The Cry for Democratic Moral Leadership and Effective Communication
Thursday 02 September 2010
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
(Photo: *_Abhi_*; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
If you have not read Drew Westin's outstanding piece "What Created the Populist Explosion and How Democrats Can Avoid the Shrapnel in November" on The Huffington Post, AlterNet, and other venues, read it immediately. Westin states as eloquently and forcefully as anyone what he, I, and other progressives have been saying from the beginning of the Obama administration. I agree fully with everything he says. But ...
Westin's piece is incomplete in crucial ways. His piece can be read as saying that this election is about kitchen table economics (right) and only kitchen table economics (wrong).
This election is about more than just jobs and mortgages and adequate health care. All politics is moral. All political leaders say to do what they propose because it is right. No political leaders say to do what they say because it is wrong. Morality is behind everything in politics - and progressives and conservatives have different moral systems.
In the conservative moral system, the highest value is preserving and extending the moral system itself. That is why they keep saying no to Obama's proposals, even voting against their own ideas when Obama accepts them. To give Obama any victory at all would be a blow to their moral system. Their moral system requires non-cooperation. That is a major thing the Obama administration has not understood.
The conservatives understand the centrality of morality. They attacked the Obama health care plan as immoral, violating the moral principles of freedom ("government takeover") and reverence for life ("death panels"). The Obama administration made a policy case, not a moral case. The conservatives have characterized the bailouts as thievery and Obama's ties to Wall Street as immoral - as being in bed with the thieves. The attacks on government are seen as moral attacks, with government seen as taking money out of working people's pockets and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Whether it is the birthers, or the anti-Muslims, or the anti-immigrants or the pro-lifers, the attack is a moral attack. The Tea Party cry is moral - for "freedom" (see my book "Whose Freedom?"), for God, for patriotism. Even jobless benefits are seen as giving money to people who are not working and don't deserve it. Even Social Security that workers have earned, that are deferred payments for work, are seen as undeserving people "sucking on the tits of the government."
The moral case is not answered just by good policy that will help people who need help - as Westin proposed. The good policies - extending unemployment benefits, help to small businesses, help for teachers and firemen, limits on credit card rates, restrictions on rate increases and service reductions by HMO's - in themselves fit a progressive moral system, but don't in themselves make a case for progressive moral leadership.
Why are so many people about to vote against their interests? The Republicans are not offering kitchen table benefits. When people are voting against their interests, more interest-based arguments don't help.
Westin's discussion of "the center" and of populism in general, misses what is crucial in this election. There is no one center. Instead, a considerable number of Americans (perhaps as many as 15 to 20 percent) are conservative in some respects and progressive in other respects. The have both moral systems and apply them to different issues - in all kinds of ways. You can be conservative on economics and progressive on social issues, or conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic issues and so on - in all sorts of combinations.
Neuroscience 101, which Westin correctly invokes, tells us that in the brains of such voters, the two incompatible systems inhibit each other, that strengthening one weakens the other and that the stronger one can have its influence spread to other issues. The "swing voters" are really "swing thinkers." And it is language - moral language, not policy language, heard over and over - that strengthens one political moral system over the other and determines how people vote. The Democrats need to reach the swing thinkers - the people who are moral conservatives on some issues and moral progressives on others - and strengthen their progressive moral views. The kitchen table arguments must become moral arguments as well - arguments about freedom, life, fairness and the most central of American values.
What are those values? They are the values that won the 2008 election for Barack Obama - and they were not just hope and change. Candidate Obama made the case that American is, and has always been, fundamentally about Americans caring about each other and acting responsibly on that care. Empathy, which he proclaimed over and over was the most important thing his mother taught him and is the basis of our form of government. Responsibility is both personal and social. "I am my brother's keeper," as he said over and over in the campaign. And thirdly, excellence - doing everything as well as we can, individually and as a nation. That is why we have life, freedom, fairness, equality - and quality - as fundamental values.
We haven't heard that kind of moral leadership since the inauguration. Americans are longing for it. And those moral values really do motivate every kitchen table policy!
It is morality, not just the right policy, that excites voters, that moves them to action, that creates movements. Legislative action must come from a moral center, with moral language repeated over and over.
What should be avoided, besides policy-wonk and pure-policy discourse? Again, the answer comes from Neuroscience 101. Offense not defense. Argue for your values. Frame all issues in terms of your values. Avoid their language, even in arguing against them. There is a reason that I wrote a book called, "Don't Think of an Elephant!" Don't list their arguments and argue against them using their language. It just activates their arguments in the brains of listeners.
Don't move to the right in your discourse or action. That will just strengthen the conservative moral system in the brains of swing thinkers. Frame your arguments from your moral position.
In addition, beware of the same pollsters and focus group dialers who missed Scott Brown's moral message to the swing thinkers in Massachusetts and claimed that Martha Coakley would win so handily that she could go on vacation. Just because a message plays well in focus group dialing doesn't mean it will win elections.
Finally, Democrats need a truly effective communication system. They need unified morally-based framing of issues. They need to train spokespeople all over the country in using such framing and avoiding mistakes. They need to organize those spokespeople. And they need to book them, as conservatives do, on radio, TV, in civic and religious groups, in schools and universities. This is doable, but this late, it will take resolve from the top.
Winning this election will require the right policies and actions, but it will also require moral leadership with honest, morally-based messaging and a communications that will not just blog and knock on doors, but will be there in the districts with the crucial swing thinkers 24/7 day and night.
The Democrats cannot take their base for granted. Only moral leadership backed by actions and communicated effectively can excite the Obama base once more. Without that excitement, the Democrats will lose big.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
The reason people like
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 09:53 — An (not verified)The reason people like myself are disillusioned by President Obama is because we were swayed by his oratory and scholarship, and did not question whether or not he could lead. As a president, he has fallen way short of expectations, because he doesn't lead. he doesn't buttonhole Congresspeople and Senators, to persuade them to vote his way. Cicero and Caesar were also great orators. But they also knew how to lead.
Lakoff is right, and if
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 10:37 — Brian (not verified)Lakoff is right, and if Democrats took his advice more seriously, I'm sure they would do better. But he too only sees part of what is going on. Morality is not just how you frame what you say, it is also how you behave, it's what you do. If this administration and this Democratic Congress treated their base with more respect, instead of putting them down whenever they disagree, there would be a lot more people on the other side excited about the election, helping the Democrats, and voting in November.
Swing voters don't get excited about elections and don't do the work to get the right people elected. That's what the base does, and when you don't respect your base, you'll never do well. The Republicans understand this and even take it too far, but it works so well they get elected almost no matter how much damage they do.
Obama and the mainstream Democrats have focused so strongly on the "swing" voters that It sometimes seems like the only moral value they hold dear is the ability to compromise their moral values. Some things, such as the future of life on this planet, are far too important to compromise away, yet that is what the Democrats do. How can someone who feels very strongly about the value of life work to support a party that acts as if life itself is optional and can be bargained away for votes?
I'm using the most important and clear example, but there are many more. If you are willing to give up your moral convictions in order to get elected, to get money from corporations, or to get votes, you are pretty immoral, and people who are moral will see you that way. Yes, the Republicans are worse because they have completely upside-down morals. But if there is no strong alternative to the deluded, the deluded will win.
More Mythology! Another of
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 10:49 — David (not verified)More Mythology! Another of the many articles that perpetuate the myth that the Democratic Party is somehow very different from the Republican Party and thus only needs to change its image and marketing so it wins. The obvious fact is that both major parties, obama, bush, etc., are owned and operated by multinational elites. Both major parties are funded by the same corporate $$$. They both vote for war, banker bailouts, earth rape. They both are in bed with corporations and war profiteers. The morality that neither party will ever promulgate is the one exposing how capitalism and consumerism are destroying the earth and human quality of life. All else is tripe.
Morally BANKRUPT;
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 11:13 — Vic Anderson (not verified)Morally BANKRUPT; DEM(iserepubilkans) 'em ALL. Take NO Incumbents!
Thursday, 09-02-2010 I love
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 12:17 — Peta_de_Aztlan (not verified)Thursday, 09-02-2010
I love Lakoff and he is right. Whether he be Left or Right. We should not compromise our basic inner principles, get lost on debating policies and forget that progressive humane people are on a higher moral ground that reactionary anti-progress people. We need to learn from whomever we can.
Great insight. Democrats
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 14:37 — LillithMc (not verified)Great insight. Democrats believe in a system that honors the common good. They assume we are able to have an intelligent electorate and representatives who can work together to accomplish common goals. This simply has not been true in my lifetime which began as an adult with the killings of the Kennedys, MLK, and others on the left. The wealthy right, the John Birch Society, the Koch Brothers, have pushed the US constantly to the right especially with their propaganda media and their purchase of our government. Obama is their patsy. They knew Bush 2 made a mess and they needed it to fall on someone they could blame. I still believe in democracy between peoples of like-minded goals and beliefs. But it is impossible to have "democracy" at the point of a gun with the system controlled and looted by oligarchs.
George, I can't believe you
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 14:42 — Liced-christ (not verified)George, I can't believe you are so fu@king stupid as to refer to Obama as a progressive. What kind of distorted and self-manufactured reality do you live in? Obama is a strict, right wing conservative, otherwise known as a Republican of the 70's and 80's.
"All political leaders say
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 15:19 — Liced-christ (not verified)"All political leaders say to do what they propose because it is right."
Wow, this is almost too dumb to be true. Really, our corporate hacked bunch of ass-kissing bought off & prostituted politicians actually sit down and examine their moral consciences each time they vote? REALLY?
George, you've got a blind spot as big as the Golden Gate Bridge. You are perhaps the most inaccurate voice on TruthOut because you don''t know the difference between a conservative and liberal. The difference is between an Obama and a McGovern. Got it? Obama is more to the right than Clinton ever was.
Wake the f$ck up, please.
I think calling Obama a
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 15:36 — CJS (not verified)I think calling Obama a "strict, right wing conservative" is a little mistaken - and in comparison to what he is it's actually a complement. He's actually an inconsistent opportunistic coward. At least right wing conservatives are able to accomplish something (as horrible as it may be).
Anyway name calling isn't going to help us here. Obama changes his message depending on the day - one day he's pro business, the next day he's anti business and so on. So you can only conclude from this that he's a fraud. More than anything I think his senseless compromising has destroyed his presidency. He had the choice of pleasing his base, running to the center, or running to the right - and he chose all of the above. The end result was a bunch of half measures that made everyone angry and accomplished nothing.
However I think the point of the referenced article and this article are right. People's sense of job security is always the #1 issue - other issues only take relevance when the employment situation is secure. Coming into a recession like this, he should have pulled out all of the stops and concentrated all of his efforts on the foreclosure and employment crisis. Some of this benefits from hindsight, but the stimulus as it was (too riddled with tax cuts and too small and unfocused) didn't accomplish enough, and health care reform turned out to at least seem to be a complete waste of time. By the time everyone turned their attention to the jobs situation, all of the Democrat's political capital was spent and the Republicans were rabid.
The moral side of the issue is relevant, but in some areas we should note that conservative and liberal moral systems come to the same conclusion - as in the need for full employment. Properly framed, a progressive jobs plan could have been well received by the general population, and Republicans who opposed it could be painted as obstructionists trying to stand in the way of economic recovery.
And this gets us to the crux of the problem - Democrats can't frame arguments. I don't understand why its so difficult - Dems seem to have it easier because they have the luxury of supporting policies that actually help working Americans, while Republicans have to make things up to make their destructive policies look appealing. Why is this so hard?
Many a Lie, Many a Theft,
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 16:07 — Anonymous (not verified)Many a Lie, Many a Theft, many a Murder.
1. Many a Lie, believed.
2.Many a Theft, not punished.
3.Many a Murder, called legitimate.
The Devil will lie to you, God will rob you of your Youth and in the end we die.
In the meantime politicians and preachers make money and count on making money so they do not have to hurt like the rest of us. Where is the Morality? "I have a Dream...!"
20:36 is wrong Democrats,
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 16:39 — Liced-christ (not verified)20:36 is wrong
Democrats, many of them trained at Ivy League universities or Ivy League quality institutions, DO KNOW HOW TO ARGUE AND DEBATE and especially how to use language in terms of FRAMING. FRAMING is NOT the issue. VALUES, present or absent, are and IS the issue, for God's Sake. Why is it so hard for Lakoff and his supportive buddies @ 20:36 to realize that the DEMOCRATS are fully responsible for what comes out of their mouths and what comes out is exactly the way they want it to come out. Their language reflects exactly what they mean and want to say. STOP MAKING EXCUSES for this BLUE DOG CONSERVATIVE PARTY of conservative REPUBLICANS, PLEASE!
It seems that the hard work
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 17:23 — Scott ffolliott (not verified)It seems that the hard work you suggest in this article and in your other writing has been ignored because it isn't a simple and easy solution. The Republicans have for more than a generation done the heavy lifting and spent countless millions on "think tanks" to enforce and reinforce their message so that left; right and center all speak the language of the right.
You are a man of courage, who seeks to bring democracy to America. Bravo!
@14:53 "The reason people
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 20:11 — Liced-christ (not verified)@14:53
"The reason people like myself are disillusioned by President Obama is because we were swayed by his oratory and scholarship, and did not question whether or not he could lead. As a president, he has fallen way short of expectations, because he doesn't lead.
Let's put our thinking cap on-14:53! Obama does indeed LEAD. He is championing, with his passionate rhetoric, some very unpopular - and disgusting violent and illegal - wars abroad. He also has chosen to lead the U.S.A away from responsible environmental positioning on the issue of global super-heating. Obama leads to the RIGHT. What buffoon cannot see this? He does not prosecute Bush's fixed elections and war crimes. You've got a monster in the White House, boys and girls, and it's about time you see it. Stop making lame theories like Mr. Lakoff, who's ability to become angry has been neutered with his own unique version of neurolinguistic programing. See what is, not what you wish, and all will be "well."
I've said it before
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 20:34 — Saje Williams (not verified)I've said it before myself... STOP using their terminology. By insisting on our own terminology, at least the media is forced to use it as well. Oppose what would be effective thought forms with ones of our own. Rather than trying to counter "death panels," refer to Insurance "bean counters" having the power of life and death. People respond to symbolism and analogy, which is why some of their obvious nonsense works as well as it does--though it shouldn't. Politics isn't about literalism. It's about conveying a message--and the Democrats have allowed the Republicans to beat them time and again.
On the other hand, if you continually ignore and dismiss your base, you're asking for trouble that no amount of framing will solve.
And one last thing, just so
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 20:54 — Liced-christ (not verified)And one last thing, just so those still "hoping" and "believing" cases can open their eyes and see Obama for who and what he is in(the context of) today's political spectrum. Obama uses - meticulously - the constant threat of the Boehner-style nutcase Republicans to get his own less extreme, conservative agenda through - this is how he baits the Left: "OKAY, HE OPENLY AND QUIETLY INSINUATES, IF YOU DON'T ELECT ME, JUST TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT"S WAITING IN THE DOCKS: SARAH PALIN." It's this mastery OF SUBTLE BUT GENUINE THREAT that will keep this compromising hypocrite in office in 2012; after all, he's proven himself to the conservatives of the Republican party that he hates his own Progressive Wing - the wing that can only bring the change required. What more could Republicans want? Even many Republicans loathe the thought of another George Bush in office; and here's where Obama comes in, wearing the Democratic Badge, then appointing either OUTRIGHT CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS or BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS to key committees. Then, the master manipulator brings out the fateful magic word: BIPARTISANSHIP! That's right, after 8 years of Republican misrule, Obama suggests that what has been going wrong the last two terms - before his - was that "bipartisanship" was lacking. If you cannot see through this bullshit screen of politically passive and manipulative language, then you are blind as a bat. He plays the image of the most extremist Republicans (which are most, if not all of them, I admit) to coerce this nation with a modified, but still EXTREMELY REPUBLICAN, agenda; an agenda filled with the same basic values as the extremist Republicans; market based solutions for social problems, etc....
@ 1:34 Please listen: Obama
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 21:01 — Liced-christ (not verified)@ 1:34
Please listen: Obama is using the terminology of his choice. It's not "their terminology." Everything he says is minutely crafted by centrist or right wing political thugs WHO HE"S CHOSEN to turn to for guidance. There is no "framing" issue. There's only an issue in following the money that buys each vote in the House and Senate. The President is a pathological liar and those that agree with his tactics and strategy, or those who maintain that Mr. Magna Cum Laude from Harvard just has a hard time knowing how to frame what he really feels and believes - into language - are living in some sort of hallucinatory wonderland. Ah, the joys of academia!
Progressives should play the
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 21:39 — Anonymous (not verified)Progressives should play the race card more. That way they can communicate that they are morally superior to their opponents. They should be calling every single conservative a racist all the time. Every third word out of a progressive's mouth should be "racist". Someone is pro-life? Must be racist. For small government? Racist! Anti-Jihad? Racist bigot! In favor of race-neutral hiring? Obviously racist!
Again, we're suffering from
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 23:01 — Saje Williams (not verified)Again, we're suffering from a misconception here. Treating Obama as "the same as Bush" ignores a basic reality. We're STILL better off than if McCain and Palin had have gotten into office. Pretending otherwise is just pure fiction.
And as for the last anonymous response... Gawd forbid we should call racists 'racist.' And as far as "for small government" goes, this just means you prefer having corporations run your life--which, as you may have noticed, doesn't exactly work out to the benefit of all. Unless you're a BP exec, anyway. Government should be, above all, responsive. And the primary reason ours isn't is because of yahoos like you who keep electing stone-stupid, self-justifying Senators and Representatives for whom ideology trumps humanity.
Anyone who does not like
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 23:02 — Anonymous (not verified)Anyone who does not like Obama's policies is obviously racist scum. Only progressives can dislike something that a black person does without being racist. This moral superiority of progressives should be part of kitchen table talk.
One more thing: It doesn't
Thu, 09/02/2010 - 23:13 — Saje Williams (not verified)One more thing: It doesn't do a lot of good to point out "oh, you're all being fooled by the Republican/Democratic dichotomy" unless you can also point out a solution to the problem... one that doesn't involve invoking a third party in a system specifically arranged to render such a party moot.
Are we unaware that our allegedly "socialist" President has filled his cabinet with proponents of the neo-liberal voodoo economics bullshit that should have been discarded years ago? No.
We have few viable alternatives here. It's either vote for the clear lesser of two evils, or let the monsters in. Imagine how much things could have been worse had McCain and Caribou Barbie gotten into office. We'd have been fighting in Iran too, more than likely, and gawd only knows what else.
Pointing out the obvious is all well and good, but if you're going to bother typing it, maybe you should try formulating a plan of action that doesn't simply involve waving your dick around.
@ 4:13 There may be no
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 15:12 — Liced-christ (not verified)@ 4:13
There may be no solution.
Speaking of maladaptive
Fri, 09/03/2010 - 21:37 — John Uebersax (not verified)Speaking of maladaptive cognitive schemas, why assume without question that the whole thing has to be cast in adversarial, zero-sum game, us vs them terms?
@4:13 How bad could it
Sat, 09/04/2010 - 00:01 — Charlie L (not verified)@4:13 How bad could it be?
Let's see. If McCain/Palin had won, they would have had to deal with the ugly economy. They would have done it with a massive bailout of the banks (that happened) and a giant tax cut for the rich (which didn't, YET).
War in
Iran? Probably just a few nuke plants bombed, and a lot of angry Muslims, but probably not much more. Oil prices would have gone up (they did) and then back down (they did).
Jobs would not be created (they haven't been). Oh, we would have gotten two right-wing corporatist judges for SCOTUS, so Citizens United would have been 7-2 instead of 5-4 -- still the law.
The praise of Bush was the last straw. I would have liked (but didn't really expect) some accountability for the massive crimes of 2000-2008, but to use the bully pulpit to PRAISE the crimes -- that was too a step too far.
I'm part of that "base" and I'm done.
George: you have a spelling
Sat, 09/04/2010 - 21:23 — Paul H. (not verified)George: you have a spelling error: the author of the article you cite is Drew Westen, not Drew Westin.
Thank-you, Saje Williams.
Sun, 09/05/2010 - 23:45 — Uppity Woman (not verified)Thank-you, Saje Williams. Well said.
Well, Liced-Christ -
Tue, 09/07/2010 - 13:27 — Frances in California (not verified)Well, Liced-Christ - enigmatic username notwithstanding - I'm surprised you fell right into the semantic trap Lakoff warns against. btw, when are you going to do some research on IRV and abolishing the Electoral College? Or would you rather keep blaming the broken system on whomever is currently President? An, you confuse voting with buying stuff online. No one gets to be disappointed in the President. EVERYONE who is disappointed with their Congress Critters (thank you, Jim Hightower) needs to vote them out in November. If you don't really understand who holds power, you'll never speak your truth to the correct recipient.
Good actions are needed even
Wed, 09/15/2010 - 15:43 — Elliot (not verified)Good actions are needed even more than just good messaging and communication.
The real problem is that the Democratic Party is just not truly that different than the non-Tea Party Republicans. The leadership has no bold plans, or when presented with them they defer to power and money.
The Democrats did not want public healthcare - they wanted lobbying money.
They do not push back on BP, Wall St, etc - they are clearly part of the problem.
They want to continue occupying Iraq and Afghanistan with mercenaries, continued suppression of information, and without criminal investigation of how we were led astray into Iraq.
The Democrats have lost their base because they are not worthy of respect. There is no narrative that can make that look good.
kAqOJJULIikfHU
Sat, 04/13/2013 - 23:21 — Klonopin For Sale (not verified)T generic klonopin, buy clonazepam no prescription, http://www.klonopinrxonline.net/