Why Conservatives Think the Way They Do

Just finished reading "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think" by George Lakoff. Wow. Recommended reading to EVERYONE. (Although a bit dry in parts.) I was always very confused about why conservatives think the way they do. This book explains that conservatives follow the "Strict Parent" morality, and what that is. It also has some really good bits in the back about what progressives need to do to reframe the debates, and how we need to start talking about issues. It's great!

Anyone else who's read it, please feel free to chime in ... we could get sort of a mini book discussion going, maybe?

human nature is fundamentally evil

Democrats / fundamentally good

Anything about that in there?

how about, fundamentaly bad but with a capacity to improve.

Are the bully, abusive "parent",sociopath,rigid,control freak,projection,exploit and get away with it,morally relativistic while claming moral absolutes,hypocrite,criminal party.
Thiey all have the same sorts of predictable personality flaws.
(See the book True Believers)

Projection,hypocraisy,crime, self deception, black or white thinking,narcissism,insecurity,control issues,morbid jealosy and greed, thought rigidity,fear of differences,hostility to change/differences,elitism,bullying,unwillingness to negotiate with others and agree to dissagree or comprimise,will not get along with others or behave in a fair,open or honest way with others..
These kinds of people with thier problems create wars when they get power.They are not about anything but blind ambition for thier own and thier kind's dominance.

Republicans especially neo-cons all have similar personality disorder profiles similar conduct disorders..that make them incompatible with others.
Narcissism,sociopaths and abuser/conduct disorders ARE a danger to humankind,This mask of normalicy is truly a threat to our continuing existance as a species.WE need to detect it,and find a cure if it can't be cure contain it.We can't keep to electing these types of personalities as normal,charismatic,sane and confident they appear on the surface to power. Holding a position of power truly requires some internal uncertainty about your own decisions,a true deeply felt empathy for others different than you are,a desire to give,listen and help,and a hesitantcy before committing a nation to action.
Bush has NONE of these traits.

Lakoff would say that this fits into the common liberal fallacy, that of 'demonizing' conservatives. (He says that conservatives also do the same thing to libs by the way).

"Third, the conspiracy theory does not explain why conservative rhetoric can make sense to so many people who did not previously vote conservative. It does not explain why such people did not simply experience cognitive disoonance and disbelief when they heard the campaign rhetoric." (p. 147)

Lakoff is trying to analyze the Repub mindset from a cognitive science point of view... I tend to also think it is more useful to try to understand the mindset of the big percentage of the electorate that votes Repub, rather than demonize them, and that's what the book is about.

I wasn't intending demonization.
Some people are into bullying and enjoy doing it,for some reason others don't.
But it's more complex than that,sometimes the way a culture is it brings out bad traits.Sometimes people are at rough spots in their lives..And they can act like a bully because of it I agree.
BUT

There are people out there who take it all to another level,where it is an integral part of their psychological make up,a way of perceiving others that does not fade when circumstances that provoke such atrocities out of them pass.Some people really do prefer lying over speaking to someone else honestly,They enjoy bullying over hashing out a compromise,They habitually get off or find security by being a control freak or tearing someone apart.They have a conduct disorder and empathy issues and can fake looking;normal' or even appear popular,confident,sure or charismatic..

Why certain people have these problems worse than others do I'll never know, but whether you try to get along,with them as they screw you,or you get frustrated and fight back in a 'gentler way' that handicaps you by moral absolutes ,it does not do much to get at the root of it because of this thing inside them prevents insight, that is this lack of feelings,this difference in their understanding of what hurts others ,this self absorption and tendency to abuse and take advantage..it is a problem for all of humanity,not just the people on the right,all I am saying is the right has a disproportionately higher amount of people in their parties displaying these same kinds of personalities that show bad social conduct,a rigidity,emotional deadness and this 'cultivation' of a normal appearance .Often they show a bit of charisma or domination among other symptoms..

Calling attention to a repeating pattern of conduct in a group of powerful people's behaviors or flaws in persona's is important especially while they control all branches of Govt.This isn't scapegoating. I see similarities between people who can let themselves give up control long enough to get along with others who are different and those who refuse to. There are certain beliefs and personality disorders people sometimes display that are incompatible with peace fairness or democracy when these people control nations or companies or even sometimes families.It can be temporary or a permanent condition..Either way it causes problems for people who are not like that.One bully who is in control and not checked on his conduct can upset and abuse an entire school of non-bullies if they are intimidated or encouraged to be bystanders when abuse happens to others.
In reality I am noting the remarkable similarity in the personalities and people with problems who tend to espouse certain types of beliefs that gravitate to power and abuse that power and I wonder is there a correlation....?I think so. This isn't demonization.

By the way while bullies in the White house demonize us, we spend our time trying to convince them to change ,all nicely.All this does is demonstrate to them that they won't need to change.Meanwhile more people get hurt who have done nothing to deserve it and again culturally we tweak avoiding to finger the murderer in the room, we go into denial or worse blame the victims and ignore the problems of the heart that enable corruption and abuse.
Why not observe or look at the outward conduct of others and see how it all plays out in their interpersonal ethics and public policy and in how they handle power?

Saying no to someone else's requests is making a limit and that is necessary to do to others sometimes to preserve your own integrity..Sometimes you gotta put your foot down and it can make others tweak it can upset bullies or manipulators to find they won't get away with it.Limits are vital because some things people can do,say or believe really can make freedom,democracy,peace and justice impossible for everyone else under certain circumstances and that is NOT OK..


As tragic as the life of a tyrant must be like for the tyrant who wants or needs it because of the way he is, it is a problem for me,Tyranny is a BIG problem to everyone who is not a tyrant or desiring to be one or live under one..It's scary when that type of personality is so easily given power because he can convince..Than because he is made more dangerous by position, power and the clever misuse of public trust and false image he can fall into being a dictator incompatible with democracy in a social situation unless he is limited somehow.

Some people use their freedom to remove other's freedoms,who are not harming others. Some people use freedom as a license to abuse manipulate,lie and steal.. And this abuse of freedom,trust and power that is hurting America now may be partly because of certain person's disorders.Sad,that a person can be allowed to become so dangerous when we all have to share space and resources on a finite planet.
It's not anyone's fault,but it becomes our problem when we do not say no to people demonstrating certain disorders of conduct or character when it comes to seeking power.

That the population is always split between those who believe in humanity's ability to do good, and those who think it's essentially evil and must be controlled by a strong authority figure.

but came across this little gem:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:

1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.

2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests.

In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

--Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824.

re: Repubs believe that human nature is essentially evil, Dems that it is essentially good.

Quotes:

"The Strict Father model presupposes a folk theory of human nature that I will call "folk behaviorism": People, tend to their own devices, tend simply to satisfy their desires. But, people will make themselves do things they don't want to do in order to get rewards; they will refrain from doing things they do want to do in order to avoid punishment." (p. 67)

...

"The Nurturant Parent model: The obedience of children comes out of their love and respect for their parents, not out of the fear of punishment." (p. 109)

The reason why these two parenting ideals apply to liberal and conservative schools of thought is that we have all, in some sense, bought into the metaphor of "nation as family" and that the political discourse of our nation is in some sense an extension of our respective family values. (That bit by me, not from the book.)

It is well-known that American fundamentalists (such as those who believe that evolution is a great evil) lean strongly toward the right-wing Republican side.

In addition, fundamentalists treat the Bible as a puzzle book to extract "prophecies" about what is to happen in the Middle East. As a result, they tend to have a strongly pro-Israel stance, no matter what crimes have been committed against the Palestinians.

The Middle East problem has to be solved, but fundamentalists can't do it.

It has been suggested that it is not necessary for the government to preserve the environment, since the Second Coming will occur soon; so environmental damage won't matter.

Does the book cover this kind of thinking?

Along these lines, there is an excellent series from the University of Chicago under the general title "The Fundamentalism Project"; you can find it on Amazon.com. The series covers not just Christian fundamentalism, but also Jewish fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and Hindu fundamentalism.

That series looks good, I'll have to add it to the list! :)

Yes, the Lakoff book has a whole chapter about "Two Models of Christianity." His basic point is that Fundies interpret the Bible according to a Strict Father model and that more progressive Christians choose the Nurturing Parent model. He starts the chapter off like this:

"There are those who claim that their politics is simply a matter of following what the Bible literally says. This assumes that there is such a thing as a literal interpretation of the Bible. Indeed, whole branches of Christianity are based on such a claim, but is straightforwardly a false claim. Nobody believes that 'The Lord is my shepherd' is said literally by a sheep that has fleece and eats grass. Nobody believes that 'Our Father who art in heaven' is literally daddy. Virtually every page of the Bible is filled with passages that can only be, and always are, interpreted metaphorically." (p. 245)

and it goes on from there. Not so much a look into Fundamentalism as a look into how it fits in with the Strict Parent model.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Could you please give some more details? Especially things about what we need to do to reframe debates on certain issues?

I'll summarize some of the Afterword, because it's the best part as far as "What To Do"

- He points out that we need to better fund liberal think tanks and support liberal intellectuals. He says that we tend not to do this, because we want money to go directly to people who need help (the poor, etc). But that we should, because the Repubs are outspending us FOUR to ONE on funding think tanks, and that these think tanks are where progressive and strategic long term ideas for the future will come from.

- Here's a good bit: "There is Black Pride and Gay Pride, but no Liberal Pride or Progressive Pride. It's about time liberals got some. Liberals have a moral system.... It is organized not around adherence to specific rules but around a higher principle: Help, don't harm! It is an ethics of care, cetntering around empathy together with responsibility, both for oneself and others... Conservatives have taken the term "moral" for themselves and liberals have let them keep it! It is time to take it back. "Morality" is a powerful idea. Our greatest leaders have been moral leaders. The great issues are not policy issues but moral issues. Wonderful words and expressions like freedom, liberty, integrity, the rule of law, and the american way of life have come to have a conservative connotation. Right now conservatives own these words and it is time to take them back, to give them proper meanings again within Nurturant morality." (pp. 418-419)

more shortly...

Here's a good example of reframing:

"The Bush administration in its first months framed environmentalism as the Problem in the Energy Crisis. This frame needs to be turned upside down. Energy is a matter of ecology." (p. 422)

I had to think about that for a minute. He's putting the emphasis on the *ecology* first, not the *energy*."

More: "Energy is a part of a system, an ecological system. Energy is not an isolated issue. It is a health issue: the purity of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat are all Health issues. How air smells and water tastes are quality of life issues." (p. 422)

He finishes this bit with: "When progressives look closely at their own moral system -- at the source of all their political, social, interpersonal, and even religious values -- then the right way to frame the issues of the day becomes clearer." (p. 423)

Hopefully, I can find it. We only have Hastings near here and they don't have too much of the political stuff. We had to go 50 miles to get Michael Moore's book and the "Bushwhacked" book.

I haven't read it but I'll no doubt pick it up. One thing I've noticed about my father and I is that we have completely opposing views of the world. I realized it when I was into showing horses. My reason for doing it was because it was fun, because I was hanging around with a bunch of like minded people and because it felt very satisfying when my horse and I got it together and performed well.

For my father, however, it was all about winning. When I won a fifth place ribbon in one trail class, I was extremely pleased - my horse had never been good at those classes, it was a large field and I was proud of our effort. My dad's comment? "If you practice more, maybe you'll win next time." Turned me right off.

Bottom line, for him what matters is being on top, having more money, more toys, more influence, more power, more whatever.

For me, it's about fairness. I don't want my comfort to come at the expense of someone else. I want everyone to have a shot.

And I think that's the difference.

But if you notice one worldveiw is about winning.

The other isn't

Winners think they are entitled to take all unless you decide to not play thier game or abide by thier 'rules'and intead turnm it around and hold them to a ethic of fairness by making sure they don't win it all..
Or you can say no to the control mindset and refuse to give dominators what they think they are entitled to,and punch holes in thier projections and assumptions until the cows come home.Maybe they'll change maybe they won't.

But either way there is a lot at stake,with 'winner' types in the white house forcing us into thier games and this world is in alot of turmoil and it's ecosystem is fragile and there is finate resources and people keep on having kids and driving SUV's ect..Ego Ego Ego...because the winners win by making profit off the rest of us,who are half going along with that self destructive game of thiers.And if we decide to seperate from winners and thier 'system' they are not satified with that.No they want to wipe out rivals even when they are not rivals. ,they want to conquer at any cost.So they want our submission ,differences,and obedience they want us to serve the winner..because we are the spoils they assume they are entitled to if they win thier sick zero sum game.

Some see things as domination /submission,you are one or the other.There is nothing but your "team" and the "enemy".

Some don't see relationships with others like that at all.
They can co-exist,democratically easier.

A Democrat or a Republican

But he tried to write the first part of the book from an objective scientific standpoint, an investigation into why Conservatives think what they do. Then he ends it with the progressive bits.

"The process of thinking all this through has convinced me that there are overwhelming reasons to be a liberal that come from outside liberalism itself.... What I have found, in the course of this study, is that there are in fact good reasons for choosing the Nurturant Parent model of the family, Nurturant Parent morality, and with them, liberal politics."

And later: "If I were to be asked to list those reasons and the bases for them very briefly at the outset, each in one or two sentences, here is what that list would be."

Reason 1. The Nurturant Parent model is superior as a method of childrearing.
Reason 2. Strict Father morality requires a view of human thought that is at odds with what we know about the way the mind works.
Reason 3. Strict Father morality often finds morality in harm; Nurturant Parent morality does not." (p. 337)

a liberal telling me how a conservative thinks and I don't want a conservative telling me how a liberal thinks. What the hell is the matter with you people.

This is the site that doesn't take any factual info if the source is a suspected conservative sympathizer. So why would it not work both ways?

I am getting concerned.

a cognitive linguist who is trying to take a scientific approach to metaphor and language that both sides use to make sense of politics. The subtitle of the book is "How Liberals And Conservatives Think." All I'm interested in doing is talking about the book. It's worth talking about. . Have you read it? Why don't you go check out the Lakoff article or the Amazon.com reviews?

With that said I respond with it is not going to be a fair interpretation. Liberals are biased for liberals and Conservatives are biased for Conservatives. Dude.

... would be, what? Political eunuchs?

Joe Lieberman, maybe?

Sort of like excluding male writers from writing female characters...

and doesnt hide it too well

Understanding the difference is a useful tool in a political/philosophical debate/discussion. :D

Liberals and Conservatives can have the same goals but have different ways of reaching them. Democrats and Republicans of today seem to have wildly different goals. And understanding the "other" side is a first step in either working with them or defeating them, which ever seems indicated by current circumstances.

Lakoff may be a liberal, but not necessarily a Democrat. And a conservative probably would not be interested in this kind of nurturing, introspective research. And bias does not always preclude understanding.

:eyes:

They want tax cuts - money is the overiding theme of the conservative movement - that's why Guliani can be in the same party as DeLay. No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig at the end of the day . . . it is still a pig.

They are inconsistent! That is what the book points out. They SAY they are for smaller government, but then they go and fund the military out the wazoo. They SAY they want less government programs but then they go and advocate for putting kids in *orphanages* (this is a Rush thing. Both of those contradictions make sense if you tie it in with the Strict Father model. The military of course is the embodiment of the Strict Father... and the orphanage thing would of course be a nice strict orphanage to inculcate the Strict Father values.

It's really not all Pubs who believe in the "movement" this admin. is promoting. There really are lots of Pubs who think that pre-emptive war is insane, the run away deficit is just crazy, and really don't want the constitution cluttered up with anti gay amendments etc. I've heard many of them on c-span. Some were callers, some were public figures. There's a relatively small group of neo-cons who are very vocal, and very good at getting heard, so it seems like there's more of them than there really are.

So far, it sounds like all of them will still vote for shrub because they are simply unable to vote for a dem., but if Iraq gets worse, the market doesn't do consistently better, or dems are more vocal about shrubco looking to invade MORE counties to further their "empire", it sounds to me like they'll just stay home on Nov.2nd.

Another book that points this out is Buchanan's book "How the Right went wrong". He was on Washington Journal this morning. Even the host said to him after the calls, "I bet you weren't prepared for a love fest for the last 45 minutes."

And Rove is trying to drive up the base & get millions of Fundies out to vote, because he knows they will lose some traditional Repubs.
They will either stay home, vote Libertarian or Constitution Party, & a few just may vote for Kerry.

here about a conservative philosopher from the 40s that has some more on conservative thinking that you might find interesting to contrast with that book; I'd be interested to hear your take on it. He was a contemporary and associate of Leo Strauss'.

Wow, that's an interesting article. "Schmitt argued that liberals, properly speaking, can never be political. Liberals tend to be optimistic about human nature, whereas "all genuine political theories presuppose man to be evil." and "Liberals think of politics as a means; conservatives as an end." and: "Still, if Schmitt is right, conservatives win nearly all of their political battles with liberals because they are the only force in America that is truly political. From the 2000 presidential election to Congressional redistricting in Texas to the methods used to pass Medicare reform, conservatives like Tom DeLay and Karl Rove have indeed triumphed because they have left the impression that nothing will stop them. Liberals cannot do that. There is, for liberals, always something as important, if not more important, than victory, whether it be procedural integrity, historical precedent, or consequences for future generations."

Guess we're back to that again, the whole good/evil thing. I think that gets into something that the Lakoff book would account for by saying that under the Strict Father model, the main priority of the father is to protect the family. If you look at the nation-as-family metaphor, those who are dissenters and "bad children," i.e. liberals, can be attacked because they are seen as threats to the community. Whereas, liberals, being part of the Nurturant Parent tradition, believe that even the "bad children" i.e. those who don't agree with them, can be talked to, reasoned with, and appealed to.

Couldn't find a quote from the Lakoff book here so my interpretation may be off, I'm just guessing.

in deciding to read the book. I've found that article to be a real watershed for all kinds of different understandings of why conservatives do the things they do. It really opened my eyes.

Quote:

"Presidential candidate Howard Dean made "Moral Politics" required reading for his campaign staff, more than 200 advocacy groups called for Lakoff's advice, the Democratic senators invited him twice to their policy retreats, and he began getting calls from progressive groups around the country. The Rockridge Institute, the progressive think tank he cofounded with seven other UC professors to reframe public debate, began buzzing with activity. In response to demand, Lakoff set aside his linguistic research for intense — and in many ways more challenging — study of the application of linguistics and cognitive science to politics."

Oooee, check out the book:
http://www.chelseagreen.com/2004/items/elephant

I may buy one for every candidate I know.

Self-indulgence is the Republican way. That's not strict at all. Ignoring the responsibility of a citizen of the country and world is not strict -- it is self-indulgent. Engaging in moral absolutism on abortion rights is self-indulgent. Restricting the rights of others is self-indulgent.

Allowing corporations to run rampant and redistribute American wealth and jobs overseas is not strict. It is spoiling the corporations. The corporations with their lavish political "investments" are being self-indulgent. The ones who move their corporate headquarters to the Caymans for tax purposes are being self-indulgent.

Republicans spoil their kids and themselves. They are not in any way better than liberals. Liberals teach moral limits, the overratedness and responsibility of wealth, concern for the future. Republicans say to hell with all of that nuance, to hell with the land, to hell with the future. They are engaging in a fatted, self-indulgent orgy. A temper tantrum. A fear spasm.

As a party, Republicans behave like little children. And a little child leads them. Bush wears his cowboy hat, but he is a little boy playing cowboy.

Republicans are defrauding themselves. They have nothing to be proud of. They are not holding the line on morals. Has pop culture become more virtuous since the ex-alchoholics took over?

I am a "c"onservative. It means i believe that less government is
more, and that we should only wage war at the absolute necessity
(in self defense), and that the empowered citizen is far more
capable of solving the worlds problems than government is.

A "c"onservative is against the drugs war, doesn't care about
abortion, believes the government has no place legislating religion,
is totally against war and war making, and believes in peaceful
society.

This is in contrast to the neo-conservative which has no realtionship
whatsoever to the "c" word. As much as the words blur together,
i can't help but notice that in my libertarian liberal heart, there
is a very strong "c"onservative pulse.

Thanks for the recommendation though. Checked our city library's online catalogue and they have a copy. I'll have to check this out, it sounds interesting.

I watched all of the RNC with an open mind and couldn't understand why anybody would believe/want some of the promises that were being made...

Maybe this book will help me understand why conservatives are whack jobs?

Here's the TOC from his next book:

http://www.chelseagreen.com/2004/items/elephant

Preface: Reframing Is Social Change / xv
Part I: Theory and Application
Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse
2. Enter the Terminator! / 35
3. What’s in a Word? Plenty, if It’s Marriage / 46
4. Metaphors of Terror / 52
5. Metaphors that Kill / 69
6. Betrayal of Trust: Beyond Lying / 75
Part II: From Theory to Action
7. What the Right Wing Wants / 81
8. What Unites Progressives / 89
9. FAQ / 96
10. How to Respond to Conservatives / 111

That may be worth the read.

Thanks for posting this. He was interviewed by Janeane Garofalo, who did a terrible job -- she wouldn't let him make his points.

I remember making a mental note at the time to try to get his book from the library -- a mental note that I quickly lost. Now I'm third in line to get it from my local library.

I'm glad I saw this thread -- thanks again.

I am in Chap. 3. Would love to discuss.

What did you think about the distinction in Chap. 1, between political philosophies as they are espoused by political thinkers, vs. looking at what actual politicians with those philosophies do in popular culture? I thought it was brilliant. Like the difference between starting with Plato's Forms and the "idea" of "chair-ness" vs. the actual reality of all of the possible REAL chairs in the world... and what looking at each one of those chairs MEAN.

Am I making any sense? :)

From downloaded sample pages here: http://www.chelseagreen.com/2004/items/elephant

The conservatives don’t have to win on issue after issue after issue. There is a lot you can do about it. Here are eleven things progressives can do.

First, recognize what conservatives have done right and where progressives have missed the boat. It is more than just control of the media, though that is far from trivial. What they have done right is to successfully frame the issues from their perspective. Acknowledge their successes and our failures.

Second, remember “Don’t think of an elephant.” If you keep their language and their framing and just argue against it, you lose because you are reinforcing their frame.

Third, the truth alone will not set you free. Just speaking truth to power doesn’t work. You need to frame the truths effectively from your perspective.

Fourth, you need to speak from your moral perspective at all times. Progressive policies follow from progressive values. Get clear on your values and use the language of values. Drop the language of policy wonks.

Fifth, understand where conservatives are coming from. Get their strict father morality and its consequences clear. Know what you are arguing against. Be able to explain why they believe what they believe. Try to predict what they will say.

Sixth, think strategically, across issue areas. Think in terms of large moral goals, not in terms of programs for their own sake.

Seventh, think about the consequences of proposals. Form progressive slippery slope initiatives.

Eighth, remember that voters vote their identity and their values, which need not coincide with their self-interest.

Ninth, unite! And cooperate! Here’s how: Remember the six modes of progressive thought: (1) socioeconomic, (2) identity politics, (3) environmentalist, (4) civil libertarian, (5) spiritual, and (6) antiauthoritarian. Notice which of these modes of thought you use most often—where you fall on the spectrum and where the people you talk to fall on the spectrum. Then rise above your own mode of thought and start thinking and talking from shared progressive values.

Tenth, be proactive, not reactive. Play offense, not defense. Practice reframing, every day, on every issue. Don’t just say what you believe. Use your frames, not their frames. Use them because they fit the values you believe in.

Eleventh, speak to the progressive base in order to activate the nurturant model of “swing voters.” Don’t move to the right. Rightward movement hurts in two ways. It alienates the progressive base and it helps conservatives by activating their model in swing voters.

his wife (?) Robin Lakoff wrote a major linguistic book on women's language (in the 70s I think)