Strict
Father worldview while avoiding phrases that would arouse a
Nurturant Parent's empathy--and objection.
He then makes the point that
Nurturant Parents are as protective of their children as Strict
Fatherites, in some ways, even more so. ....
and checks the Progressive Majority Web site. What he says is, in the
end, damning:
... I like this organization. I link to them, and I'm sure that
they are very-well run. But they do not make a particularly
effective use of language to speak to those who share their
worldview. I found five instances of "protect" or a cognate on the
site. One is on a passworded page and has something to do with
visitor counts. Two instances reassure visitors that their privacy
will be protected if they provide the site with contact data. A
fourth refers to the protection of civil liberties. The fifth
discusses protection of the environment. "Protect" is never used
with a human being as the direct object.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
