Political arguments are about moral values. At bottom they are about right and wrong, not true and false. So you cannot argue politics the same way you argue science, mathematics or even history.
Republicans in America understand this. Democrats do not. Democrats make it about facts and assume that their moral values – like helping the poor – are universal. When Democrats point out the lies on Fox News they are missing the point.
The bad news is that moral thinking and therefore political thinking is rooted in childhood and one’s upbringing. It is bound up with how people feel about themselves. In very rough terms, people with strict fathers tend to be right-wing, those with more loving parents tend to be left-wing.
The good news is that most people are morally complex. They are neither hard left nor hard right. Most can think in left-wing ways and right-wing ways and be reached by arguments from either side.
American left and right:
- The right thinks in terms of authority, rules, punishment, freedom, individualism. That government is best which governs least. Individuals should be as free as possible to pursue their own self-interest. Every man for himself. Sink or swim. Equality is for crybabies and losers.
- The left sees the country as a huge family where we all help each other – because we are all in it together. No one makes it all on their own. Public goods are good – like public schooling and universal healthcare. Equality of opportunity is important.
Framing is huge. The words you use and what is assumed by how you put things affects how people see the debate. Framing affects even judges on the Supreme Court. For example, calling abortion a right to privacy or healthcare a service to buy has profoundly affected how laws have been written, passed and judged.
Therefore:
- Do not repeat what your opponents say. It repeats their framing and strengthens it in people’s minds. It is free advertising.
- Say what you are for. Push your message in moral terms in your own language. Frame the issue. Repeat your message over and over to strengthen it in people’s minds.
- Use facts to confirm your message - not to disprove your opponent’s. Facts can only strengthen a frame, not break one.
- Do not hold back on why you are for something. Whatever moved you will move others. It was probably not some dry fact you read in a book. That is why:
- Anecdotes and people’s stories matter. While they prove nothing in science, in politics they matter – because politics is about people.
- Use simple language. Cat, not animal. Sky, land or water, not “the environment”. The more that people can picture what you say, the more it will affect them. The simpler your words, the easier your message will be processed and stick.
- Contested concepts: Freedom, equality and justice are wonderful things but they mean different things to the left and right.
Source: This post is mostly based on “The Little Blue Book” (2012) by George Lakoff and Elizabeth Wehling, written for Democrats. That link goes not to Amazon but to the book’s blog.
See also:
Your assessment depresses me. 6000 years of civilization and 300 years of democracy, and still the only thing that will move people is appeals of emotion and Orwellian doublespeak. It’s like people are begging to have their minds taken away.
Thank you for this information. I’m saving this and will try to implement some of the valuable pointers when involved in political discussions.
^ Hold the phone just a second. This is one of Abagonds’s enigmatic posts. You don’t know if he’s an advocate for the ideas presented or just holding the ideas up to the light of day and having a look at them.
This post is mostly based on “The Little Blue Book” (2012) by George Lakoff and Elizabeth Wehling, written for Democrats.
The post is (mainly) based on a book of Democratic party strategy.
Seeing how I’m not very astute when it comes to politics,This information is very helpful. I was trying to google information about what is the left wing and what is the right wing. Thank you very much.
@ Legion,
Sorry i missed the part where you introduced yourself. Yet you address Abagond and I as if you have. Do mind doing us the courtesy or are you going to just throw passive aggressive and mistaken daggers at us?
And can I ask you the image and significance/meaning of your avatar?
@ Legion
I know he doesn’t necessarily endorse this post. Nonetheless, I find the premise disturbing. What really depresses me is that Wehling is correct, at least when it comes to energizing an electorate. But no matter how depressing it is, what works is what works so I’ll commit a small evil for a greater good: the use of political witchcraft to mold right-leaning citizens into zealots that are certain that a third of their fellow countrymen are bent on destroying the country is destabilizing, dangerous, and amoral. America doesn’t need two parties dabbling in the dark arts.
This is pure public relations, and public relations is the contemporary word for propaganda.
America has 2 parties?
WHAT?
You don’t mean that ONE big party masquerading as TWO different parties?
@ Abagond,
Nice post! It definitely opened my eyes on a number of things.
To add, I would also say that Conservatives have a very pessimistic point of view about the state of our world; and the nature of woman/man.
I would say that Liberals have an optimistic point of view about the world (there’s bad stuff in it, but the world isn’t defined by bad stuff; the nature of woman/man is innately good. There are people who are encumbered and do bad things but these examples are largely a result of one’s uncontrollable factors like genetics and environment. If given the chance, people can become better.
@ Legion, @ Eco, and maybe even @ Tyrone,
Republicans are really starting to fear this election, aren’t they?
Please note this article is not an honest assessment of the political left or right but a leftist interpretation giving the left the benefit of the doubt.
@BadWolf:
Did you type that with a gin on your face?
I mean grin?
Abagond,
I don’t know if anyone made a similar observation, but if political arguments are about morals, then they are severely warped in favor of the rich and conservative. Case in point, this country bailed out the banks and their CEO’s the contributor to the economic crisis. Why should they get help and not the people they’ve screwed? See what I mean?
The conservative idealogy of Republicans turns morality inside out to where logic is far from consideration. Democrats and liberals, on the other hand, use logic too much and not associate it with morality most of the time. Democrats talk a good game, but in the end, that’s all that there is, talk for the most part.
In conclusion both parties favor and support those who have the means to help themselves. The losers are always those at the bottom of the socioeconomic system.
@ brothawolf
“If political arguments are about morals, then they are severely warped in favor of the rich and conservative.”
Exactly.
Strict fathers are feared fathers.
The uses of fear and fear-mongering seems to be missing in the list.
Fear is a traditional and essential tool of manipulation in political arguments.
[...] Political arguments are about moral values. At bottom they are about right and wrong, not true and false. So you cannot argue politics the same way you argue science, mathematics or even history. … American left and right: The right thinks in terms of authority, rules, punishment, freedom, individualism. That government is best which governs least. Individuals should be as free as possible to pursue their own self-interest. Every man for himself. Sink or swim. Equality is for crybabies and losers. The left sees the country as a huge family where we all help each other – because we are all in it together. No one makes it all on their own. Public goods are good – like public schooling and universal healthcare. Equality of opportunity is important. Framing is huge. The words you use and what is assumed by how you put things affects how people see the debate. Framing affects even judges on the Supreme Court. For example, calling abortion a right to privacy or healthcare a service to buy has profoundly affected how laws have been written, passed and judged. Therefore: 1. Do not repeat what your opponents say. It repeats their framing and strengthens it in people’s minds. It is free advertising. 2. Say what you are for. Push your message in moral terms in your own language. Frame the issue. Repeat your message over and over to strengthen it in people’s minds. 3. Use facts to confirm your message – not to disprove your opponent’s. Facts can only strengthen a frame, not break one. 4. Do not hold back on why you are for something. Whatever moved you will move others. It was probably not some dry fact you read in a book. That is why: 5. Anecdotes and people’s stories matter. While they prove nothing in science, in politics they matter – because politics is about people. 6. Use simple language. Cat, not animal. Sky, land or water, not “the environment”. The more that people can picture what you say, the more it will affect them. The simpler your words, the easier your message will be processed and stick. 7. Contested concepts: Freedom, equality and justice are wonderful things but they mean different things to the left and right. [...]
[Regarding the right] “That government is best which governs least. Individuals should be as free as possible to pursue their own self-interest.”
Ah. Except, of course when it comes to abortion, gay marriage and immigration reform. So, by “individuals” I guess they mean quite a specific group of burdened white men….*eyeroll*
Dear Herneith,
No a sad sigh and a profound sense of apathy
No I’m just tired of people’s refusal to look in mirror and see when they have become what they despise
@brothawolf
I agree with much of what you’ve said except your last sentence about the losers of the system. The middle class loses too, as they subsidize the government’s expenses (the poor don’t pay as much and neither do the rich, as they divert their holdings offshore, etc) and are too rich to qualify for government aid for school, entitlements, etc, but too poor to eat the cost of health insurance and college on their own. It’s very unsustainable, especially as the wealthy continues to eat much of what was once earned by the middle class. It really looks like everyone (and the planet included) is going to get screwed by the wealthy in the end -_________-
This honestly describes why I’m starting to feel our current political system is unsalvageable. It’s grown into a game of semantics and stiff, warped “morals” where it’s close to impossible to actually accomplish anything meaningful, but extremely easy to have everything go down the tubes.
@ Siah
In an earlier draft of this post I had it this way:
But I took out the parenthetical part since Lakoff and Wehling never put it that way. But I agree that “individuals” in American political discourse almost always means rich, white male individuals. Republican positions on abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts, crime, civil rights, immigration, education, poverty, business regulation, etc, make it crystal clear that only the freedom of rich white straight men matters.
@ BadWolf
I did not hide the fact that this is a Democratic take on it. I made that clear.
@ Cabbage Initiative
Yup.
@ JT
Legion is SW6.
@ Legion
I wrote this post to throw this stuff out there. Whatever you make of it, you should know it is going on. If only to keep yourself from being brainwashed or overly affected by propaganda.
At the level of “what works” I think it is mostly right, unfortunately. I do agree with BadWolf, though, that it puts the Democrats in an overly good light.
At the level of what one should do, though, I do not agree with all of it. On the one hand as a blogger I do want to get my point across and be understood. On the other hand I am of the school of thought that the truth will set you free, so to me this post is more a warning than a guide. Like this one:
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/the-five-rules-of-racial-standing/
Since the 1980s the U.S. has been moving towards a stereotypical Latin American model:
- class structure: the super rich and everyone else
- economics: colony of world capitalism
- politics: nominal democracy where parties, at best, represent the rich, not the masses
The voter ID stuff shows that it has not quite reached that stage yet: if democracy were nominal, then voting would not matter, it would not be seen as threatening.
@Abagond
I almost asked if you watch LinkTv, too, lol
Here is Lakoff’s lecture on this same subject:
http://www.linktv.org/programs/george-lakoff-the-language-of-politics
I’m sure that the Republicans and Democrats would love to believe that they’re regarded as the standard bearers of liberal and conservative ideologies respectively, but a growing rump of people are recognizing the significant gulf between the stated ideals and what’s actually being offered.
Also, it’s interesting to observe when politicians from differing political ideologies are painted as being unequally concerned with the common welfare of the citizenry. How pandering and immature.
Sadly, such is the debasement of discourse that we come to demonize those with differing views as not just being misguided of method, but nefarious of purpose. Perhaps this is an inevitable aspect of the human condition.
“Since the 1980s the U.S. has been moving towards a stereotypical Latin American model”.
And very fast indeed. I also co-sign that assesment that the term “idividual” means in the orwellian language “rich white male” and would like to add that “freedom” in this double-talk does not mean any civil rights or human rights, or rights of ctizen at all. It means freedom for the big business and the rich, and servitude and submission of the majority for those.
What really turns my stomach around is the use of religion in US politics, as well as the demand for religious “moral values”. They are the worst kind of moralism in the world today, outside Iran and such countries of course. And by moralism I mean the way that some people claim religion as their own and make moralistic statements, which do not connect their real actions at all.
Abagond:
How telling that “strict” and “loving” are set up as opposites. As a somewhat “strict” parent myself, I’ve come to believe that one of the most loving things you can do for your children is to set expectations and boundaries.
Bulanik:
Perhaps this is reflective of your own experience, but I would disagree that it’s necessarily the case.
@ Randy.
“Strict fathers are feared fathers.”
No. It’s not reflective of my experience. Neither my father or grandfather were exactly strict. Especially with us girls
Aren’t children “careful” around a strict father? Why would they be, do you think? In my experience, children are “careful” because they fear upsetting their fathers.
Is a father who is strict, also stern and exacting, even forbidding as well?
And what I have also noticed is that any abusive parents I’ve seen and heard of are also strict ones.
Bulanik:
If you set boundaries for your children, then they do tend to be “careful” when transgressing those boundaries, but that doesn’t seem to like a compelling reason not to establish them.
What you’re describing seems to better fit the term “harsh” rather than “strict”. You can be strict but also gentle, thus the only fear that is generated is the fear and embarrassment of getting caught and receiving a lecture and a look of disappointment.
In my experience this can be a more powerful motivator than apprehension over corporal punishment.
@ Randy
Who says non-fearing inspiring fathers (especially of daughters) don’t have standards and high expectations of their children?
Do you believe corporal punishment is the only and “biggest stick” that children fear could from a strict (or even abusive) father, then, you I think you are mistaken..
Bulanik,
I’m making the distinction between the concepts of “strict” and “harsh”. These often seem to get conflated. A parent can be strict in terms of expectations of behavior but not harsh in how they discipline.
As you point out, “harsh” does not necessarily involve physical punishment.
One of my biggest frustrations is the bad influence that the children of overly permissive parents have on my own kids. People can talk about “love” all they want, but without discipline, children will tend towards poor outcomes, a preventable tragedy.
No doubt some type of similar paradigm maps to the political sphere.
Bulanik,
I agree with you and your understanding of “strict”. For me, “strict” has some very strong connotations. That the parent will withhold love, acceptance, support to manipulate their child. That strictness almost seems like a narcisstic love. Obviously, children need discipline from time to time. But forcing them to do something based on one’s own compulsion to seem them do it seems overly intrusive at best. And that for me is strict.
Lakoff and Wehling on the bad effects of strict father parenting on children:
Its effect on the country and the world:
Connect the dots:
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/how-to-become-white/
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/why-do-whites-hate-demonize-fear-or-look-down-on-blacks/
Abagond,
I think it’s probably useful to define what’s meant by the term “strict”. I utilize an approach which is apparently called “Authoritative Parenting”, described here: (http://psychology.about.com/od/childcare/f/authoritative-parenting.htm)
Characteristics of the Authoritative Parenting Style:
- Listen to their children
- Encourage independence
- Place limits, consequences and expectations on their children’s behavior
- Express warmth and nurturance
- Allow children to express opinions
- Encourage children to discuss options
- Administer fair and consistent discipline
I describe my style as being “strict” relative to the laxity I observe amongst many of my children’s peers.
“Authoritarian Parenting” (http://psychology.about.com/od/childcare/f/authoritarian-parenting.htm) is quite different, and is based primarily on unquestioning obedience.
@ Randy
I’m interested in what you mean by “the laxity” you’ve observed among other parents. What is “laxity”, precisely?
Do you mean a lax father will simply watch or even encourage his children to be violent to others, and to animals, to be rude, to be unclean, to play with fire, knives, etc., to permit anything and everything without thought or consequence or explanation?
I have seen negligent fathers, incompetent ones, and, yes, misinformed ones, but even among those whose parenting style was probably exceptionally relaxed by other standards, they were not mindless, deaf or blind to the benefit of their children, or the dangers in the world; they were still responsible.
I still think you need to be clearer about that definition.
Bulanik,
By “laxity” I mean characteristics such as the following:
- Not regulating food consumption and providing reasonably structured meals, mealtimes, bedtimes
- Not monitoring or regulating their children’s “screen time” and exposure to commercial media
- Allowing children to display a lack of common courtesy towards their parents or other adults without being corrected
- Allowing children to behave disruptively in public without correction
- Permitting children to act spoilt, entitled, and materialistic
- Lack of involvement in their children’s education, leaving kids unprepared for their grade level and thus requiring additional resources which impoverishes the other students
I loathe politics (and I could write for hours about it), but this is down to the good old Aristotle’s means of persuasion: ethos, logos and pathos.
Ethos – the mean of persuasion based on the credibility of the speaker.
Logos – the mean of persuasion based on reasons and facts.
Pathos – the mean of persuasion based on audience’s emotions.
Arguing based on logos (reason, facts) is always the most difficult one because you need to have straight, truthful facts. Those who argue based on ethos or pathos don’t have to have them, nor they have to speak the truth at all.
Also, the audience is quicker to believe those who play to their emotions or based on their character than those who play to the facts. Facts are boring and emotionless. Nobody cares about facts.
@ Mira,
Very interesting post.
Here’s a bit more on it:
http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html
I actually really like your non-racial posts a lot. Every word of this is right on the money… I really wish more people thought this way.
Somehow, I am hearing this:
if “poor outcomes” is an outgrowth of lax discipline, then:
societal dysfunction is the product of political permissiveness.
Authority then, is the culture of persuasion that operates in a family or community with settled and right-thinking rules and understandings. The alternative to that, is, let me see — the beginning of the end of civilization, or something which is not right at all.
I take Randy’s point about the use and necessity of fatherly discipline and consistency in a child’s upbringing.
However, since this is about political arguments, I’m concerned that permissive parents seem likened to radical democrats. In other words, people who believe that parents and kids should exercise equal power.
The Strict Father stands for order in the word of political argument, then radical egalitarianism is inferior, isn’t it?
I’m saying this because, AFAIK, radical democracy are about social movements (?) which attempt to create social and political change (freedom and equality) that challenges neo-liberal and neo-con concepts of democracy.
@Randy
I think one’s level of strictness isn’t determined solely by the number or types of boundaries, but also how those boundaries are enforced. Corporal Punishment vs. Time-Out, Raised Voices vs. Calm Assertiveness (cookie for the reference).
Bulanik:
I would agree, except that I’d qualify the statement to read more like, societal dysfunction tends to be a product of political permissiveness.
Bulanik:
You raise very interesting points. I see the paradigm as being not so much about issues of “equality”, but rather about the relationship between privileges and responsibility in a dependency situation.
It seems that a dependent invariably cedes some agency as part of an implicit or explicit contract with whomever is supporting them. In a healthy relationship, one would hope that incentives are structured to guide the dependent towards independence.
Absent of structure and imposed responsibility, dependents may not feel motivated to strive towards independence. One could imagine these scenarios in such cases of child rearing, banker bailouts, and programs for the poor.
Bulanik:
An argument could be made that the “more strict” father may in fact be ultimately more loving than the “more permissive” father because he believes that the child has a potential equal to his own, rather than being a seen as a permanent dependent who is simply incapable of ever developing to the point of independence.
As one cannot become independent without assuming responsibility, you could further claim that support without imposition of responsibility is actually a less egalitarian policy.
So which is better when it comes to parenting and politics, the strict approach or the permissive approach? I’d guess that it’s the more challenging “middle way” which likely produces the best outcomes.
D:
Good point.It’s easy to miss that distinction.
@abagond,
Republican positions on abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts, crime, civil rights, immigration, education, poverty, business regulation, etc, make it crystal clear that only the freedom of rich white straight men matters.
I agree, in some respects, but it’s not that simple. Many conservative issues are simply being mirrored back to the conservative base in a package that contains the conservative elites real aims of tax cuts and business deregulation. So, while opposition to abortion and gay rights and civil rights may not be their main aim, they pander to the morals of the conservative base, allowing them to be elected.
democrats all the way rebulicans come at me you will lose