COMMENTS: 73
Lakoff: Palin Appeals to Voter Emotions -- Dems Beware
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Election 2008 headlines via email.
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.
Stay up to date with the latest Election 2008 headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Obama2008Fan on Sep 1, 2008 5:42 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage.
Palin faces accusations of firing public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in what amounts to a messy Palin family drama dating to her pre-gubernatorial days. Monegan had refused to fire a state trooper who'd gone through a messy divorce from Palin's sister.
The governor has no foreign policy experience.
She is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
She supported ultraconservative Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
Palin thinks creationism (intelligent design) should be taught in public schools.
She's doesn't believe human beings are a major cause of climate change.
Palin is solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy.
She has pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years.
Palin sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species (she was worried they would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska).
So how closely did John McCain vet his choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting last year. They spoke a second time one week before the GOP convention, when he called her about being vice president. McCain then offered her the position.
On September 1, the press reported that her unmarried teenage daughter was pregnant, a condition McCain claimed he knew about before making Palin his VP pick. So much for Republican family values -- like not having premarital sex.
Obama Fan
Obama 4 President 2008
PS: Never forget what a "Maverick" is -- a grumpy old man who enjoys pissing people off, both Democrats and Republicans!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You forgot faking a complete pregnancy while governor
Posted by: PaulK
» RE: You forgot faking a complete pregnancy while governor
Posted by: jqb
» Troll
Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: The REAL Sarah Palin: It ain't a pretty picture!
Posted by: Libsrule
» RE: Other media venues for you, Mr. Lakoff
Posted by: editnetwork
» PaulK & Troll Demonstrate how to MISS THE POINT
Posted by: editnetwork
» RE: PaulK & Troll Demonstrate how to MISS THE POINT
Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: "gotta talk in metaphors 'cause people are dumb"?
Posted by: editnetwork
» Not every point is valid.
Posted by: jqb
» Schwarzenegger = governator; Palin = governatrix
Posted by: Smackback
» RE: The REAL Sarah Palin: It ain't a pretty picture!
Posted by: rinthy
» RE: The REAL Sarah Palin: It ain't a pretty picture!
Posted by: rinthy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Obama2008Fan on Sep 1, 2008 5:50 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage.
Palin faces accusations of firing public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in what amounts to a messy Palin family drama dating to her pre-gubernatorial days. Monegan had refused to fire a state trooper who'd gone through a messy divorce from Palin's sister.
The governor has no foreign policy experience.
She is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
She supported ultraconservative Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
Palin thinks creationism (intelligent design) should be taught in public schools.
She's doesn't believe human beings are a major cause of climate change.
Palin is solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy.
She has pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years.
Palin sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species (she was worried they would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska).
So how closely did John McCain vet his choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting last year. They spoke a second time one week before the GOP convention, when he called her about being vice president. McCain then offered her the position.
On September 1, the press reported that her unmarried teenage daughter was pregnant, a condition McCain claimed he knew about before making Palin his VP pick. So much for Republican family values -- like not having premarital sex.
Obama Fan
Obama 4 President 2008
PS: Never forget what a "Maverick" is -- a grumpy old man who enjoys pissing people off, both Democrats and Republicans!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Sorry about the double posting. AlterNet was slow posting the 1st one
Posted by: Obama2008Fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobS on Sep 1, 2008 6:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But for those of us outside of the Obama campaign, I think we do have to talk about the important issues facing this nation. One of the problems with our 2 party political system is that discussion which threatens corporate domination is generally avoided by the top figures of both parties.
So for those of us not in the glare of the mass media, we need to wage a constant guerrilla-style campaign of raising those issues of class, race and gender that we're not supposed to bring up in "polite company".
The office-seeking politicians have their job to do. We have ours. In our dysfunctional political system, they are not the same.
Bob Simpson
The BobboSphere
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Somebody has to hammer away at the issues
Posted by: Xynyx
» "How else could progressives have lost to the losers the Republicans have offered us?"
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: Somebody has to hammer away at the issues
Posted by: ohb0b
» RE: Somebody has to hammer away at the issues
Posted by: john mont
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rancespergl on Sep 1, 2008 6:12 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What was this article about, can anyone tell? It was VERY conceptual I thought.
Hey, anybody seen that conservative trolling get-a-life multiple poster edgar1 anywhere?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh, we've learned the lesson all right!
Posted by: Hans B
» RE: Oh, we've learned the lesson all right!
Posted by: kegbot1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 1, 2008 6:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Help?
Posted by: socialpsych
» Your Correct
Posted by: bobtr900
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulC on Sep 1, 2008 6:52 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not that we must avoid policy discussions so much as we need to frame our policy discussions as exposes on these concepts, and educate America in the process.
It is a huge task because the far right are masters of propaganda - that is what they have been doing all these years with right wing talk radio and Fox TV. How do we compete with their complete dominance of the media?
People are getting fed up and desperate, so the door is open for us to walk through if only we can get the message out.
peace,
Paul
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama understands the need to talk about what terms like "values" really mean
Posted by: annie68
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 1, 2008 6:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: In George Lakoff's book MORAL POLITICS, there is a section on "Conservative" Feminism and the danger
Posted by: crashgrab
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 1, 2008 7:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way, Mr. Lakoff. Welcome back. I'm sorry to see what happened to ROCKRIDGE INSTITUTE. I wish you all the best and maybe there'll be a future in it. We need real progressives and liberals instead of fake ones gagging and letting us down. And don't worry. We will keep standing up for real ones and standing up to fake ones no matter how much persecution and torture my wife and I keep facing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: synx on Sep 1, 2008 7:35 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you feel offended at my insult, it's probably not directed at you. I'm very upset though at the bloody bonkers family worshippers. There are people, a majority of people, a vast majority of people, who would refuse to vote for the perfect leader and the perfect representative, because he had a tumultuous marriage, or worse, she hadn't screwed the pooch at all and was single!
Prejudice against single people is open, blatant, hateful, insane, and ridiculous. What the heck does pooping out a baby do to make you Miss Fucking Perfect? Are mothers any less psycho than the rest of us? Why is it that every single politician on USA soil has to
* Be a devout believing Christian
* Own considerable amounts of wealth
* Love his family?
It's all the same goddamn thing. Your beloved ancestors brainwash you into thinking that anyone who doesn't obey the Holy Magnate of what a family is, anyone like that is bad and evil. And you go along with it so easily, that all the politicians have to do is keep flapping their lips about how much they care about Family and you'll keep voting for them like they were Jesus H. Fucking Christ.
You're electing inhuman monsters into the highest positions of power, because you base all your judgement on idiotic intangible and fake things like family. And you know what happens when I go to the voting box and vote against you? Absolutely nothing! So stop stealing my vote. Either stop voting, or start using half a brain cell when you decide who's going to be running your future. Just because they're kissing babies and helping old ladies cross the street, is not sufficient credentials to vote for them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Fuck Family
Posted by: DR. LARRY MITCHELL
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: BCcovers
» RE: Fuck Family?! The delusion of the librul continues to astound
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: Fuck Family... it's an owning class cover
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 1, 2008 7:36 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Sep 1, 2008 7:58 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Balanz on Sep 1, 2008 11:34 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I disagree with the right on just about everything, I accept their world view as a viable one (not correct but viable). People can live successful lives thinking the way they do. If I want to negotiate with them for a brighter tomorrow in a common community, I must exploit common ground as a first step.
If that doesn't work, I need a best alternative to a negotiated agreement--Norway anyone?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here, here!
Posted by: kegbot1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dipconsult on Sep 2, 2008 4:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- b) that so many Americans are fed up with 'political correctness" and "progressives" which they see as Democrat liberalism eating away at their traditional family values (e.g gay marriage, sex on demand, abortion on demand, etc. etc.) and pro government intrusion to force such values on everyone. So they will vote Republican believing, incorrectly, that a Republican candidate will uphold their traditional values.
Obama himself has been wisely cautious about identifying himself too closely with such 'political correctness' to the point that many of his 'liberal' supporters have chided him for not supporting their values.
We in Europe (the great majority I believe it fair to say) fear that these two factors mean that, no matter how unsuitable a Republican candidate may be, he has at least a fifty per cent chance of winning the presidency and so determining our future as well as America's. (G W Bush has so split Europe with his Iraq war and concomitant US thrust towards unipolarism - Amerika uber alles in der Welt - that the EU has almost no voice at all internationally.
For more details see JP Diplomatic Consultancy's URL: dipconsult.eu
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: dipconsult
Posted by: riley
» RE: dipconsult
Posted by: ivan07
» RE: dipconsult
Posted by: MsM
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 2, 2008 4:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certainly a fair few Alternet progressives have demonstrated knee-jerk, unevolved or mixed attitudes toward women, so imagine the quandry for the regressives!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why isn't there more discussion of misogyny's potential impact?
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: why isn't there more discussion of misogyny's potential impact?
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» I pray for mysogyny...this time
Posted by: bizeeb
» no, no, no, the "unevolved" Alternet posters I referred to were simply an example
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: no, no, no, the "unevolved" Alternet posters I referred to were simply an example
Posted by: MsM
» RE: why isn't there more discussion of misogyny's potential impact?
Posted by: munchkinpup
» ironical?
Posted by: bizeeb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Julian on Sep 2, 2008 5:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer to this anti-intellectual offensive isn’t to enter the gut-feel market. To make an impact on the gut feelings of millions of Americans demands decades and literally billions of dollars. The corporate mind manipulators have the time and the money.
Appealing to facts, analysis, common sense and especially evidence, and making messages attractive to the thinking part of every voter by making sure they are true and invite the listener to explore the same evidence, is the only way to ensure that truth beats unreason at the polls. The whisper that the emperor has no clothes can grow to an unstoppable roar.
One can strike a blow every day, every hour, by speaking truth. Messages of truth percolate way beyond the messenger. You get a lot more bang for the buck that way than by trying to out-bellow the bellowers.
And it is vital to be seen to give credit where credit's due. Cheering a son on to kill for empire requires only hatred of those targeted, but saving and bringing up a child with Down's syndrome must have required a lot of courage and a lot of love.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blind alley
Posted by: munchkinpup
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Sep 2, 2008 6:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:In other words,
Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: Special Appeal
Posted by: dipconsult
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jimidee on Sep 2, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that Palin has a pregnant daughter was part of the decision to select her. They knew full well that with the MSM's penchant for smut stories, that it would jump all over this one. This was guaranteed if they let it out after the fact, like they were trying to hide it. The MSM took the bate and swallowed the hook and ran it like they stole it. Predictably, the right wing base evangelicals felt so sorry for the girl and rallied in supported the mother.
Mission Accomplished.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Sep 2, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She would become president.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sslyon on Sep 2, 2008 7:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Lakoff is right on
Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: Lakoff is right on
Posted by: annie68
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tgranger on Sep 2, 2008 11:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What kind of family would impose the care of an
accidental 5th, special needs, child on teenage children while Mom campaigns to go to Washington.
What kind of family would impose their ideology on their children in such a way that a pregnant unmarried teen is the result.
The frame of "supermon" needs to be replaced with "irresponsible, damaging Mom" and its just a frame and we need to use it!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: munchkinpup on Sep 2, 2008 4:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There's No Reason to Be Afraid of Taking on Sarah Palin," by Jane Smiley
GO JANE, GO!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wow! Go, Jane! - indeed.
Posted by: editnetwork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davemcarthur on Sep 3, 2008 3:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You wrote “ But the Palin nomination is… about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind -- the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes.” Correct but your article fails to provide insight. It is our walk, not our talk that matters. The US destroys about 68 barrels of mineral oil a day/1000 people. (My country, New Zealand destroys 38 barrels; most nations destroy 3-4 barrels per 1000 people or less.) Like New Zealand, the US culture and credit system is shaped by our addictive uses of this precious and very finite resource. We fail to conserve it. In this context we are non-conservatives and we live in fear that the object of our addiction will be taken from us. This fear dominates our responses, in the USA case, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian and Constitutional non-conservative alike. So as mineral oil prices rose and credit systems collapsed this year people responded with unease and Barack Obama’s call for change (any change) resonated. Now mineral oil prices are dropping, credit systems have been temporarily propped up and the addictive behaviour again feels sustainable. All non-conservatives of mineral oil are relieved to have the status quo and we see this in the swings towards John McCain – and Sarah Palin, for she symbolises the “great untapped mineral oil resource of Alaska” in the minds of non-conservatives. She reflects the reality of even those that profess to oppose mining Alaska for she reflects the reality of their addictive use of mineral oil. In this context the McCain-Palin ticket cannot fail because it shapes the reality of whoever becomes president. The majority voted for it at the “gas pump”.
Footnote: Your association of the “global warming” and “conservative” symbols with malevolence suggests it is probable that you too are a non-conservative of mineral oil, George. Your uses of the symbols suggest a considerable denial of change/stewardship. More at http://tinyurl.com/6xqwww In kindness Dave McArthur www.bonusjoules.co.nz
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: politicky on Sep 5, 2008 2:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A joke.
In fact for anyone paying attention she has become a joke.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sarah Palin on September 5, 2008
Posted by: rinthy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Obama2008Fan on Sep 1, 2008 5:42 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage.
Palin faces accusations of firing public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in what amounts to a messy Palin family drama dating to her pre-gubernatorial days. Monegan had refused to fire a state trooper who'd gone through a messy divorce from Palin's sister.
The governor has no foreign policy experience.
She is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
She supported ultraconservative Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
Palin thinks creationism (intelligent design) should be taught in public schools.
She's doesn't believe human beings are a major cause of climate change.
Palin is solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy.
She has pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years.
Palin sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species (she was worried they would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska).
So how closely did John McCain vet his choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting last year. They spoke a second time one week before the GOP convention, when he called her about being vice president. McCain then offered her the position.
On September 1, the press reported that her unmarried teenage daughter was pregnant, a condition McCain claimed he knew about before making Palin his VP pick. So much for Republican family values -- like not having premarital sex.
Obama Fan
Obama 4 President 2008
PS: Never forget what a "Maverick" is -- a grumpy old man who enjoys pissing people off, both Democrats and Republicans!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You forgot faking a complete pregnancy while governor
Posted by: PaulK
» RE: You forgot faking a complete pregnancy while governor
Posted by: jqb
» Troll
Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: The REAL Sarah Palin: It ain't a pretty picture!
Posted by: Libsrule
» RE: Other media venues for you, Mr. Lakoff
Posted by: editnetwork
» PaulK & Troll Demonstrate how to MISS THE POINT
Posted by: editnetwork
» RE: PaulK & Troll Demonstrate how to MISS THE POINT
Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: "gotta talk in metaphors 'cause people are dumb"?
Posted by: editnetwork
» Not every point is valid.
Posted by: jqb
» Schwarzenegger = governator; Palin = governatrix
Posted by: Smackback
» RE: The REAL Sarah Palin: It ain't a pretty picture!
Posted by: rinthy
» RE: The REAL Sarah Palin: It ain't a pretty picture!
Posted by: rinthy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Obama2008Fan on Sep 1, 2008 5:50 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage.
Palin faces accusations of firing public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in what amounts to a messy Palin family drama dating to her pre-gubernatorial days. Monegan had refused to fire a state trooper who'd gone through a messy divorce from Palin's sister.
The governor has no foreign policy experience.
She is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
She supported ultraconservative Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
Palin thinks creationism (intelligent design) should be taught in public schools.
She's doesn't believe human beings are a major cause of climate change.
Palin is solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy.
She has pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years.
Palin sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species (she was worried they would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska).
So how closely did John McCain vet his choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting last year. They spoke a second time one week before the GOP convention, when he called her about being vice president. McCain then offered her the position.
On September 1, the press reported that her unmarried teenage daughter was pregnant, a condition McCain claimed he knew about before making Palin his VP pick. So much for Republican family values -- like not having premarital sex.
Obama Fan
Obama 4 President 2008
PS: Never forget what a "Maverick" is -- a grumpy old man who enjoys pissing people off, both Democrats and Republicans!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Sorry about the double posting. AlterNet was slow posting the 1st one
Posted by: Obama2008Fan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobS on Sep 1, 2008 6:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But for those of us outside of the Obama campaign, I think we do have to talk about the important issues facing this nation. One of the problems with our 2 party political system is that discussion which threatens corporate domination is generally avoided by the top figures of both parties.
So for those of us not in the glare of the mass media, we need to wage a constant guerrilla-style campaign of raising those issues of class, race and gender that we're not supposed to bring up in "polite company".
The office-seeking politicians have their job to do. We have ours. In our dysfunctional political system, they are not the same.
Bob Simpson
The BobboSphere
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Somebody has to hammer away at the issues
Posted by: Xynyx
» "How else could progressives have lost to the losers the Republicans have offered us?"
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: Somebody has to hammer away at the issues
Posted by: ohb0b
» RE: Somebody has to hammer away at the issues
Posted by: john mont
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rancespergl on Sep 1, 2008 6:12 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What was this article about, can anyone tell? It was VERY conceptual I thought.
Hey, anybody seen that conservative trolling get-a-life multiple poster edgar1 anywhere?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh, we've learned the lesson all right!
Posted by: Hans B
» RE: Oh, we've learned the lesson all right!
Posted by: kegbot1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 1, 2008 6:45 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Help?
Posted by: socialpsych
» Your Correct
Posted by: bobtr900
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulC on Sep 1, 2008 6:52 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not that we must avoid policy discussions so much as we need to frame our policy discussions as exposes on these concepts, and educate America in the process.
It is a huge task because the far right are masters of propaganda - that is what they have been doing all these years with right wing talk radio and Fox TV. How do we compete with their complete dominance of the media?
People are getting fed up and desperate, so the door is open for us to walk through if only we can get the message out.
peace,
Paul
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Obama understands the need to talk about what terms like "values" really mean
Posted by: annie68
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 1, 2008 6:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: In George Lakoff's book MORAL POLITICS, there is a section on "Conservative" Feminism and the danger
Posted by: crashgrab
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 1, 2008 7:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way, Mr. Lakoff. Welcome back. I'm sorry to see what happened to ROCKRIDGE INSTITUTE. I wish you all the best and maybe there'll be a future in it. We need real progressives and liberals instead of fake ones gagging and letting us down. And don't worry. We will keep standing up for real ones and standing up to fake ones no matter how much persecution and torture my wife and I keep facing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: synx on Sep 1, 2008 7:35 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you feel offended at my insult, it's probably not directed at you. I'm very upset though at the bloody bonkers family worshippers. There are people, a majority of people, a vast majority of people, who would refuse to vote for the perfect leader and the perfect representative, because he had a tumultuous marriage, or worse, she hadn't screwed the pooch at all and was single!
Prejudice against single people is open, blatant, hateful, insane, and ridiculous. What the heck does pooping out a baby do to make you Miss Fucking Perfect? Are mothers any less psycho than the rest of us? Why is it that every single politician on USA soil has to
* Be a devout believing Christian
* Own considerable amounts of wealth
* Love his family?
It's all the same goddamn thing. Your beloved ancestors brainwash you into thinking that anyone who doesn't obey the Holy Magnate of what a family is, anyone like that is bad and evil. And you go along with it so easily, that all the politicians have to do is keep flapping their lips about how much they care about Family and you'll keep voting for them like they were Jesus H. Fucking Christ.
You're electing inhuman monsters into the highest positions of power, because you base all your judgement on idiotic intangible and fake things like family. And you know what happens when I go to the voting box and vote against you? Absolutely nothing! So stop stealing my vote. Either stop voting, or start using half a brain cell when you decide who's going to be running your future. Just because they're kissing babies and helping old ladies cross the street, is not sufficient credentials to vote for them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Fuck Family
Posted by: DR. LARRY MITCHELL
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: crashgrab
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: BCcovers
» RE: Fuck Family?! The delusion of the librul continues to astound
Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Fuck Family
Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: Fuck Family... it's an owning class cover
Posted by: DaBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 1, 2008 7:36 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Sep 1, 2008 7:58 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Balanz on Sep 1, 2008 11:34 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I disagree with the right on just about everything, I accept their world view as a viable one (not correct but viable). People can live successful lives thinking the way they do. If I want to negotiate with them for a brighter tomorrow in a common community, I must exploit common ground as a first step.
If that doesn't work, I need a best alternative to a negotiated agreement--Norway anyone?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here, here!
Posted by: kegbot1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dipconsult on Sep 2, 2008 4:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- b) that so many Americans are fed up with 'political correctness" and "progressives" which they see as Democrat liberalism eating away at their traditional family values (e.g gay marriage, sex on demand, abortion on demand, etc. etc.) and pro government intrusion to force such values on everyone. So they will vote Republican believing, incorrectly, that a Republican candidate will uphold their traditional values.
Obama himself has been wisely cautious about identifying himself too closely with such 'political correctness' to the point that many of his 'liberal' supporters have chided him for not supporting their values.
We in Europe (the great majority I believe it fair to say) fear that these two factors mean that, no matter how unsuitable a Republican candidate may be, he has at least a fifty per cent chance of winning the presidency and so determining our future as well as America's. (G W Bush has so split Europe with his Iraq war and concomitant US thrust towards unipolarism - Amerika uber alles in der Welt - that the EU has almost no voice at all internationally.
For more details see JP Diplomatic Consultancy's URL: dipconsult.eu
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: dipconsult
Posted by: riley
» RE: dipconsult
Posted by: ivan07
» RE: dipconsult
Posted by: MsM
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 2, 2008 4:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certainly a fair few Alternet progressives have demonstrated knee-jerk, unevolved or mixed attitudes toward women, so imagine the quandry for the regressives!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why isn't there more discussion of misogyny's potential impact?
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: why isn't there more discussion of misogyny's potential impact?
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» I pray for mysogyny...this time
Posted by: bizeeb
» no, no, no, the "unevolved" Alternet posters I referred to were simply an example
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: no, no, no, the "unevolved" Alternet posters I referred to were simply an example
Posted by: MsM
» RE: why isn't there more discussion of misogyny's potential impact?
Posted by: munchkinpup
» ironical?
Posted by: bizeeb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Julian on Sep 2, 2008 5:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer to this anti-intellectual offensive isn’t to enter the gut-feel market. To make an impact on the gut feelings of millions of Americans demands decades and literally billions of dollars. The corporate mind manipulators have the time and the money.
Appealing to facts, analysis, common sense and especially evidence, and making messages attractive to the thinking part of every voter by making sure they are true and invite the listener to explore the same evidence, is the only way to ensure that truth beats unreason at the polls. The whisper that the emperor has no clothes can grow to an unstoppable roar.
One can strike a blow every day, every hour, by speaking truth. Messages of truth percolate way beyond the messenger. You get a lot more bang for the buck that way than by trying to out-bellow the bellowers.
And it is vital to be seen to give credit where credit's due. Cheering a son on to kill for empire requires only hatred of those targeted, but saving and bringing up a child with Down's syndrome must have required a lot of courage and a lot of love.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blind alley
Posted by: munchkinpup
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Sep 2, 2008 6:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:In other words,
Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: Special Appeal
Posted by: dipconsult
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jimidee on Sep 2, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that Palin has a pregnant daughter was part of the decision to select her. They knew full well that with the MSM's penchant for smut stories, that it would jump all over this one. This was guaranteed if they let it out after the fact, like they were trying to hide it. The MSM took the bate and swallowed the hook and ran it like they stole it. Predictably, the right wing base evangelicals felt so sorry for the girl and rallied in supported the mother.
Mission Accomplished.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Sep 2, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She would become president.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sslyon on Sep 2, 2008 7:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Lakoff is right on
Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: Lakoff is right on
Posted by: annie68
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tgranger on Sep 2, 2008 11:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What kind of family would impose the care of an
accidental 5th, special needs, child on teenage children while Mom campaigns to go to Washington.
What kind of family would impose their ideology on their children in such a way that a pregnant unmarried teen is the result.
The frame of "supermon" needs to be replaced with "irresponsible, damaging Mom" and its just a frame and we need to use it!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: munchkinpup on Sep 2, 2008 4:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There's No Reason to Be Afraid of Taking on Sarah Palin," by Jane Smiley
GO JANE, GO!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wow! Go, Jane! - indeed.
Posted by: editnetwork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davemcarthur on Sep 3, 2008 3:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You wrote “ But the Palin nomination is… about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind -- the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes.” Correct but your article fails to provide insight. It is our walk, not our talk that matters. The US destroys about 68 barrels of mineral oil a day/1000 people. (My country, New Zealand destroys 38 barrels; most nations destroy 3-4 barrels per 1000 people or less.) Like New Zealand, the US culture and credit system is shaped by our addictive uses of this precious and very finite resource. We fail to conserve it. In this context we are non-conservatives and we live in fear that the object of our addiction will be taken from us. This fear dominates our responses, in the USA case, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian and Constitutional non-conservative alike. So as mineral oil prices rose and credit systems collapsed this year people responded with unease and Barack Obama’s call for change (any change) resonated. Now mineral oil prices are dropping, credit systems have been temporarily propped up and the addictive behaviour again feels sustainable. All non-conservatives of mineral oil are relieved to have the status quo and we see this in the swings towards John McCain – and Sarah Palin, for she symbolises the “great untapped mineral oil resource of Alaska” in the minds of non-conservatives. She reflects the reality of even those that profess to oppose mining Alaska for she reflects the reality of their addictive use of mineral oil. In this context the McCain-Palin ticket cannot fail because it shapes the reality of whoever becomes president. The majority voted for it at the “gas pump”.
Footnote: Your association of the “global warming” and “conservative” symbols with malevolence suggests it is probable that you too are a non-conservative of mineral oil, George. Your uses of the symbols suggest a considerable denial of change/stewardship. More at http://tinyurl.com/6xqwww In kindness Dave McArthur www.bonusjoules.co.nz
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: politicky on Sep 5, 2008 2:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A joke.
In fact for anyone paying attention she has become a joke.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sarah Palin on September 5, 2008
Posted by: rinthy
MoveOn Launches Campaign for Bold Progressive Reforms as the Obama Era Begins
Obama's Promise of Change Comes Wrapped in Red, White and Blue
Reactions to Obama's Historic Moment From Around the Globe




