Moral Politics

This is a difficult book to review, as it offers so many points and connections to discuss. Prof. Lakoff covers many of the same ideas and principles I wrote about in GSQ. (No, my book is not based on his work. We have completely different points of departure and conclusions.) He restates many old philosophical notions in terms of Cognitive Science (linguistics). That suggests to me his book is a redressing of old problems in new clothes. Initially, however, it is best to consider his theories without reference to  the burdensome past.

Since Prof. Lakoff teaches Linguistics at Berkeley, it shouldn't be a surprise that he puts his expertise to work in his theory of American politics. Prof. Lakoff presents in detail a theory of two moralities based on the linguistic concept of "metaphor." Those moralities are developed around the family and extended to political life.

The main point of the book is that American Conservatives use the Strict Father metaphor, whereas Liberals use the Nurturant Parent metaphor. In the beginning, Lakoff explains that a metaphor is a technical term in Linguistics, a mode of reasoning based on the prototypes of radial categories. In traditional Philosophy, Lakoff's prototypes might be the "idea" or "organizing principle," the pattern behind a concept. I think "radial categories" translate to the traditional concept, considered as a superset of many overlapping meanings. One way or another, Lakoff is presenting and using a Theory of Knowledge (an Epistemology) to explain how people do politics.

I note that his starting point is similar to mine, with what can be known. A GSQ reader asked how I defined "culture." In terms of my political theory, Lakoff's book is an exploration of a specific culture applied to politics; viz., American politics. As many such explanations are possible as there are cultures. Lakoff believes his theory of American politics is scientific, because it is based on observation, generalization and experiment (hypothesis testing). I will grant him that, albeit agreeing with his admission that no scientific test of his theory has been done. I think the theory is testable.

Another point in which I concur with Lakoff is the moral nature of politics. (I take this farther, as I believe other theories of value, such as economics and law, are also involved with morality.) Moral Politics is not in the mainstream of Anglo-American philosophy, but seems more related to Continental (European) philosophy. English philosophy particularly has disconnected studies of value from human activities, espousing the idea that science, law, etc are "value free." Curiously, it is the emphasis on linguistic analysis in English philosophy (owing to Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein's Logical Positivism, who inspired a flock of post-War students of language) that leads Anglo-American philosophers away (I think astray) from the Continental tradition. Lakoff's linguistic work is squarely within the circle of European political philosophy in asserting that morality is at the core of politics. If nothing else, Lakoff's work shows that the proclivity of English philosophers to concern themselves with language need not lead to their conclusions.

Lakoff ascribes the source of morality to the family, as does John Locke. Locke and Thomas Hobbes, on Lakoff's analysis, portrayed politics along Strict Father lines. They were paternalists who accepted the cultural precepts of their time, such as the Christian Moral Order. We can see the beginnings of Nurturant Parent in Locke, who grants equal status (if not rights) in the family to women. So it appears the Strict Father metaphor is by far the older of the two. Nurturant Parent is a modern development correlated with the increased status and liberation of women. That is not surprising, as Nurturant Parent is based on the role of mothers in the family, as distinct from the role of authoritarian, paternalistic Strict Fathers.

Although he concedes that the State and the family are in two different classes, so it is not necessary that their elements or operations are related, Lakoff claims that people think about politics using the nation-as-family metaphor. That is, people recognize a pattern of relationships among family members which they use to evaluate government and other institutions. (Here, "metaphor" is an instance or explication - which? - of pattern analysis.) It is the use of metaphor - "this thing is like that one" - which allows Lakoff to translate his construction of family morality to political thinking.

Now we arrive at a fine distinction. Lakoff does not claim that the political application of his radial concepts amount to a political ideology. Rather, he is proposing an explanation of human behavior based on observations of familial and political relations in America. He specifically puts ideologues into a separate group, off the beaten path. The mainstream of politics is inhabited by doers, not thinkers, whose categories are not refined, logical or consistent. He points out several times that people often mix and match portions of the Strict Father or Nurturant Parent models as it suits their purposes. Lakoff does not believe consistency is a popular virtue. In saying there is no such thing as a political moderate or middle-of-the-roader, he explains away self-described moderates and independents as people who have selected all or part of his prototypical models in an opportunistic way. People do not have deviant or strange or unformed political views. They just don't have a firm commitment to either the Strict Father or Nurturant Parent metaphors.

This is a weakness in Lakoff's theory: why do a large number of people lack commitment to one or another of his political metaphors? Given Lakoff's eventual conclusion that Strict Father and Nurturant Parent morality are opposed at many levels of meaning, it seems strange that people would not be forced to a choice. Do we think most people are schizophrenic? Or, why not ascribe a more fundamental principle to the  observed behavior: opportunism? If most people take advantage of circumstances - they adapt - it is easier to explain the behavior of so-called "moderates" than by reference to Lakoff's metaphors. Of course, to claim that people respond to opportunities, reward and punishment, is to affirm one of the foundational principles of Strict Fartherism: bowdlerized behaviorism. That is, most people are naive Conservatives, a notion that Conservatives repeat endlessly and most Liberals reject.

I don't why Lakoff does not supply the explanation that moderates and independents are really Conservatives in disguise. He makes it clear enough that taking advantage selfishly is a characteristic of Conservatism, one of the foundations of Capitalist success. (Nurturant Parents have empathy, so idealize selflessness.) It's a fact in California and many other States that self-proclaimed independents vote for Republicans, not Democrats, usually by 2:1, which is evidence of Conservative inclinations. Perhaps Lakoff doesn't want to accept the reality of that bias in the population, a common liberal defense against rejection.

Lakoff's theory has been widely read by Democratic consultants and strategists, and even put to use at times. Despite his success as an advisor to liberals, liberals have continued to lose elections. Even this year, 2006, when Conservative ideas and programs are beset with failure on every front, liberals seem to have only marginal opportunities to regain political power. The recent Connecticut Democratic primary which endorsed Ned Lamont was about the failed Conquest of Iraq, not familial morality. That is important because, in the aftermath of that election, Sen. Lieberman is ahead of all the other candidates, having gained support from Conservatives and independents. Nurturing Parenting is not getting anyone elected. On the other hand, politicians such as Sen. Lieberman who bring home the bacon are re-elected time and time again, regardless of how they got the goodies. (A full pork barrel is better than an empty one. Or, I'm for me.)

In his "Afterwords," Lakoff suggests his theory hasn't been put to use properly because liberal campaign managers don't understand framing, whereas Conservatives do. In his subsequent book, Don't Think of an Elephant, Lakoff instructs liberals in the use of framing to win elections. His latest book, Whose Freedom?, is a continuation of that instruction, being the specific application of the theory of Moral Politics using framing methods to the political problems of Liberty and Privilege.

My theory is that series of books represents increasing frustration leading to increasing specificity. At first, the good Professor gives us the formal theory which students are supposed to apply. ("Now that you've learned The Calculus, go, solve your engineering problems.") When the students don't apply his theories and don't solve the problems, he says, "Look, here's a tool you can apply to those problems." Finally, when the students still fail to crack the nut, he writes down examples: "Here is how you do it." This theory is not intended to disparage the Professor; au contraire, I know how it feels. I would not, however, try to stuff the brains of the unwilling or incompetent. It just doesn't work.

If there is any single feeling Moral Politics instills in me, it is that trying to teach the American public almost anything theoretical is a waste of time. I don't like that undemocratic feeling, but theories are the stuff of the intelligentsia, not of business and politics. There is some sort of unbridgeable abyss between thinkers and doers, perhaps the result of abilities and orientations developed early in life. Even in the most primitive human tribes, 30 or more millennia ago, there were shamans and doctors, then everyone else. Knowing stuff is a specialized job which even autocrats abolish at their own risk. (When Hitler proclaimed Einstein's Relativity "Jewish Science," he undermined Nazi A-Bomb research.) Thus, politicians have lived uncomfortably with "effete intellectuals" since time immemorial.

Having my stated my intellectual snobbery, Moral Politics makes clear just what Conservatives have done to American politics, how they have corrupted and abused the process. As Lakoff notes, Conservatives and Religious Right preachers have spent billions over several decades spreading their poisonous doctrines. Long ago, they latched on to the techniques of framing - modern rhetoric - to fill the media with their propaganda. What Conservatives are really good at is hiring the very best salesmen. Salesmanship is how global corporations succeed and Conservative politicians get elected. Every single issue and candidate (= product) is worked over so as to appeal to you, the ordinary voter. In performing their tasks, salesmen are only concerned with Truth, Justice and the American Way as a slogan they can apply in their advertising. It does not matter what the actual effect of some law or product is upon people, or that Strict Fathering leads to child abuse, rape and murder as well as other heinous crimes. What is is all about is success, 'any which way you can.'

Here, again, is a deficiency in Lakoff's view, because Strict Father morality and politics can be explicated at a more basic level as the 'law of the jungle.' The ethical rule which covers most Strict Father activities is "Everything is OK until You Get Caught." That rule is a form of justification based on power relationships ('might makes right'), since a higher power is implied by getting caught. That rule is also used by the Ten Commandments and other religious Imperatives to motivate obedience, because the all-knowing, all-seeing gods will always catch you. Thus, religious strictures are generalized from outcomes in the violent struggle for existence; as in, you should not covet another's spouse because that other will try to kill you. (And, if you don't get maimed or killed, the gods will eventually punish you.) Under such a  morality, the rulers don't have to obey if only they make the rules, unless they foolishly believe they are audited by a higher power. Hobbes explicitly recognizes this situation in setting up a Sovereign, as his Sovereigns are free to continue warring among themselves even while the 'war of each against all' is ended. Hobbes' hope and belief was that the Christian religion would somehow regulate Sovereigns' ambitions, but, of course, that never happened.

On balance, I think Lakoff's analysis of American politics in terms of "family values" is insightful, but not useful outside academia. Unfortunately, even the application of his  theory using framing techniques does not help in bringing about Liberal victories. What motivates politicians and the majority of the electorate seems to be red meat and gladiatorial contests. I believe Liberals can and do win, when they are just as deceitful and manipulative as power-hungry Conservatives.

I mentioned before in these pages that the late Dr. Robert E. Whallon, then Chairman of my undergraduate Department of Philosophy, earnestly advised me to keep my bags packed. His was not new advice to young dissenters such as myself, as he had first received it while reading the pages of Plato's Dialogues at Harvard. Prof. Lakoff's theory and methods don't change what that advice implies about politics and philosophy.