George Lakoff got my attention with Don't Think of an Elephant. I've been hoping that Robert Reich would have a conversation with him. Thank you to both of you for your work.
Democrats need to listen to this. Thank you so much for this interview. This is so informative George Lakoff is a truly great thinker 'Metaphors We Live By' is on my bookshelf I haven't read it in a while. I must read more and watch less RUclips. Education is priceless.
George said that strict-father morality is so ingrained in our brains that simply repeating it and challenging it only serves to reinforce it. This is a massive insight that all political activists need to take on board. The simple fact that conservative values are so easily recognisable in the moral hierarchy that George lists shows how effective they have been in instilling these values in the public consciousness. In fact, when I consider the potential list of democratic values I listed in another comment, it's clear how much work is needed to make those kinds of moral hierarchies more public knowledge and articulated values, and less subconscious values.
I wish I could agree James, but I think that is an impossible task and probably one of the biggest problems of party politics, that it creates teams, not unlike sports' teams, with all the biases that come with it. If I have to wait for you a democrat to be convinced that I'm a conservative before they'll listen to any facts or arguments, then political discussion is already dead. I think the better strategy is to try to understand and acknowledge and where possible validate the values of each other, because that way, the common ground isn't just based on a short-term compromise, but on a sense that there are many issues where progress can be bipartisan. All change brings a cost, not just for the winners and losers in that change, but from the actual process of change. So, if we are in a country where every four, eight or 10 years the legislation is completely rewritten to serve this changing of the political guard, it swallows up a lot of resources. This is only avoided through bipartisan work.
Again James, you are not listening to what is being said. You seem to be interpreting what George is saying through some kind of bias. The in-group / out-group element of the discussion had nothing to do with moral choices. It identified that conservatives are very strong in supporting 'in-group' values, not that these values were right or wrong. Likewise, if we extrapolate that, we might say that progressives give more consideration to the well-being of 'out-groups', whether that's minorities or poor people. Again, support here doesn't refer to moral decisions about the 'right' and 'wrong' of these groups behaviours, but in recognising that minorities are always subject to the potential 'tyranny of the majority', and so require special protections if their basic rights are not to be undermined. Again, the idea that we must think about politics in terms of 'teams' is part of the problem of politics, and any moves to show that we don't support parties, but support policies is a step in the right direction. We all belong to the 'human family'. It's not difficult to find an in-group we all belong to. The problem is when group belonging becomes more important than logic, sense or even justice.
The bias I refer to is that you don't seem to understand that when George talks about the strict-parent model and the conservative values that come from it, he is NOT saying that these values are bad, and in fact, you can see plenty of reasons why there is good in them: Discipline over non-discipline - winners to the top God over man - religion wins out Man over nature - drill baby drill Rich over poor - they deserve it Employers over employees Adults over children - list to the teachers or be beaten Western culture over non-Western culture America over other countries It is only when you get to identity politics that you start to see that conservatives are crossing a moral line: Men over women Whites over non-Whites Christians over non-Christians Straights over gays You are choosing to take my 'rationalisations' out of the context in which they were made, which was in response to your comments. So if this conversation is wandering away from the topic of this conversation, it's as a result of your false accusations about what George is actually saying.
Fuck, James, you are hard work. I didn't split them up into 'good' and 'bad'. I split them into those that the left could more easily identify with and those that would be more problematic. I'm going to leave this here, now, because you simply are not working hard enough to see what other people are ACTUALLY saying to you.
I already told you what I objected to - the whole idea of 'teams' - but you really don't seem to absorb ideas very well, do you? Is it a psychological problem or neurological? Good luck with that, whatever the reason!
I transcribed the stuff about conservative morality (from 3:35 to 6:32) below. It seems to explain a lot. Reich: Well, Donald Trump is certainly appealing to some emotional sort of reptilian brain that his followers seem to have, is he not? Lakoff: No. Reich: What's he doing? Lakoff: He's appealing to a different moral sense than we have. In this country there are two very, very different views of what right and wrong are. Politics is about morality. It's about right and wrong. Anybody who says "follow my policy" assumes it's right, not wrong. They don't say "it's evil, go do it." So the idea is that you have different views of right and wrong, and on the conservative side these things come out of what I call strict-father morality. So in a strict-father family the father is the boss, he knows right from wrong, his job is to make sure that his children do what he says, because that by definition is right, and to punish them if they don't. And the idea is they shouldn't do what feels good but should do what he says. Reich: And the Democrats come out of, I gather, a different kind of morality that has something to do with, maybe, mothers? Lakoff: It's not just mothers -- it's mothers and fathers who are nurturing, who empathize with their children, who want their children to question them, to give answers to them when they ask those questions, to have a sense of well-being, and to have the children be fulfilled in life. Reich: But George, isn't Trump also appealing to racism xenophobia, fear, anger of the other? Doesn't this go beyond the strict father? Lakoff: No, you have to know what the strict father says. Strict-father morality, when you map it on to politics, gives you a moral hierarchy. It says, "this is the right way to think" - that the people who are disciplined are the best people, and they're the people who have won out in the world, and that gives you a moral hierarchy. And the hierarchy is simple: you have God over man - religion has won out - you have man over nature, that nature is there for you to take advantage of it ("drill baby drill!"), you have the rich over the poor - they deserve it - you have employers over employees, adults over children (you know children can be beaten with sticks in 21 states if they don't, you know, just listen to their teachers and their coaches), you have Western culture over non-Western culture, America over other countries, men over women, Whites over non-Whites, Christians over non-Christians, straights over gays. That is the moral hierarchy that's there and every bit of Republican legislation, conservative Republican legislation, fits that moral hierarchy.
The nation needs to hear more of this. Maybe a variety of national cognitive thinking networks. Networks that have feedback loops to gather, analyze and present that data back to every state in the nation. We need to start a national conversation regarding the black, brown, poor, low income, etc., societal norms and mores. Every state in the nation should be interested in such a program driven from the bottom up.
When Lakoff talks about "strict father morality" I think he is basically saying that Republicans accept arbitrary authority on faith and political force, the followers do, and they know that it can cut against them but basically they have faith in white leaders and how the country has worked in the past for those it has worked for in the past. Democrats believe in the rule of law for all. That causes friction because the Democrats seem to always be against the rich and the status quo, and as a by-product point to Republicans as immoral and criminal. Republicans believe that democracy is stupid, and the criminality is just how people really are and do not see it as a threat to them personally.
I would love to see Lakoff put his message out there more (but do so in a smart way). Maybe talk with Nick Gillespie on Reason TV. Maybe make an appearance on Big Think. Talk on NPR or PBS. Talk on Book TV. This message should get out.
The reality is corporations have little power, in fact they have no voice except to pay taxes. The guys above take all they can from corporations since they have no voice to live like kings.
Walmart, the largest corporation in America answers to China, not the U.S. Government. They sell Chinese made products. President Trump needs to bring manufacturing and our money back to America.
@Ron - This is simply not true. Walmart is owned by the Waltons, who's family's net worth is 145.3 Billion dollars. If you don't think money like that can buy every corrupt politician in this money obsessed country, you're naive. And that's just one family. There are several.
Walmart answers to the people, if they don't like the products the people will not shop there. Communists try and control where and what you buy. I love Walmart, they are one of the few places where you can park your RV overnight. They won't let you do that at city hall or schools.
Brilliant description of the Patriarchy. "Strict Father Morality" is the opposite of nurturing. Patriarchy is all about protecting the status quo. Time for a change...not just in politics.
Make this more simple. Print off a transcript of the debates. Look at what Trump said and then Clinton. Ask yourself who made a coherent position for the average person. Who spoke to the underlying values of the average person. He won through good strategy. For the most part. All the bigots voted for Trump but not at the Trump voters are bigots. We have to understand the difference and get that chunk back on the other side. Stop stereotyping..............................
James Nicholl Yes Thatcher was a patriarch. She promoted the same neo-liberlism approach as Ronald Reagan. Their polices were basically identical. She even started a war to win Argentinas rightful islands in a colonialistic campaign. It is clear Thatcher was a one of the worst patriarchs in human history.
The dichotomy driving Progressive and Conservative politics is simple: One demands we try some new social experiments (because they're not in charge), the other demands obedience by claiming they have achieved social perfection (because it keeps them in charge). The moment you start to look like the people in charge, you become the conservative. Whether it's Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Feudalism, Anarchy, Democracy, or Fascism, you stop being progressive the moment you get what you want.
Lakoff is brilliant and fresh, preaching a sincere and inclusive vision of a Democrat. But if you read through the Comments below, almost all of them hateful and myopic on both sides, you quickly realize that all of our work lies ahead of us.
It seems the nurturant parent morality is too easily drowned out by a loud strict father (just like in a real family, if you have a loud abusive father who punishes at every mis-step, there's not much room for nurturing). BTW, it's MUCH easier to be a strict father than a nurturant parent :-) That's why being a progressive is so hard right now where simple solutions to complex problems are readily accepted (no matter the consequence). 1. Reform drug addicts vs. imprisoning drug addicts (most people want to punish drug addicts) 2. Giving people healthcare vs. letting people suffer the consequences of their poor choices (most people get a sense of Schadenfreude from the latter) 3. Forgive college tuition debt vs. Make them pay for what they owe - nobody forced them to major in "Women's Studies" for six years (hard to argue with) These are just a few examples where people take the moral high-ground in dispensing punishment. Dr Molly Crockett actually covers this phenomenon quite well: ruclips.net/video/leNq8l3HAXI/видео.html
He lost me in his opening stating that "the goverment" was supposed to make us help out fellow man, rather than individuals doing so out of good morality. Maybe I would be able to help my friends from "church" if the federal government didn't take 28% of my money off the top of all earnings to pay for inefficient programs, waste, and gerrymandering. I'm disappointed that these men aren't challenged, because their fallacies are easily laid out from their own lips. The man on the right literally plays things out as though any ideas that aren't his means that person is against "brown or black people" against women, and are fearful and suspicious. Nobody here is trying to share ideas or to change hearts, it's an echo chamber with unjustified insults to individuals. Also, I think it's cute that it's assumed that all progressives are kind and compassionate, but conservatives live with themselves and for themselves only. This argument effectively shows an us/them mentality, effectively stating you prescribe to that mentality, and push that assumption into others to assuage your disposition. Have these two men ever thought that people liked & voted for Obama, then had him do things which they disagreed with? I don't want social security, I would rather keep my money to save for my own retirement, but I was extremely offended when money was siphoned from social security for the failure of Obamacare. I grew up on medicaid, never worried about health insurance until 18, when I was expected to work and provide for myself. Then, after Obamacare' initiation, attending college & working full time, I was unable to afford insurance through Obamacare, and then penalized on my tax return for not buying into something I couldn't afford. George likes to talk about the foundations of this country, and much of it was the ability to be free and to have a limited government, a low effective tax, but fetishes a large governance, far from original ideals. For enlightened individuals, you are holding true to your predisposed ideas of a group of people you don't know, don't care to know, and don't care to understand. Please, don't hold a beacon of morality when you decide to actively shit on people that you feel are beneath you without any sanctification. I think those who feel the need to make constant insults to people they don't like, and for some ambiguous fears; show a "lizard brain/unevolved mentality."
This talk of a hierarchical morality among conservatives mirrors something I've thought about a lot. It always seemed to me that the core philosophical difference between a liberal and a conservative was that a liberal believes everyone does better when everyone does better and we can all lift each other up. A conservative on the other hand, starts with the basic assumption that in order for there to be winners, there must also be losers and this leads them down a path of doing whatever it takes, no matter how immoral it may be, to ensure either they or the group they identify with are the winners.
Jerry Peavy it actually does. Because you are not voting for issues, you are voting for the personality you elected to run the country like you want it run. That’s why the notion that “I like a president with whom I can sit down and have a beer” is so frustrating for progressives. I don’t care if Obama is a nice chap; I want him to be smart and courageous and make good decisions. If he’s a fine, nice fellow in the process, well, good. Progressives must learn this because conservatives may continue to support Tr&$*p even if he gets nothing accomplished. They just like the cut of his jib as a authoritarian father figure.
The degree of freedom one has is inversely related to the strength and intrusiveness of one's government. If responsibility for the general welfare is assigned to government then the "strict father" is the government and cannot be escaped even when one becomes an adult.
A very instructive discussion - good questions and interesting and non-conventional responses. The summary that thinking is based not simply on feelings or on ideologies, but rather on frames, narratives, metaphors and derived values was very convincing and pulls together lots of experience and learning that I've had. Feelings and thoughts are then understood to be generated within this 'cognitive cluster'. The only thing I didn't see that I would like to have seen was the same hierarchy of values for a democrat as was articulated for the republicans. I found the description of conservatives deeply informative, but when I began to think about what the 'nurturing' hierarchies would be, it was more difficult. George focused as one example on why social resources are necessary for a well-functioning society. But this was a little thin in comparison to the long list of conservative hierarchies are based on hegemonic dichotomies. If democrats reject the basic notion of hegemony, how does that then translate into a hierarchy of values? Is it to be a different kind of hegemony, in the sense of good over bad, though that is about as clear as mud? There is something about the nested values of conservatives that makes them mutually supporting, not to mention easy to follow. George tallked about empathy, caring, and nurturing. In the practical sense, caring for things is the same as saying making sure that things don't fall apart, that the homes, roads, bridges, water, waste systems etc all function, all the services that we rely on. So protection over neglect, maintenance over decay etc. We could really do with clarifying this element of progressive thinking. I would really like to see this part of the puzzle articulated. It's a shame we couldn't ask George about it.
Did you gather that these two people play up Conservatism while calling Conservatives basically hard wired idiots? I don't feel like I am hard wired, OR restricted in my thinking or judgment in any way. I think they kinda have their values on backwards. Insulting me does not further their cause with me and so many other people who like me actually value their own lives and judgments. We voted for President Trump for myriad reasons. Only narrow minded thinkers (and I use the term "thinkers" very loosely here) would think otherwise of us.
I'm sure you voted for Trump for different reasons, and George actually specifically acknowledges this, so either you didn't watch the video, or you weren't paying attention. George specifically refutes any notion that conservatives are idiots, since Robert tried to slip in a 'they think with their reptilian brains' insult, and George batted it away skillfully. You don't seem to understand when someone is on your side Ron. Perhaps you watch it again and pay more attention this time?
Ron, watch the video - the idea you put forward about being insulted or called hard-wired idiots is expressly refuted in the video. In fact, if you know Robert Reich at all, you will know that he's presenting George with well-worn views of how Democrats can see both Republicans and Trump in order for George to show exactly why they are false positions to take. Notice, he isn't arguing with George, even when he's directly refuting what's he's saying, he's giving him a chance to respond to those kinds of views with intelligent and even compassionate responses. The only point that Robert asserts several times is that Trump is somehow doing something different to other Republican Presidents have done, in going after the institutions that hold society together. You don't do yourself justice by not fully understanding or watching the video and simply lashing out. I have no problem debating with conservatives, but only when they have done their homework and are not simply turning up to spout slogans or to do exactly the same thing that you are accusing Dems of here - "I use the term 'thinkers' very loosely here".
“Republicans use a morality called “Strict Father Morality,” where the father is the boss, he knows right from wrong, he makes sure his “children” do as he says because by definition that is right, and to punish them if they don’t. And they shouldn’t do what feels good, but should do what he says.” Exactly. But surmise here that “father” means “god” and bingo. There it is in a nutshell. Christian fundamentalism at its worst.
I think you missed the point. The father figure and the mother figure are supppse to be balanced. They are on both sides of the paradigm, equivalent to each other. There can be "motherly" Republican just like there can be "fatherly" Democrats.
I hope you can fix how you quote others, because you are not using correct punctuation. If you want to quote someone within a quote, than use a single apostrophe to indicate that quote within the quote. Such as: Fred said "We need to leave before 'the kernel' comes back home." Oh! I just realized that you just wanted to bash Christians who are also the majority make up for both political parties. I guess you will not care. Oh well! -_- I hope you have a good day.
I'm sorry. I listened to this and didn't understand. Every time Mr. Lakoff was about to elucidate a point, Mr. Reich would interrupt him. Can someone tell me what progressives/democrats are supposed to say?
They are supposed to stick to their own talking points rather than trying to argue the points put forward by GOP. In other words, ram home absolute necessity of state-provided services, protections, institutions and infrastructure, built on a nurturing world-view that values autonomy but doesn't abandon people when they are in difficulty.
One final frame I'd like to add to the comments here, which is looking to create a similar moral frame for progressives to the one that George describes so well for conservatives. The moral hierarchy. The right way to think. Who are democrats? We believe it is right because it is fair and striving for fairness is a more realistic goal for security and in regard to what actually motivates people than a cynical view of lazy and selfish humans that often comes from the strict-father model. Fairness is also what actually works better in relationships than simply working to maximise one's own gains to the detriment of any other considerations. Relationships are founded on trust, on mutual respect, and on the idea of creating mutual benefit. If we thought a relationship wasn't based on this, then it's very unlikely that the relationship is entered into voluntarily. In the end, cynicism breeds failure. Only trust can direct resources away from 'security' and into development. Compliance is more profitable for society than obedience. Compliance comes from respect and from know that society is invested in each and every individual, not just in a select few. The fall back on nurturing is associated with strong caring for both in-groups and out-groups, since our total security is the sum of the two, and their separation is in fact a recipe for war, conflict and expensive remedies from the results of these insecurities. Collective responsibility is strong, as is individual responsibility, over and above self-help. The belief is in a fair system that gives everyone the possibility to benefit from their efforts, but to have adequate possibility to develop themselves and to make productive contributions, and not simply to live 'hand to mouth'. The state is not a 'strict' father, but are parents who instil belief and self-esteem into their children by creating safe boundaries and 'nurturing fields' in which to develop. The importance of both self-discipline and mutual regard are given equal weighting, because a family that is just run by a strict father is usually a family that is unhappy and only a short distance from breakdown. Independence comes about through mutual support, in internalising compassionate strategies that are win-win, not win-lose.
You are defining the alternative to 'strict father', paternalism, and 'might makes us safe (and therefore, right') 'frame'. Is human nature good or evil...or is there a potential for both? (I sometimes think liberal can't see that fear and aggression as a response actually exist! Just like those schooled with an idea of 'original sin' can hardly think beyond fear and paranoia -- and can hardly recognize that humans are capable of acting altruistically - given the right context.) Can we deny ego? Can we supersede egoic delusion and act from wisdom -- as human being??? And is there some way context and the realities outside of 'ego' plays ANY PART??? In war, chain of command is useful and leads to survival in terms of tactics. But in the context of 6-11 billions people wrecking their ecology or life support system -- then cooperation of those with a stake in survival might MEAN SURVIVAL, wisdom and SANITY?!
George Lakoff has a great theory that is based in his discipline.. the linguistics. However, he is not up to date on the latest neuro-science. Reich was correct in stating that Trump appeals to "the reptilian brain" of Conservatives... and this is demomstrably true.. Conservatives have larger amydalas and are VERY responsive to fear stimuli. Lakoff was wrong to say "No" to that statement of Reich.
Whose amygdalas were triggered by the outrageously FALSE claims of Russiagate? seriously quit living in the chimera fantasy in your mind and join the REAL WORLD.
@@Homunculas Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their lengthy investigation. Nothing FALSE about it
2 things: I'm thinking Bernie does exactly what Lakoff is saying: hammering home again and again that he believes it is a fundamental human right for everyone to have health care, for example. This is what a statesman does, connects us to our better angels, our higher principles and to our hearts and dreams. He also says that the budget is a moral document and refers to "what this country is about" frequently. Lakoff alleges that the Democrats fail because they only offer a laundry list of policies...on what planet, I'm wondering...the whole point of the progressive movement is to actually offer a laundry list of policies FOR ONCE, not this Liberal bland BS about "opportunity", and "good, well- paying jobs" where "everyone has a place at the table", yada yada. Bernie's laundry list is the most exciting thing since the moon landing. Single Payer, free college, living wage, taxing the rich, massive govt spending in infrastructure and green energy creating millions of jobs doing useful things, (not on making bombs to drop on poor people) and I guess Lakoff might agree that Bernie was so successful (why was he not mentioned?) precisely because he connects values to actual policies.
Very good on Lakoff. I don't think Reich gets it, and I'm not surprised. The very concept of _emotion_ in its modern framing is too Enlightenment. People think of it as something that interferes with and overrules reason, like Spock in _Amok Time._ Of course, the very idea of Spock is that a purely rational creature is impossible. The older meaning is better, and it's right there in the word. _e-motion,_ that which causes motion. Oliver Sacks and others have pointed out that when brains are damaged to the point of not being able to feel emotion, they don't become perfect reasoning engines. They just sit and do nothing. People who have experienced anhedonia from depression have experienced a minor version of this. In fact, neurotransmitters, which are associated with emotion, are responsible for the functioning of chemical synapses. I have a hypothesis that various neurotransmitters are responsible for training and untraining neural networks in the brain as an alternative to the neurologically implausible backpropagation used in computer simulations. I think it likely that feelings such as frustration and anger and confusion are necessary for learning itself.
Hillary did not pull over many conservatives, but Trump Voters, Registered Voters have many a time said that they would’ve voted for Bernie. Donors get bailed out; we get sold out.
Anarchist mutual aid groups are still providing more follow up assistance to communities still blighted with water logged debris across the Houston metropole than the state and the meager charity of conservatives and Neoliberals.
Grim Locke - Ya'll keep saying that but ya'll can't really claim that. After all, ya'll didn't bother to vote for him in the primaries which is why Hillary ran for the Democrats... That's how those things are sorted out. The candidate who wins the primaries runs. It has nothing to do with donors and no one was sold out. Ya'll were simply too goddamn lazy to get up and vote in the primaries.
@Ray - You aren't paying attention. The Democratic primary was rigged for Hillary against Bernie. Ya'll need to stop shifting the blame around and put it where it belongs - Corporate Republican and neoliberal Democrat corruption.
Jason - Welp, sounds like someone doesn't know the primaries is. It's a national, public VOTE that both parties use to determine who will run on their ticket. The voters decide who runs on the Democrat/Republican tickets in presidential races. It isn't done by a secret corporation or board or some such other. It's determined by VOTES. The fact of the matter is that Hillary got 1 million more vote than Bernie did. And, on the other side of things, Trump won the Republican primaries -- do you honestly think the Republicans would've ran with Trump if they could've prevented it? Republican's came out and voted for their dark horse in the primaries. The Democrats didn't. Young voters, in particular, don't tend to vote so most politicians don't cater to them. He bet his candidacy on them voting for him and they failed him -- even promises of forgiving student debt couldn't get them out to vote in the primaries. Stop whining and suck it up. Maybe next time you'll realize that, while debates and rallies are all fine and well, they matter for nothing. If you want your candidate to run on the national ticket then VOTE IN THE FUCKING PRIMARIES.
I disagree with George. I dont think we need to use the language of the right to convince people that freedom and individualism is the same as equality and solidarity, especially when equality and solidarity is far better then F&I. Some of socialists can handle the task of convincing people and winning the argument that a more egalitarian and communitarian society is better for everyone. Why waste your effort trying to manipulate the language of freedom when we really mean equality. This guy must be some con advertising salesman. In his book "Who's freedom?" he should have said that we want more equality and solidarity and less freedom and individualism. Sorry George, the only way to end the right wing con game is to throw the narrative out with the bathwater
I'm thinking Bernie does exactly what Lakoff is saying: saying again and again that it is a fundamental human right for everyone to have health care. for example. This is what a statesman does, connects us to our better angels, our higher principles or care. He also says that the budget is a moral document.
Bernie only points out the PROBLEMS! & that's The PROBLEM!! Only (I)!! have the genius level ideas to fix Americas problems! Besides Bernie & Trump & soooooooo many are just too old & dumb, to be President or even a Senator!
I liked this interview, I only don't agree with his conclusion that Trump is a threat to Democracy. He has taken no actions that have threatened citizens or the constitution, so this man fear mongering a "threat to democracy" is very snow flake of him.
I think it comes down to Sociobiology. Forget politics and morals as both sides have neither. We have grave human failings too explore here. Humans put themselves over everything except in many cases with gods--and then you're still dealing with human thinking as gods seem too suffer from the same human issues of greed and jealousy and self destructive behavior and anti-social behavior. Humans should explore their behavior from a biological standpoint just as we would study another animal species. We're not that clever nor are we that evolved. We have used our brains to expand technology and to entertain ourselves but we still allow for behaviors that will completely destroy the natural world in the next 20+ years. We are still fooled by obvious Liars in Government and big business and law enforcement and any other position of authority. We look to movies on superheroes and we do not act in our best interest. We have allowed for a hierarchy were the worst examples of human genetics are running the show. Don't complicate things, we're animals and we're also the most destructive force in natural history--an invasive species that has dominated and exploited all eco-systems on the planet to the detriment of the natural world. LESS HUMANS and MORE NATURE is a move in the right direction. Overrun the wealthy and redistribute the wealth. No human is fit to govern nor be governed. Act in accordance with the natural world and have an intimate relationship with the natural world.
You had me until the very end. If we want a civil society - given human potential for thoughts and emotion, for our capacity for conscious and unconscious motivators and justifications, for good and evil, etc...we need 'checks and balances.' That was the idea of democracy. Those 'in power' need to fear The People....who must be educated not only in facts but to human nature....and how what our thinking or 'frames' in our brains and how they can be manipulated (by cons like corrupt Trump AND by corrupt Dems) -- can be manipulated. People must be taught to understand their role in making 'the powerful' fear The People's power...and the nature of 'checks and balances.' We have tried tribal, autocracy, plutocracy, fascism...and have seen the MADNESS and ATROCITY that leads to....and with our current technology, we cannot afford our willful ignorance about human potential and its consequences any longer. If the only thing that still operates is that 'the lesson of history is that humans don't learn the lessons of history' -- we are all cooked and done! Do YOU/we love your/our children, beauty, the struggle and sacrifice of our parents and for-bearere -- or your own sanity and ability to live -- other than something 'nasty, brutish, insane and short????
The problem is that it doesn't mean shit to be a democrat politically, anymore than it means to be a fan or a sports team. You can cheer and wave the flag to emphasize your own identity and beliefs, but the last election and what went on with the DNC proves those people are happy to have you give them your money and wear their T-shirts and hats, but they are not doing anything for you, and nor can they do anything, because they get their money from the corporations. Until people get used to the idea that money is the crime, that the vast majority of money and power has been stolen and operates in the service or evil and that the system and money need to be battled from outside the system somehow, nothing will change except people jsut getting more and more disilliusioned, depressed and going insane. You cannot vote for people because they are people, they do what they want or what others tell them, and there is no way people can talk, debate or vote on issues such as health care. We are told what to think, we are told what others thing. We hear that Americans support universal health care and free education ... and yet year after year nothing happens except the military and police get more money and we get more and more surveilled. Lakoff should wake up at some point before he dies.
George Lakoff got my attention with Don't Think of an Elephant. I've been hoping that Robert Reich would have a conversation with him. Thank you to both of you for your work.
This is one of the most important videos I have seen in a long time. George Lakoff is a real treasure IMO.
Wow, this really clicked with me. I'll come back and listen to this one again, probably more than once again.
...and, I'm back.
Democrats need to listen to this. Thank you so much for this interview. This is so informative George Lakoff is a truly great thinker 'Metaphors We Live By' is on my bookshelf I haven't read it in a while. I must read more and watch less RUclips. Education is priceless.
George said that strict-father morality is so ingrained in our brains that simply repeating it and challenging it only serves to reinforce it. This is a massive insight that all political activists need to take on board. The simple fact that conservative values are so easily recognisable in the moral hierarchy that George lists shows how effective they have been in instilling these values in the public consciousness. In fact, when I consider the potential list of democratic values I listed in another comment, it's clear how much work is needed to make those kinds of moral hierarchies more public knowledge and articulated values, and less subconscious values.
I wish I could agree James, but I think that is an impossible task and probably one of the biggest problems of party politics, that it creates teams, not unlike sports' teams, with all the biases that come with it.
If I have to wait for you a democrat to be convinced that I'm a conservative before they'll listen to any facts or arguments, then political discussion is already dead.
I think the better strategy is to try to understand and acknowledge and where possible validate the values of each other, because that way, the common ground isn't just based on a short-term compromise, but on a sense that there are many issues where progress can be bipartisan.
All change brings a cost, not just for the winners and losers in that change, but from the actual process of change. So, if we are in a country where every four, eight or 10 years the legislation is completely rewritten to serve this changing of the political guard, it swallows up a lot of resources. This is only avoided through bipartisan work.
Again James, you are not listening to what is being said. You seem to be interpreting what George is saying through some kind of bias. The in-group / out-group element of the discussion had nothing to do with moral choices. It identified that conservatives are very strong in supporting 'in-group' values, not that these values were right or wrong. Likewise, if we extrapolate that, we might say that progressives give more consideration to the well-being of 'out-groups', whether that's minorities or poor people. Again, support here doesn't refer to moral decisions about the 'right' and 'wrong' of these groups behaviours, but in recognising that minorities are always subject to the potential 'tyranny of the majority', and so require special protections if their basic rights are not to be undermined.
Again, the idea that we must think about politics in terms of 'teams' is part of the problem of politics, and any moves to show that we don't support parties, but support policies is a step in the right direction. We all belong to the 'human family'. It's not difficult to find an in-group we all belong to. The problem is when group belonging becomes more important than logic, sense or even justice.
The bias I refer to is that you don't seem to understand that when George talks about the strict-parent model and the conservative values that come from it, he is NOT saying that these values are bad, and in fact, you can see plenty of reasons why there is good in them:
Discipline over non-discipline - winners to the top
God over man - religion wins out
Man over nature - drill baby drill
Rich over poor - they deserve it
Employers over employees
Adults over children - list to the teachers or be beaten
Western culture over non-Western culture
America over other countries
It is only when you get to identity politics that you start to see that conservatives are crossing a moral line:
Men over women
Whites over non-Whites
Christians over non-Christians
Straights over gays
You are choosing to take my 'rationalisations' out of the context in which they were made, which was in response to your comments. So if this conversation is wandering away from the topic of this conversation, it's as a result of your false accusations about what George is actually saying.
Fuck, James, you are hard work. I didn't split them up into 'good' and 'bad'. I split them into those that the left could more easily identify with and those that would be more problematic. I'm going to leave this here, now, because you simply are not working hard enough to see what other people are ACTUALLY saying to you.
I already told you what I objected to - the whole idea of 'teams' - but you really don't seem to absorb ideas very well, do you? Is it a psychological problem or neurological? Good luck with that, whatever the reason!
Lakoff & Johnson! Nice! And thank you!
I transcribed the stuff about conservative morality (from 3:35 to 6:32) below. It seems to explain a lot.
Reich: Well, Donald Trump is certainly appealing to some emotional sort of reptilian brain that his followers seem to have, is he not?
Lakoff: No.
Reich: What's he doing?
Lakoff: He's appealing to a different moral sense than we have. In this country there are two very, very different views of what right and wrong are. Politics is about morality. It's about right and wrong. Anybody who says "follow my policy" assumes it's right, not wrong. They don't say "it's evil, go do it." So the idea is that you have different views of right and wrong, and on the conservative side these things come out of what I call strict-father morality.
So in a strict-father family the father is the boss, he knows right from wrong, his job is to make sure that his children do what he says, because that by definition is right, and to punish them if they don't. And the idea is they shouldn't do what feels good but should do what he says.
Reich: And the Democrats come out of, I gather, a different kind of morality that has something to do with, maybe, mothers?
Lakoff: It's not just mothers -- it's mothers and fathers who are nurturing, who empathize with their children, who want their children to question them, to give answers to them when they ask those questions, to have a sense of well-being, and to have the children be fulfilled in life.
Reich: But George, isn't Trump also appealing to racism xenophobia, fear, anger of the other? Doesn't this go beyond the strict father?
Lakoff: No, you have to know what the strict father says. Strict-father morality, when you map it on to politics, gives you a moral hierarchy. It says, "this is the right way to think" - that the people who are disciplined are the best people, and they're the people who have won out in the world, and that gives you a moral hierarchy. And the hierarchy is simple: you have God over man - religion has won out - you have man over nature, that nature is there for you to take advantage of it ("drill baby drill!"), you have the rich over the poor - they deserve it - you have employers over employees, adults over children (you know children can be beaten with sticks in 21 states if they don't, you know, just listen to their teachers and their coaches), you have Western culture over non-Western culture, America over other countries, men over women, Whites over non-Whites, Christians over non-Christians, straights over gays. That is the moral hierarchy that's there and every bit of Republican legislation, conservative Republican legislation, fits that moral hierarchy.
Mike Miller Very Good
Thank you!
Thank you for letting the genius out of the academy, as you always do!
I enjoyed this convetsation. Thank you both.
The nation needs to hear more of this. Maybe a variety of national cognitive thinking networks. Networks that have feedback loops to gather, analyze and present that data back to every state in the nation. We need to start a national conversation regarding the black, brown, poor, low income, etc., societal norms and mores. Every state in the nation should be interested in such a program driven from the bottom up.
When Lakoff talks about "strict father morality" I think he is basically saying that Republicans accept arbitrary authority on faith and political force, the followers do, and they know that it can cut against them but basically they have faith in white leaders and how the country has worked in the past for those it has worked for in the past. Democrats believe in the rule of law for all. That causes friction because the Democrats seem to always be against the rich and the status quo, and as a by-product point to Republicans as immoral and criminal. Republicans believe that democracy is stupid, and the criminality is just how people really are and do not see it as a threat to them personally.
I would love to see Lakoff put his message out there more (but do so in a smart way). Maybe talk with Nick Gillespie on Reason TV. Maybe make an appearance on Big Think. Talk on NPR or PBS. Talk on Book TV. This message should get out.
Of, by, and for the people - NOT THE CORPORATIONS!
The reality is corporations have little power, in fact they have no voice except to pay taxes. The guys above take all they can from corporations since they have no voice to live like kings.
@pirucreek - Ok, so then who do you think the "guys above" are? They are the owners of the corporations. They ARE the corporations.
Walmart, the largest corporation in America answers to China, not the U.S. Government. They sell Chinese made products. President Trump needs to bring manufacturing and our money back to America.
@Ron - This is simply not true. Walmart is owned by the Waltons, who's family's net worth is 145.3 Billion dollars. If you don't think money like that can buy every corrupt politician in this money obsessed country, you're naive. And that's just one family. There are several.
Walmart answers to the people, if they don't like the products the people will not shop there. Communists try and control where and what you buy. I love Walmart, they are one of the few places where you can park your RV overnight. They won't let you do that at city hall or schools.
i'm reading his book "Your Brain's Politics" its been a very eye opening book.
Brilliant description of the Patriarchy. "Strict Father Morality" is the opposite of nurturing. Patriarchy is all about protecting the status quo. Time for a change...not just in politics.
Make this more simple. Print off a transcript of the debates. Look at what Trump said and then Clinton. Ask yourself who made a coherent position for the average person. Who spoke to the underlying values of the average person. He won through good strategy. For the most part. All the bigots voted for Trump but not at the Trump voters are bigots. We have to understand the difference and get that chunk back on the other side. Stop stereotyping..............................
James Nicholl Yes Thatcher was a patriarch. She promoted the same neo-liberlism approach as Ronald Reagan. Their polices were basically identical. She even started a war to win Argentinas rightful islands in a colonialistic campaign. It is clear Thatcher was a one of the worst patriarchs in human history.
Very interesting! I love the perspective.
The book is eye level between the two gentlemen.
Its sad that we have to activate care and empathy in other human beings brains.
Trump would spontaneously combust if this video was played anywhere near him.
The dichotomy driving Progressive and Conservative politics is simple: One demands we try some new social experiments (because they're not in charge), the other demands obedience by claiming they have achieved social perfection (because it keeps them in charge). The moment you start to look like the people in charge, you become the conservative. Whether it's Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Feudalism, Anarchy, Democracy, or Fascism, you stop being progressive the moment you get what you want.
Fascinating.strict Father Morality. So, rather than Universal Health Care,
A Family Doctor for every Family.
I wish Robert Reich would host SNL.
Lakoff is brilliant and fresh, preaching a sincere and inclusive vision of a Democrat. But if you read through the Comments below, almost all of them hateful and myopic on both sides, you quickly realize that all of our work lies ahead of us.
It seems the nurturant parent morality is too easily drowned out by a loud strict father (just like in a real family, if you have a loud abusive father who punishes at every mis-step, there's not much room for nurturing). BTW, it's MUCH easier to be a strict father than a nurturant parent :-) That's why being a progressive is so hard right now where simple solutions to complex problems are readily accepted (no matter the consequence).
1. Reform drug addicts vs. imprisoning drug addicts (most people want to punish drug addicts)
2. Giving people healthcare vs. letting people suffer the consequences of their poor choices (most people get a sense of Schadenfreude from the latter)
3. Forgive college tuition debt vs. Make them pay for what they owe - nobody forced them to major in "Women's Studies" for six years (hard to argue with)
These are just a few examples where people take the moral high-ground in dispensing punishment. Dr Molly Crockett actually covers this phenomenon quite well: ruclips.net/video/leNq8l3HAXI/видео.html
He lost me in his opening stating that "the goverment" was supposed to make us help out fellow man, rather than individuals doing so out of good morality.
Maybe I would be able to help my friends from "church" if the federal government didn't take 28% of my money off the top of all earnings to pay for inefficient programs, waste, and gerrymandering.
I'm disappointed that these men aren't challenged, because their fallacies are easily laid out from their own lips. The man on the right literally plays things out as though any ideas that aren't his means that person is against "brown or black people" against women, and are fearful and suspicious.
Nobody here is trying to share ideas or to change hearts, it's an echo chamber with unjustified insults to individuals.
Also, I think it's cute that it's assumed that all progressives are kind and compassionate, but conservatives live with themselves and for themselves only. This argument effectively shows an us/them mentality, effectively stating you prescribe to that mentality, and push that assumption into others to assuage your disposition.
Have these two men ever thought that people liked & voted for Obama, then had him do things which they disagreed with? I don't want social security, I would rather keep my money to save for my own retirement, but I was extremely offended when money was siphoned from social security for the failure of Obamacare. I grew up on medicaid, never worried about health insurance until 18, when I was expected to work and provide for myself. Then, after Obamacare' initiation, attending college & working full time, I was unable to afford insurance through Obamacare, and then penalized on my tax return for not buying into something I couldn't afford.
George likes to talk about the foundations of this country, and much of it was the ability to be free and to have a limited government, a low effective tax, but fetishes a large governance, far from original ideals.
For enlightened individuals, you are holding true to your predisposed ideas of a group of people you don't know, don't care to know, and don't care to understand. Please, don't hold a beacon of morality when you decide to actively shit on people that you feel are beneath you without any sanctification.
I think those who feel the need to make constant insults to people they don't like, and for some ambiguous fears; show a "lizard brain/unevolved mentality."
This talk of a hierarchical morality among conservatives mirrors something I've thought about a lot. It always seemed to me that the core philosophical difference between a liberal and a conservative was that a liberal believes everyone does better when everyone does better and we can all lift each other up. A conservative on the other hand, starts with the basic assumption that in order for there to be winners, there must also be losers and this leads them down a path of doing whatever it takes, no matter how immoral it may be, to ensure either they or the group they identify with are the winners.
If only it was that black and white. it simply isn't.
This doesn't' explain why voters would change from Clinton to Trump. People don't change their morality!
Jerry Peavy it actually does. Because you are not voting for issues, you are voting for the personality you elected to run the country like you want it run. That’s why the notion that “I like a president with whom I can sit down and have a beer” is so frustrating for progressives. I don’t care if Obama is a nice chap; I want him to be smart and courageous and make good decisions. If he’s a fine, nice fellow in the process, well, good. Progressives must learn this because conservatives may continue to support Tr&$*p even if he gets nothing accomplished. They just like the cut of his jib as a authoritarian father figure.
The degree of freedom one has is inversely related to the strength and intrusiveness of one's government. If responsibility for the general welfare is assigned to government then the "strict father" is the government and cannot be escaped even when one becomes an adult.
A very instructive discussion - good questions and interesting and non-conventional responses. The summary that thinking is based not simply on feelings or on ideologies, but rather on frames, narratives, metaphors and derived values was very convincing and pulls together lots of experience and learning that I've had. Feelings and thoughts are then understood to be generated within this 'cognitive cluster'.
The only thing I didn't see that I would like to have seen was the same hierarchy of values for a democrat as was articulated for the republicans. I found the description of conservatives deeply informative, but when I began to think about what the 'nurturing' hierarchies would be, it was more difficult. George focused as one example on why social resources are necessary for a well-functioning society. But this was a little thin in comparison to the long list of conservative hierarchies are based on hegemonic dichotomies. If democrats reject the basic notion of hegemony, how does that then translate into a hierarchy of values? Is it to be a different kind of hegemony, in the sense of good over bad, though that is about as clear as mud? There is something about the nested values of conservatives that makes them mutually supporting, not to mention easy to follow.
George tallked about empathy, caring, and nurturing. In the practical sense, caring for things is the same as saying making sure that things don't fall apart, that the homes, roads, bridges, water, waste systems etc all function, all the services that we rely on. So protection over neglect, maintenance over decay etc. We could really do with clarifying this element of progressive thinking.
I would really like to see this part of the puzzle articulated. It's a shame we couldn't ask George about it.
Did you gather that these two people play up Conservatism while calling Conservatives basically hard wired idiots? I don't feel like I am hard wired, OR restricted in my thinking or judgment in any way. I think they kinda have their values on backwards. Insulting me does not further their cause with me and so many other people who like me actually value their own lives and judgments. We voted for President Trump for myriad reasons. Only narrow minded thinkers (and I use the term "thinkers" very loosely here) would think otherwise of us.
I'm sure you voted for Trump for different reasons, and George actually specifically acknowledges this, so either you didn't watch the video, or you weren't paying attention. George specifically refutes any notion that conservatives are idiots, since Robert tried to slip in a 'they think with their reptilian brains' insult, and George batted it away skillfully.
You don't seem to understand when someone is on your side Ron. Perhaps you watch it again and pay more attention this time?
Ron, watch the video - the idea you put forward about being insulted or called hard-wired idiots is expressly refuted in the video. In fact, if you know Robert Reich at all, you will know that he's presenting George with well-worn views of how Democrats can see both Republicans and Trump in order for George to show exactly why they are false positions to take. Notice, he isn't arguing with George, even when he's directly refuting what's he's saying, he's giving him a chance to respond to those kinds of views with intelligent and even compassionate responses. The only point that Robert asserts several times is that Trump is somehow doing something different to other Republican Presidents have done, in going after the institutions that hold society together.
You don't do yourself justice by not fully understanding or watching the video and simply lashing out. I have no problem debating with conservatives, but only when they have done their homework and are not simply turning up to spout slogans or to do exactly the same thing that you are accusing Dems of here - "I use the term 'thinkers' very loosely here".
This is a bit overly reductively materialistic with regards to mind and consciousness - but useful...
Please change to manual focus. The autofocus is making it harder to watch the video.
As a scientist I am annoyed by the stereotyping of scientists as GOPers
Tell engaging stories using frames that support people's values, but make sure that those values reflect the better angels of our nature.
I’m wondering if he would say the female equivalent to Strict Father might be Tiger Mom?
Is Bobby really playing Devil’s Advocate… or is he just not pay attention at all to what George is saying?
“Republicans use a morality called “Strict Father Morality,” where the father is the boss, he knows right from wrong, he makes sure his “children” do as he says because by definition that is right, and to punish them if they don’t. And they shouldn’t do what feels good, but should do what he says.” Exactly. But surmise here that “father” means “god” and bingo. There it is in a nutshell. Christian fundamentalism at its worst.
I think you missed the point. The father figure and the mother figure are supppse to be balanced. They are on both sides of the paradigm, equivalent to each other. There can be "motherly" Republican just like there can be "fatherly" Democrats.
I hope you can fix how you quote others, because you are not using correct punctuation. If you want to quote someone within a quote, than use a single apostrophe to indicate that quote within the quote. Such as: Fred said "We need to leave before 'the kernel' comes back home."
Oh!
I just realized that you just wanted to bash Christians who are also the majority make up for both political parties. I guess you will not care. Oh well! -_- I hope you have a good day.
I'm sorry. I listened to this and didn't understand. Every time Mr. Lakoff was about to elucidate a point, Mr. Reich would interrupt him. Can someone tell me what progressives/democrats are supposed to say?
They are supposed to stick to their own talking points rather than trying to argue the points put forward by GOP. In other words, ram home absolute necessity of state-provided services, protections, institutions and infrastructure, built on a nurturing world-view that values autonomy but doesn't abandon people when they are in difficulty.
One final frame I'd like to add to the comments here, which is looking to create a similar moral frame for progressives to the one that George describes so well for conservatives.
The moral hierarchy. The right way to think. Who are democrats? We believe it is right because it is fair and striving for fairness is a more realistic goal for security and in regard to what actually motivates people than a cynical view of lazy and selfish humans that often comes from the strict-father model. Fairness is also what actually works better in relationships than simply working to maximise one's own gains to the detriment of any other considerations. Relationships are founded on trust, on mutual respect, and on the idea of creating mutual benefit. If we thought a relationship wasn't based on this, then it's very unlikely that the relationship is entered into voluntarily.
In the end, cynicism breeds failure. Only trust can direct resources away from 'security' and into development. Compliance is more profitable for society than obedience. Compliance comes from respect and from know that society is invested in each and every individual, not just in a select few. The fall back on nurturing is associated with strong caring for both in-groups and out-groups, since our total security is the sum of the two, and their separation is in fact a recipe for war, conflict and expensive remedies from the results of these insecurities.
Collective responsibility is strong, as is individual responsibility, over and above self-help. The belief is in a fair system that gives everyone the possibility to benefit from their efforts, but to have adequate possibility to develop themselves and to make productive contributions, and not simply to live 'hand to mouth'.
The state is not a 'strict' father, but are parents who instil belief and self-esteem into their children by creating safe boundaries and 'nurturing fields' in which to develop. The importance of both self-discipline and mutual regard are given equal weighting, because a family that is just run by a strict father is usually a family that is unhappy and only a short distance from breakdown. Independence comes about through mutual support, in internalising compassionate strategies that are win-win, not win-lose.
You are defining the alternative to 'strict father', paternalism, and 'might makes us safe (and therefore, right') 'frame'. Is human nature good or evil...or is there a potential for both? (I sometimes think liberal can't see that fear and aggression as a response actually exist! Just like those schooled with an idea of 'original sin' can hardly think beyond fear and paranoia -- and can hardly recognize that humans are capable of acting altruistically - given the right context.) Can we deny ego? Can we supersede egoic delusion and act from wisdom -- as human being??? And is there some way context and the realities outside of 'ego' plays ANY PART??? In war, chain of command is useful and leads to survival in terms of tactics. But in the context of 6-11 billions people wrecking their ecology or life support system -- then cooperation of those with a stake in survival might MEAN SURVIVAL, wisdom and SANITY?!
George Lakoff has a great theory that is based in his discipline.. the linguistics.
However, he is not up to date on the latest neuro-science.
Reich was correct in stating that Trump appeals to "the reptilian brain" of Conservatives... and this is demomstrably true.. Conservatives have larger amydalas and are VERY responsive to fear stimuli.
Lakoff was wrong to say "No" to that statement of Reich.
Whose amygdalas were triggered by the outrageously FALSE claims of Russiagate? seriously quit living in the chimera fantasy in your mind and join the REAL WORLD.
@@Homunculas Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their lengthy investigation.
Nothing FALSE about it
2 things: I'm thinking Bernie does exactly what Lakoff is saying: hammering home again and again that he believes it is a fundamental human right for everyone to have health care, for example. This is what a statesman does, connects us to our better angels, our higher principles and to our hearts and dreams. He also says that the budget is a moral document and refers to "what this country is about" frequently.
Lakoff alleges that the Democrats fail because they only offer a laundry list of policies...on what planet, I'm wondering...the whole point of the progressive movement is to actually offer a laundry list of policies FOR ONCE, not this Liberal bland BS about "opportunity", and "good, well- paying jobs" where "everyone has a place at the table", yada yada. Bernie's laundry list is the most exciting thing since the moon landing. Single Payer, free college, living wage, taxing the rich, massive govt spending in infrastructure and green energy creating millions of jobs doing useful things, (not on making bombs to drop on poor people) and I guess Lakoff might agree that Bernie was so successful (why was he not mentioned?) precisely because he connects values to actual policies.
Very good on Lakoff. I don't think Reich gets it, and I'm not surprised. The very concept of _emotion_ in its modern framing is too Enlightenment. People think of it as something that interferes with and overrules reason, like Spock in _Amok Time._ Of course, the very idea of Spock is that a purely rational creature is impossible.
The older meaning is better, and it's right there in the word. _e-motion,_ that which causes motion. Oliver Sacks and others have pointed out that when brains are damaged to the point of not being able to feel emotion, they don't become perfect reasoning engines. They just sit and do nothing. People who have experienced anhedonia from depression have experienced a minor version of this.
In fact, neurotransmitters, which are associated with emotion, are responsible for the functioning of chemical synapses. I have a hypothesis that various neurotransmitters are responsible for training and untraining neural networks in the brain as an alternative to the neurologically implausible backpropagation used in computer simulations. I think it likely that feelings such as frustration and anger and confusion are necessary for learning itself.
Autonomism or Left Accelerationism, take your pick.
Hillary did not pull over many conservatives, but Trump Voters, Registered Voters have many a time said that they would’ve voted for Bernie.
Donors get bailed out; we get sold out.
Anarchist mutual aid groups are still providing more follow up assistance to communities still blighted with water logged debris across the Houston metropole than the state and the meager charity of conservatives and Neoliberals.
Grim Locke - Ya'll keep saying that but ya'll can't really claim that. After all, ya'll didn't bother to vote for him in the primaries which is why Hillary ran for the Democrats... That's how those things are sorted out. The candidate who wins the primaries runs. It has nothing to do with donors and no one was sold out. Ya'll were simply too goddamn lazy to get up and vote in the primaries.
@Ray - You aren't paying attention. The Democratic primary was rigged for Hillary against Bernie. Ya'll need to stop shifting the blame around and put it where it belongs - Corporate Republican and neoliberal Democrat corruption.
Jason - Welp, sounds like someone doesn't know the primaries is. It's a national, public VOTE that both parties use to determine who will run on their ticket. The voters decide who runs on the Democrat/Republican tickets in presidential races. It isn't done by a secret corporation or board or some such other. It's determined by VOTES. The fact of the matter is that Hillary got 1 million more vote than Bernie did. And, on the other side of things, Trump won the Republican primaries -- do you honestly think the Republicans would've ran with Trump if they could've prevented it? Republican's came out and voted for their dark horse in the primaries. The Democrats didn't. Young voters, in particular, don't tend to vote so most politicians don't cater to them. He bet his candidacy on them voting for him and they failed him -- even promises of forgiving student debt couldn't get them out to vote in the primaries.
Stop whining and suck it up. Maybe next time you'll realize that, while debates and rallies are all fine and well, they matter for nothing. If you want your candidate to run on the national ticket then VOTE IN THE FUCKING PRIMARIES.
Trump didn't get enough nurturing. Whata ya gonna do?
LOL. Well said. Reich acts like he needs a LOT of nurturing. Scary dude.
I disagree with George. I dont think we need to use the language of the right to convince people that freedom and individualism is the same as equality and solidarity, especially when equality and solidarity is far better then F&I. Some of socialists can handle the task of convincing people and winning the argument that a more egalitarian and communitarian society is better for everyone. Why waste your effort trying to manipulate the language of freedom when we really mean equality. This guy must be some con advertising salesman. In his book "Who's freedom?" he should have said that we want more equality and solidarity and less freedom and individualism. Sorry George, the only way to end the right wing con game is to throw the narrative out with the bathwater
After listening to this man, I am even more convinced, that Bernie will president.
I'm thinking Bernie does exactly what Lakoff is saying: saying again and again that it is a fundamental human right for everyone to have health care. for example. This is what a statesman does, connects us to our better angels, our higher principles or care. He also says that the budget is a moral document.
Bernie only points out the PROBLEMS! & that's The PROBLEM!! Only (I)!! have the genius level ideas to fix Americas problems! Besides Bernie & Trump & soooooooo many are just too old & dumb, to be President or even a Senator!
So you say Dems don't care about values? He said they never poll on values, lmao.
I liked this interview, I only don't agree with his conclusion that Trump is a threat to Democracy. He has taken no actions that have threatened citizens or the constitution, so this man fear mongering a "threat to democracy" is very snow flake of him.
This man is so bad at persuasion. So bad.. but what he is saying is very good ...
I think it comes down to Sociobiology. Forget politics and morals as both sides have neither. We have grave human failings too explore here. Humans put themselves over everything except in many cases with gods--and then you're still dealing with human thinking as gods seem too suffer from the same human issues of greed and jealousy and self destructive behavior and anti-social behavior. Humans should explore their behavior from a biological standpoint just as we would study another animal species. We're not that clever nor are we that evolved. We have used our brains to expand technology and to entertain ourselves but we still allow for behaviors that will completely destroy the natural world in the next 20+ years. We are still fooled by obvious Liars in Government and big business and law enforcement and any other position of authority. We look to movies on superheroes and we do not act in our best interest. We have allowed for a hierarchy were the worst examples of human genetics are running the show. Don't complicate things, we're animals and we're also the most destructive force in natural history--an invasive species that has dominated and exploited all eco-systems on the planet to the detriment of the natural world. LESS HUMANS and MORE NATURE is a move in the right direction. Overrun the wealthy and redistribute the wealth. No human is fit to govern nor be governed. Act in accordance with the natural world and have an intimate relationship with the natural world.
You had me until the very end. If we want a civil society - given human potential for thoughts and emotion, for our capacity for conscious and unconscious motivators and justifications, for good and evil, etc...we need 'checks and balances.' That was the idea of democracy. Those 'in power' need to fear The People....who must be educated not only in facts but to human nature....and how what our thinking or 'frames' in our brains and how they can be manipulated (by cons like corrupt Trump AND by corrupt Dems) -- can be manipulated. People must be taught to understand their role in making 'the powerful' fear The People's power...and the nature of 'checks and balances.' We have tried tribal, autocracy, plutocracy, fascism...and have seen the MADNESS and ATROCITY that leads to....and with our current technology, we cannot afford our willful ignorance about human potential and its consequences any longer. If the only thing that still operates is that 'the lesson of history is that humans don't learn the lessons of history' -- we are all cooked and done! Do YOU/we love your/our children, beauty, the struggle and sacrifice of our parents and for-bearere -- or your own sanity and ability to live -- other than something 'nasty, brutish, insane and short????
The problem is that it doesn't mean shit to be a democrat politically, anymore than it means to be a fan or a sports team. You can cheer and wave the flag to emphasize your own identity and beliefs, but the last election and what went on with the DNC proves those people are happy to have you give them your money and wear their T-shirts and hats, but they are not doing anything for you, and nor can they do anything, because they get their money from the corporations.
Until people get used to the idea that money is the crime, that the vast majority of money and power has been stolen and operates in the service or evil and that the system and money need to be battled from outside the system somehow, nothing will change except people jsut getting more and more disilliusioned, depressed and going insane.
You cannot vote for people because they are people, they do what they want or what others tell them, and there is no way people can talk, debate or vote on issues such as health care. We are told what to think, we are told what others thing. We hear that Americans support universal health care and free education ... and yet year after year nothing happens except the military and police get more money and we get more and more surveilled.
Lakoff should wake up at some point before he dies.
This Guy on the left is too boring! I am out at 12:00 !!
Whatever dude