don't think of an elephant

Lakoff's political analysis begins with the Strict Father and Nurturing Mother models. He claims that Conservative politics is founded on the Strict Father, whereas Liberal politics arises from a Nurturing Mother. This is an interesting generalization which explains many aspects of the Red-Blue cultural divide. Both models are, as usual in culture, self-fulfilling prophesies; i.e., they bring about both the good and bad behavior they idealize.

Lakoff's campaign advice follows the model developed by Kahneman and Tversky (K&T), which is also heavily used by Conservatives. K&T developed "prospect theory," which is largely qualitative because it offers an inexact deviation from statistical theories of expected utility. In particular, what K&T discovered is that people do not always respond to the same situation the same way; rather, the response depends on an interpretation. If a question is phrased in terms of what might be won, people respond in a "risk averse" manner. People respond in a "risk seeking" manner, when the question proposes what might be lost. Here, "people" is a statistical construct, because some people answer a question one way, and others another way. Despite all the slippery statistics involved, what comes out of K&T's work is that the theory of "rational expectations" does not work. This has major implications for theories of financial markets, as it implies, for example, that stock markets do not work according to free market theories, and they are not explained by the random walk theory.  K&T's ideas, applied to politics - that is, rhetoric and advertising - also has major effects: people vote based on how the question is framed. What K&T framing explains is how people end up voting against their own interests. Prospect theory has been heavily used by Conservative campaigns during the last 25 years, with proven results.

Lakoff's practical advice seems sound to me. It is the advice of someone attuned to rhetoric, someone who knows how to calibrate words so as to get results. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that I and everyone else are merely easy targets in the sights of expert sharp shooters. It is quite clear from Lakoff's analyses that people can be motivated to do whatever you want by pressing the appropriate "hot buttons." One does not have to resort to subliminal advertising. Young men who invest in Spanish Fly are wasting money, because seduction is easily accomplished by proper framing. Actually, the more I thought about this, the more I was disturbed, even frightened, by all of this work. It makes a mockery of "free will" and "independent thought." It not only undermines the theoretical basis of  rational markets, it turns "democracy" into a showcase of zombies and Frankensteins. The reason I am disturbed by these theories is that I know they work. I have even watched myself in horror as I was turned into a zombie many years ago by tobacco company advertising. Despite my "rational self," I "watched" my body march into the polling booth and pull the levers the ads commanded. It was an out of body experience.

Lakoff's theories about upbringing or culture are interesting and important. I believe, however, they are not the basic explanation of political differences. What Lakoff's generalized parental models do explain are a number of attitudes involved in social behavior. They are particularly applicable to the Baby Boomer generation which split asunder in the Sixties. For example, the Strict Father/Nurturing Mother corresponds to the RED/BLUE cultural divide which is most acute among Baby Boomers. Lakoff's hypothesis does not explain those who, prior to, or in spite of, Dr. Spock, were universally brought up by Strict Fathers, but still became Liberals. It doesn't explain the children of Nurturing Mothers who became Conservatives. In the former case, perhaps children revolted against excessive or any authority. In the latter scenario, perhaps children were unable to make decisions for themselves, so sought out a authoritarian structure.

While Lakoff's family upbringing model makes some sense of the American culture wars now in progress, I doubt it displaces deeper analyses of politics and political philosophy. Lakoff's views are particularly useful for political engineers in the spirit of Machiavelli: those who run campaigns that manipulate people. The late Lee Atwater and Karl Rove are in that tradition. So are car salesman, who are sent to schools by automobile manufacturers to learn the rhetorical techniques of manipulation and control. Those who fall into the clutches of  those political and car salesmen are doomed. They are going to buy the car, the ranch or the candidate. That is why the highly skilled vacation time share sales people offer free sample weekends at their site. They don't care about the few that escape their practice; they only need a number to meet their quota.

What's obnoxious about Lakoff's book is that it proposes slipping down the slippery slope. Since Progressives haven't been able to beat Conservatives who use those powerful sales tools, why not join them? This invitation encourages candidates to see their campaigns as do or die wars. There's nothing moral about politics so practiced. Think of it as wizards standing on a high cliff over the herds below, casting spells and enchantments, emanating rays that take over and guide the bodies. One wizard makes all the people walk one way, and then another wizard makes them turn and go another way. The herd is captured by one or the other wizard. The real war is between the spells and charges wizards throw against each other. The herd is just a token for who is winning.

The way to imagine it is by thinking about some science fiction movie. Perhaps you noticed that 1984 arrived a bit early, in 1980?