There's another thinker who I've been seeing a lot of lately who comes at the same "tabloid soul" thing from another direction: George Lakoff, a Berkeley linguist and founder of the Rockridge Institute thinktank.
His big thing is framing, how conservatives win hearts and minds by setting up the terms of debate (in the literal sense, as terminology), and about worldview, in the sense of what kind of authority liberals like and what kind conservatives like.
From the above-linked interview:
On framing:
Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.
If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" — something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves.
On authority:
Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.
There's also a lot more he touches on in that interview -- why the strict-parent model leads to better language use (more aggressive fundings for thinktanks to come up with ways of talking about things, rather than for "causes"), why Joe Lieberman's an idiot, and plenty more.
He's worth watching -- if you hadn't heard of him already, you'll be seeing more around, I bet. |
). Then I read an article (by Mike Moore)suggesting Oprah run for President, and my gf tells me aout some of the better picks on Oprah's Book of the Month Club. I realize that you could give me the cash equivalent of the US GDP, and control over 3 TV networks, and I'd be lucky if I could get even one person to read a Philip K. Dick book. Hell, a Harry Potter book, for that matter. So she's gotta be doing something right, and I'm reading this thread to figure out what that is. (Not that I'm a born-again daytime TV convert, praise Maury).