Progressive Thought 10/22: Hearts and Minds

(notes by Eric Schechter)

We discussed the preface, introduction, and most of the first two chapters of Lakoff’s Thinking Points. Here are some excerpts from the preface and the first chapter: “This handbook is not about quick-and-dirty, short-term fixes to immediate tactical problems. It is about long-term strategy, a strategy for returning America to its progressive ideals. … All over America, progressives are finding their voices. We hope this handbook will help you find yours. … This book is not about winning and losing elections. It is about winning and losing hearts and minds.”

Here are a few high points from our discussion:

In the preface, Lakoff mentions that “slogans and spin mostly don’t work for progressives.” We should emphasize the word “mostly” in that sentence. Slogans can work if they’re chosen carefully, to reflect deep framing. TAP has adopted the slogan “We’re all in this together,” and we think that slogan will work, but it activates very deep framing.

Lakoff mentions that issues are only secondary in electoral politics, and are used symbolically as indicators of deeper things. Lakoff lists five of those deeper things: values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity. I vaguely understand those five things, but I would like to understand them better, and know better how they differ from each other.

We talked some about biconceptualism. Lakoff gives Rambo as an example of a conservative worldview that can be understood by most progressives. We discussed other examples from popular culture: Star Trek, war movies, cowboy movies, vigilante movies.

At our next session we’ll continue, with the rest of Chapter 2, and perhaps all of Chapters 3 and 4.

Progressive Thought 10/8: the larger issues of Jena 6

The following summary of our meeting was published in The Tennessean on October 9:

TAP meeting assesses the larger issues of Jena 6
by Angela Patterson

On Oct. 8, The Tennessee Alliance for Progress held a discussion group at Eastwood Christian Church in East Nashville. The topic: what does Jena 6 tell us about racism in America? How does racism play out in the criminal justice system? How can whites and all minority groups come together against racism and prejudice?

I was intrigued by the fact the group, which has both white and African American members, saw that there were bigger issues behind the Louisiana case that sparked national attention. This has been an ongoing discussion through minority media outlets since the Sept. 20 march— what does the jailing of six black boys in a small Southern town say about racism in our society?

Well, it says a few things, according to responses from the group:

1) that blatant racism still exists in this country, (which I personally believe was a surprise to many in this country);

2) that there’s an obvious disconnect between white and black communities and the media outlets that serve them, and that’s why many white people were completely unaware of this case and issues it brought forward;

3) that the criminalization of children is a real issue, and that there are disparities within the criminal justice system;

4) and that people, particularly young people, were moved to mobilize on this issue because it resonated with them. Whether they felt it was their chance to participate in a modern-day civil rights push, or because they had friends or family who could’ve easily been one of the Jena 6, they related to this real-life situation.

But I think there’s one more element that wasn’t necessarily voiced: People are tired of it, and they’re not going to simply take it anymore.

People of color are tired of hearing stories like the one of Jena 6 via talk radio, or e-mail forwards, or phone calls with friends, and not knowing what to do—or worse, feeling like they were powerless to do anything. But then here came this one case. This was a chance to stand up, not only for those six boys, but all the men, women and children who’ve been unfairly treated at some point, and tell the nation that there is still a problem here. I think it’s especially true for those who are of my generation (mid 20s and younger), who’ve quietly dealt with these issues, and now we had the chance to not only be heard, but also have our words actually make a difference.

So here’s the million-dollar question: It’s clear there’s a problem with racism, but what do we do about it?

The response of one member was that there should be more unity among minority groups. If Hispanic and Asian leaders had united with black leaders on the Jena 6 issue, perhaps it would’ve been viewed as both the racial and human rights issue that it was.

And I agree with her. But the obstacle to that kind of unity, as another member suggested, is that we don’t take the time to really get to know one another’s communities. We’re still a very segregated society, and it’s going to take years—and lots of forward-thinking people— to change that. As the woman said: “An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere; an injustice to anyone is an injustice to everyone”; I think it’ll take my generation and the ones after mine to fully realize the truth of that statement.

One man said many had suggested to him the problem with racism and most of society’s ills start in the home. But what if the home is part of the problem? What if parents aren’t truly being parents? Or worse, what if the parents are the ones teaching the racism? Then what?

As one woman said, you have to redefine what home is.

And I think this is what it’s all come to: We have to return to the “it takes a village” philosophy. People don’t want to make the sacrifice or bear the responsibility of being responsible for more than their own, but our society’s reached a point where we can no longer be individualistic in thought or action. As one member said: “things are only going to change when there’s an alliance of values and of communities.”

Progressive Thought 9/24: Be the red pill

Here is the premise for the 9/24 meeting: In the film “The Matrix” the perceived world is an illusion generated by a computer that everyone’s plugged into, and reality (of which none are aware) is very different. Early in the movie, the main character is offered a choice to take a blue pill and continue his dreaming existence, or to take a red pill and wake up. He takes the red pill, gets hip to reality, and joins the resistance. The illusion of The Matrix is an apt metaphor for the 24/7 Faux News spin cycle too many are caught in. To bring progressive social change, we must find ways to communicate like Red Pills and help others awaken from corporatist illusions and to the better reality that awaits. Susan and Eric will start off the discussion, but where it leads is up to you — we want to hear from all the Red Pills! (By the way, pictured at right is a miniature copy of the sign Eric prepared, to carry with him at the peace rally on Sept 21.)

And here are some notes Susan took at the meeting, supplemented slightly by Eric:

13 people attended. We watched a portion of The Matrix (summarized above). A good group discussion followed.

The awakening in the film “The Matrix” can be used as a metaphor for any kind of awakening — e.g., some people have seen it as a metaphor for finding Jesus. The film itself does not make explicit references to anything in our world; thus it is not entirely clear what the makers of the film meant it as a metaphor, if anything. However, it is worth noting that immediately after the three Matrix films, the next film made by the same people was “V for Vendetta,” a story about a revolutionary overthrow of a totalitarian regime much like the one that some of us now believe we are living under.

People in the group wondered how we can wake up, and awaken others, given the corporate control of the media. One suggestion was to turn off the TV. But this may not be realistic, so we need to at least question what we see and hear. — Turn off TV and turn on the computer, the internet holds wisdom provided one has been taught critical thinking and can avoid the “fractionalization” trap — i.e., the trap of listening only to people who agree with what we already believe (a trap similar to that of issue silos).

Folks were asked to briefly define “What is a Progressive, or what is Progressivism?” Sampling of responses:

• “Peaceful agenda, conservative (as in frugal, not wasteful) economic policy”;
• “Informed, intelligent, beneficient approach to being all that we can be”;
• “Progressing toward something that is diverse and positive”
• “Movement toward a perfect world, theoretical socialist core values”
• “Responsible passion for the greater good”
• “We’re all in this together”

We also got into some discussion of what “conservative” means. Some people associated it with “conservation,” certainly a good thing. Others associated it with laissez-faire economics, which is perhaps a bad thing; but we didn’t really discuss our feelings about that.

Progressive Thought 9/10: The language of war

Scott Ritter, former US Marine and former UN weapons inspector, has written a book called Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement. We watched a few minutes of him being interviewed about this book, and then we discussed how we use the language of war in the peace movement — e.g., “fighting against the military-industrial complex.”

Progressive Thought 8/27: Family models (overview)

by Susan McKay and Eric Schechter

Uncle Sam
Mother Russia
Fatherland
Homeland

What do all these phrases evoke? They all show how we use family metaphors for political ideas. The family is a basic human organizational structure, so it is not surprising that, as we have evolved from living in nomadic family units to fixed communities to nation states, we assign family values to our political views and institutions. George Lakoff explains that our first experience of a political situation is the arrangement of power within our own families when we are children. Thus politics is naturally seen as an extension of family relationships. Lakoff describes a dichotomy between two main types of families — that with nurturing parents, and that with a strict father.

The nurturing parents model

The nurturing model has these features:

EMPATHY — connect to and with others; kinship; mutual understanding.

RESPONSIBILITY — acting on empathy for yourself and others.

EQUITY AND SHARING — Both genders. Thus all members of the family are respected and valued, and work in cooperation.

AUTHORITATIVE (not authoritarian) — Parents (leaders) come to decisions through diverse input and using collective and experiential wisdom.

The world view: The world is a pretty good place. Not perfect, but together we can solve problems.

The nurturing parent system has these four principles:

COMMON GOOD: What is necessary for individuals and communal or societal well-being. E.g., maintenance and development of infrastructure, public safety, schools.

EXPANSION OF FREEDOM: E.g., Voters’ rights; consumer protections.

HUMAN DIGNITY. Baseline of empathy and responsibility for human rights and common good — e.g., food, shelter, safety, education, opportunity.

DIVERSITY. Big tent. A seat for all at the table. Support public policies that level the playing field.

The strict father model

In contrast, the strict model stresses patriarchal dominance, moral absolutes, authority, morality. In this system, children (citizens) are born bad. The father must be strict and unquestioned in his authority in order for the child to be moral and good. You must follow the rules and not question them. The world is seen as dangerous, immoral, bad, scary.

The strict father family has these four principles:

MORAL AUTHORITY. Morality means obeying legitimized moral authority — the father of a household, the laws and lawmakers, the clergy.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Each person is responsible for his or her own destiny. You’re on your own.

FREE MARKET. Wealth is the key to freedom. Thus any impediment (such as government regulation) is anti-freedom. Social darwinism: If you are poor, it’s because you deserve to be poor.

BOOTSTRAPS. With enough self-discipline, anyone can pull themselves out of any problem — poverty, violence, etc.

Beyond Lakoff

Eric found Lakoff’s explanation of the strict father family to be inadequate. Why would anyone want to follow such selfish principles? He started understanding Lakoff better after reading some other books which offer other, complementary explanations of the conservative worldview.

Hartmann’s book, Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class, explains onservatives at least partly in this fashion: Conservatives — at least some of them — believe that most people are too stupid to rule themselves, and so democracy is a bad idea. Instead it is desirable to be ruled by a wise elite, a knowing father-figure. Father knows best, and we should all obey father. Father doesn’t need to explain his rules and actions to us, because we aren’t wise enough to understand them anyway. It’s okay if father sometimes lies for us — it’s for our own good.

Altemeyer’s book, The Authoritarians, tells about the sheep who make up a significant part of our society. These people have a high degree of submission to authority — they do not question authority, they trust authority, they cannot believe evidence showing that authority figures have been corrupt. For instance, some of them still believed Nixon was innocent of criminal acts even after he accepted a pardon for them. The authoritarians enjoy seeing punishment meted out to anyone who the authority figures judge to be deserving of punishment. The authoritarians tend to conform in customs and behavior to whatever standard is dictated to them. They see the world as a dangerous place, more so than most people do. And, indeed, in moments of crisis (e.g., right after the 9/11 attacks), most people become more willing to obey authority.

Further discussion

After that discussion we watched an 8-minute video of Lakoff talking about the two family models. James Dobson’s strict father system is very widely taught, but pediatricians agree that it is bad for children.

After the video, we began a discussion of examples of strict or nurturing in popular culture. Here is what the group thought about these examples:

Nurturing: The Cosby Show.

Strict: The Ewings (from the series “Dallas”). Nancy Reagan. Star Trek.

Bi-conceptual (having traits of both family models): Eleanor Roosevelt

Eric discussed Star Trek at some length. He sees it as the epitome of the Strict Father model, as seen by the adherents to that model — i.e., it is the Strict Father model presented in the best possible light. The captain of the Starship Enterprise is a wise leader who never makes mistakes, who makes brilliant, innovative, ethical decisions. Sometimes his decisions are not initially understood by his crew, but nevertheless the crew never questions his decisions or his authority, because they know he is wise.

Eric enjoyed that television series when he was young, believed in it, and would have been glad to serve in the crew; would have trusted that authority figure. But now he know better; knows that “Star Trek” is just fiction, and no actual human being is consistently so wise and incorruptible, and all authority — including military authority — must be questioned. In fact, Eric now embraces the progressive, nurturing side entirely, and can barely understand the strict approach at all, but he says that he can understand it by thinking about “Star Trek.”

APPLICATION. How do we use these concepts of “strict” and “nurturing” in political practice?

We in the progressive movement believe that the “nurturing” system is better; the conservatives have embraced the “strict” system. How can we bring more people to our side? It probably won’t happen by talking about these issues logically; these habits of thinking generally can only be addressed on an emotional level.

Well, most Americans have some emotional understanding of both systems. But one system may be more strongly developed than the other in a person’s brain. To encourage the strengthening of one system (as opposed to the other), we need to use language which evokes that system. That’s what the conservatives have been doing for the last 40 years, with their oligarchically financed think tanks and news media. We must push back by choosing our language carefully.

Read THINKING POINTS! It’s an easy read and you can download it free at http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints.

Progressive Thought 8/13: Some Progressives Challenged by the Values’ Divide

by Susan McKay

A dynamic group of about 15 turned out to ponder solid values and shifty phrases at the Progressive Thought meeting on August 13. Big thanks to Jim Deming for letting us gather at his church and for his insightful participation.

The session began with a conversation about how communication for social change is about much more than just talking facts and that creating the right picture is truly worth a thousand words.

We examined how we think in pictures, not words, and how words mean nothing until our mind forms an image (a.k.a., association, frame, picture) to attach them to. We did an experiment asking what the words “dog” and “tribble” meant. Everyone got a picture of dog in their head immediately, though the frame varied to some degree, based on their experience with the animal. On the other hand, “tribble” was mostly met with wide-eyed wonder. (Only a couple of Trekkies could make sense of “tribble,” the name for a cuddly pink fur-ball that appeared in the “Trouble with Tribbles” episode in the original Star Trek series.)

We spent a good deal of time learning how and why “Level 1: Big Values & Universal Ideas,” are key in framing messages, using the Declaration of Independence as an unparalleled example of deeply held American values, not the least being: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The group immediately related to such values and expanded upon them: translating life to safety and security; liberty to freedom, and pursuit of happiness to opportunity. We then pointed out stark differences between the images (frames) that these value-based words conjure in progressive and conservative minds. For instance, Progressives think pursuit of happiness means ensuring a level playing field for equal opportunity; while Conservatives insist equal opportunity exists from birth, thus, other factors such as circumstance of birth or hard knocks are irrelevant.

Some in the group were uncomfortable with the stark comparisons–such objections actually supported the exercise because the concerns were in keeping with progressive values of shared community, inclusiveness, and uniting rather than dividing. While there may be common ground for the Left and Right to tread upon, the point of the exercise was to show true philosophical differences between progressive and conservative viewpoints.

The energy and enthusiasm of the group was terrific and we look forward to everyone returning to our next session on August 27.

Progressive Thought 6/23: Talk vs. action

by Eric Schechter

(Following are some notes resembling what we discussed on July 23, plus what I wish I had remembered to say.)

There were around 8 of us present. Sorry, I don’t have the exact number, I forgot to take roll. Cynthia and I prepared the agenda, which we partly followed. Susan, who has had some previous work with framing, was also a major contributor in the meeting, but everyone had a few things to say. Nell was absent — she’s on her honeymoon. Congratulations, Nell! We love you!

Our reason for gathering is to improve our participation in the progressive movement. It’s a worldwide movement that is already large and getting larger; Paul Hawken’s book and video about that are very inspiring. Hawken talks about hundreds of thousands of different organizations that are developing independently of one another. That makes it obvious (if it wasn’t already) that there are many different ways to participate in the movement, and evidently TAP can’t do all of them. Nell and I have been inspired by the writings of Lakoff and Waldman (and others), and so we’re taking them as a starting point for this discussion group.

At the end of our previous meeting, the most prevalent comment (aside from “enjoyed it, I’ll be coming to the next meeting”) was “I hope we’ll be getting to action, and not just talk.” So I thought I should begin this meeting by discussing talk versus action.

What would action without talk be like? I can imagine us marching on the White House with pitchforks and torches. But if we did that without a lot more preparation, either our group would be massacred (like the protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989), or we would overthrow the old dictators and see them replaced by new ones (as in Russia in 1917). Russia in 1917 was a poor and agrarian society, with little education and little networking, two things you need for a successful revolution. By “networking” I don’t mean electronic; I mean people communicating with one another. The American Revolutionary War was both preceded and followed by many years of people communicating in person and by letters.

We discussed other revolutions briefly. Martin Luther King was partly successful — he did reduce racism but did not eliminate it entirely. And he didn’t do it by himself — he was the movement’s greatest speaker, and we attach his name and face to the movement, but it really was a mass movement.

Talk is a type of action. We talk for a number of reasons –

• to bring people into the movement, by persuasion, by sharing enlightenment, by affecting with stories
• to continue the education of people who are already in the movement, including ourselves
• to continue developing and evolving our ideas, analyzing and synthesizing them
• to get the movement networked, organized, coordinated
• to evaluate where we stand, how we’re doing, how we need to change

So in this discussion group, we’re going to talk about

1. What to say — our vision, etc.
2. Who to say it to — i.e., who are our audiences
3. How to say it. Lakoff and Waldman have written about some important techniques (identity, framing, etc.) that too few progressives have mastered, or even recognized the importance of. If you can master these techniques, you’ll be making a BIG contribution to the progressive movement. (However, we’re not making any specific reading assignments at this time.)

(Personally, I think I’ve seen my own communications improving, partly due to reading Lakoff and Waldman. I was interviewed by reporters at a rally on July 19, and I think I spoke far more effectively than I could have spoken a year ago.)

Our goal in these meetings is to train ourselves for communication. We may concentrate on current events; the Rockridge Institute has new essays every week analyzing recent issues. After a while perhaps we will focus on some electorally-related campaign.

Talk — in large groups or one-on-one — is all we have to change the world, so we’d better get good at it.

Our opposition already has gotten good at it. They’ve been doing that all along, but they’ve had a particularly concerted effort ever since attorney Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote a memo about it to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in September 1971. (He was appointed by Nixon to the Supreme Court a month later.) The memo recommended that conservatives should fund think tanks, scholarships, and the purchase of communications media, in order to generate and propagate conservative propaganda, “talking points,” framing language, etc. (Of course, the memo didn’t use exactly those words, but that was the gist of it.) And they had plenty of funding available, because it just so happens that conservative economic policy has the side effect of making the rich richer — an effect that the rich are willing to promote.

You might not realize how important communication skills are. When propaganda is done effectively, it is very subtle — you hardly notice how you are being influenced (see examples below). But it is very influential.

Linguists Sapir and Whorf, in the early 20th century, developed the idea that the world cannot be represented objectively with language. Any language contains inherent biases which influence the thought patterns of its speakers.

This idea has been explored in a number of works of fiction; perhaps the most famous is George Orwell’s novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” published in 1949. In that story, a totalitarian government intentionally reshapes the nation’s language to instill biases that preserve the government’s hold on power.

When I first read Orwell’s novel, decades ago, I merely saw it as an outlandish fantasy, but now I see it coming true. Every week, Karl Rove, Frank Luntz and other conservative spin doctors create new propaganda phrases, such as “tax relief” and “Islamo-fascist.” Those phrases are disseminated by Grover Norquist and other backroom leaders. Then they are repeated, over and over, by conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. This is one of John Stewart’s favorite comedy routines — he shows a half dozen pundits all using the same phrase. But Stewart’s humor doesn’t disarm the framing. After you hear the phrase “war on terror” used enough times, you start to think that such a “war” actually exists, that the phrase actually makes sense. Such phrases become part of the frame of our society’s discourse, our way of thinking. And if there really is a “war on terror,” it can be used to justify the president’s power enormously — far more so than, say, a war on Afghanistan. That phrase was crafted brilliantly.

I have begun to understand this propaganda system largely thanks to George Lakoff. Lakoff is a professor of linguistics who has turned to progressive politics. His first political book, Moral Politics, was published in 1996, but it was a bit theoretical and hard for most people to read. His next political book, Don’t Think of an Elephant, in 2004, was much more accessible, and suddenly many progressives are reading Lakoff. Actually, I think Lakoff’s writing improved after that, so I would recommend some of his later works rather than the elephant book. Many of his latest articles and his latest book (Thinking Points) are available free online at the Rockridge Institute and Rockridge Nation. Lakoff is still a bit theoretical and strategic; Paul Waldman’s writing approaches some of the same topics but is more pragmatic and tactical.

If you choose the questions, you win the debate. We looked at one example described by the Rockridge Institute: To Catch a Wolf: How to Stop Conservative Frames in Their Tracks.

Wolf Blitzer often pretends to be a neutral broadcaster while framing his questions and his news using conservative frames. During the second Democratic debate on June 3, he was caught, and Barack Obama caught him. Wolf’s “question” was:

BLITZER: I want you to raise your hand if you believe English should be the official language of the United States.

Obama refused to take the bait:

OBAMA: This is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us. You know, you’re right. Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is: How can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy? And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.

The last big topic in our July 23rd session was this exercise: Can you think of any discussion you’ve ever had, or lecture you’ve ever heard, that suddenly made a light bulb go on in your head? Or that didn’t? What works, what doesn’t? Why haven’t progressives been able to get their ideas across?

Here are a few answers that people came up with. Often it’s not a sudden light bulb turning on; rather, it’s a gradual tipping, after many items have been added to one side to alter the balance. For instance, the USA has gradually moved more and more toward opposing the war. One of the big factors adding to the antiwar side was the revelation of Abu Ghraib.

For me (Eric), one of the major tipping factors, perhaps a light bulb effect, was Al Gore’s movie. My background is science, not politics. Gore’s explanation of the feedback loop, with reflective ice being replaced by dark water, showed me that global warming isn’t just a slow and gradual thing — it is accelerating; a crucial balance has been overturned. I’d always found politics confusing, with all of its opinions and biases and spin (though Lakoff has begun to clear that up for me), but I’d always held science as sacrosanct, as fact, as truth. When Gore’s movie showed me that global warming was a fact, and that the White House staff was rewriting scientific reports to deny global warming, I was incensed. If they can lie about science, they can lie about anything, and I started taking another look at the other things they’d been saying.

Notes on July 9’s “Progressive Thought”

by Eric Schechter

Everyone had a good time at the first meeting of Progressive Thought, on July 9. We had about a dozen people. Most or all said they’d come again. I hope we can get a slightly bigger group at the next meeting, on July 23. Here are an overview of what we did, and some comments on what we might do.

The July 9 meeting began with Nell giving a short talk on building a progressive movement, and with me (Eric) reading a few notes about what I got out of Lakoff’s “elephant” book. A copy of those notes is below. After that we watched about 5 or 10 minutes of Paul Waldman — you can see what we watched if you go to http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=198, click on “play,” and skip ahead to “Chapter 6: A Statement of Values” — that’s about 19 minutes after the beginning of the recording. After that we had an open discussion for most of an hour. Finally we closed with the optimistic 6-minute video by Paul Hawken, available at http://www.blessedunrest.com/video.html, and then a brief questionnaire. (By the way, if you feel a need for a boost of hope, I recommend the 78 minute video by Paul Hawken available at http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=1148.)

My little speech at the beginning of the session was largely devoted to the difference between progressives and conservatives. That speech seems to have heavily influenced the subsequent open discussion; many people related their own experiences in attempting to confront conservatives. It was good to have everyone talking, but the discussion seemed to me a bit unfocused, not really pointed in any particular direction. It was good for our introductory meeting, but I don’t think it can be taken as a precedent for our future meetings.

Nell and I have begun discussing what we’ll do on July 23, but we haven’t got much of it worked out yet. In their questionnaires, several people called for discussion that leads to “action.” Certainly Nell and I are keeping that in mind in planning the next session — we do hope to accomplish something beyond mere talk. But we are both leery of rushing into anything that could be called action. Nell has been an organizer for a long time, and she has seen that rushing into action without a long-term strategic plan is ineffective, a waste of effort. Indeed, Lakoff says very explicitly in the preface to Thinking Points: “This handbook is not about quick-and-dirty, short-term fixes to immediate tactical problems. It is about long-term strategy.”

My own thoughts are these: The most important thing we need to do is communicate the progressive vision to more people. (In religious terms, you might say that we need to spread the good word.) If we do that effectively, then results — e.g., legislative action — will come easily as a consequence; if we don’t, then results will be an uphill battle. So we need to figure out what is the vision, who we are trying to communicate it to, and how we communicate it.

Sorry, I don’t have a written version of Nell’s initial speech. Here is a copy of the speech that I read at the beginning of our meeting on July 9:

What I got from Lakoff, by Eric Schechter

I’m one of the organizers of this group, and George Lakoff’s writing means a lot to me personally, so I’ll tell you a little about it. I was confused about politics for most of my life, and that paralyzed me into inaction. But the confusion started clearing up about a year and a half ago, when I ran across Lakoff’s book, Don’t Think of an Elephant! I think some of his later books are even better, but they weren’t available back then. Since reading Lakoff, I’ve become able to read other authors, and my paralysis is gone.

Lakoff gave simple answers to three questions that are crucial to me. Actually, his answers are oversimplifications, but that’s the nature of the game. When you’re driving on a long trip, you use a road map, not a photograph of the road. The only way to understand politics is through a patchwork of overlapping oversimplifications. The trick is to find good simplifications — ones that make sense. Lakoff does, to me.

(1) The first question is, how are conservatives and progressives opposed to one another? We differ on every issue, but it’s not just isolated issues — there must be some simple unifying principle. What is it? Lakoff answered this in terms of psychology — in terms of the fact that the first political structure we ever enounter in our lives is the interpersonal dynamics of the family in which we grow up.

Lakoff describes us progressives with a “nurturing parents” model. The government provides a nurturing environment for us — with social security, health insurance, roads, courts, and so on — an environment in which we can develop our own potential. We progressives believe in hope, reason, love, and community. Waldman summarizes that with this slogan: “We’re all in this together.” I like this very positive view of people.

But Lakoff describes conservatives in terms of a “strict father” model, which involves a much lower opinion of human nature. (Here I’m talking about conservative ideology — not conservative voters, most of whom are good-hearted people taken in by the rhetoric. And there are actually many different kinds of conservatives; this description is admittedly a simplification.)

The conservatives believe that people are motivated mainly by greed and fear, people don’t want to help you, and the world is an unfriendly and even dangerous place. The conservatives deepen this feeling by telling us to be afraid of one thing or another. And that makes the father figure more appealing. Our leader is like a father: father is in charge, father knows best, father is wise and powerful, father will protect us. Father knows more than we know do about what is going on, so we shouldn’t question his methods or strategies. Father’s authority must be obeyed without question. (I never served in the military, but the television series Star Trek made this system very understandable to me.)

A few other authors have recently presented similar ideas. Thom Hartmann has a book titled Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class. He says that the conservatives do not really believe in democracy, though they pay lip service to it. Conservatives don’t believe that the common people can or should rule themselves. Instead, power and authority should be concentrated in the hands of a small, wise elite, which must be obeyed. In fact, since father knows best, the public doesn’t need to know everything, and some conservatives even feel it’s okay to lie about some stuff when the end justifies the means.

(2) The second question is, why do we hear the conservatives everywhere, when they’re less than half the country? If you turn on the radio or the television you hear conservatives. Well, the reason is money. Conservative economic policies have a habit of making the rich richer and everyone else poorer. Consequently, many rich people have been spending some of their wealth on conservative radio stations and television stations and newspapers, and funding for conservative think tanks, to generate propaganda favorable to conservatives and the rich. This has always happened in a decentralized way, but it also became an orchestrated conscious effort starting in September 1971, when Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote a secret memo recommending it to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A month later Powell was appointed by Nixon to the Supreme Court.

(3) My third and final question is, how do the conservatives still win so many voters when they are so wrong about everything? What makes them so persuasive? Well, their think tanks have produced several effective tactics. One tactic is the twisting of language. We can only think in language, and language is subjective. When someone challenges you to a debate, your first step should be to change the question; otherwise you’re probably going to lose. This idea is not new — George Orwell wrote about it 58 years ago, in his novel titled “Nineteen Eighty Four,” which I recommend highly. But Lakoff has brought this idea up to date and analyzed it in depth. In fact, his later work, Whose Freedom?, is an entire book analyzing how conservatives are trying to change the word “freedom.”

You might think expect both sides, conservative and progressive, would be equally guilty of twisting the language. But actually the conservatives do it far more, for a couple of reasons: they’ve invested more money on think tanks, and some of the conservatives feel it’s okay to lie. We need to counter their lies with the truth.

In conclusion: Lakoff and Waldman have both written about the progressive vision, and how we need to communicate the progressive message. Nell and I have found their writing to be very inspiring, and so we want to use it to begin a discussion group.