I was saddened to read, earlier this week, of Pakeha's troubled soul. The ill disguised bias in George Lakoff's rambling nonsense about how conservatives have consistently defined how issues are framed seems to have caused you some distress, Pakeha. Let me reassure you. Whatever Prof. Lakoff might want you to believe, and Lord knows it's hard to imagine a Professor at UC Berkeley having a political agenda, don't buy into his silly trivializing of conservative views.
According to Lakoff, who laughably styles himself a 'progressive,' conservatives spend far too much time outwitting those well-intentioned liberals by simply being too ruthless in their single-minded pursuit of public mind-share. Incidentally, George, calling your self a 'progressive' implies you are moving *towards* something. I got the distinct impression you were more interested in moving *away* from conservative views than you were *toward* something else. That, sir, would make you a "regressive."
Trivial semantics aside, Georgie does have a point. Liberals (sorry, "progressives,") have apparently been far too accepting of the terminology of the right. Perhaps that's because, as I've said before, they are often better able to define themselves in terms of what they don't stand for than in terms of what they do. They are against cutting taxes, they are against religion in public, they are against the war in Iraqi, they are against even applying the most basic rules of logic and decency when it comes to unborn children. Quite what they are 'for' often seems a little blurry. Oh, they would like a nice, happy world where dictators are a thing of the past and where everyone is happy and valued and, probably, vegetarian. How we are supposed to get there, of course, often gets lost in the railings against conservatives who clearly stand in the way of all this progress just for kicks. If you need a concrete example, simply take a look at the best the Democratic party can throw up, (and "throw up" seems a particularly apt expression,) currently running for the Presidential nomination. There's a bunch of men who definitely don't stand for a long list of things. They are especially keen to be "not George Bush." What they *are* of course, is anyone's guess.
I was also particularly amused by Progressive George's miserable attempt to define the two political stripes of right and left in terms of a 'nurturing parent' or a 'strict father.' So, as a conservative, I believe that children are inherently evil and need to be disciplined? Does he actually believe that nonsense?
Here's a better summation, Mr. Lakoff: As a conservative I believe in the capacity of all children to achieve wonders. They are all, without exception, capable of the most extraordinary feats of vision, generosity and creativity. All of them. What they lack, generally, is a moral framework and the skills to negotiate through an oft-unfriendly world.
Self-discipline, Mr. Lakoff, is what will stand them in good stead. Discipline imposed from outside is useless if it is not matched, and exceeded by self-discipline. The belief in their own ability is what I want for all children and there, sir, you and I diverge most fully.
Pakeha seems to be confused by Lakoff into thinking that somehow individuals striving for personal betterment make the world a worse place. No sir. Individuals who grow up with an unnatural sense of personal entitlement, who believe that the state, and by that I mean everyone else, owes them something, who are taught that self-reliance and self-discipline are the products of an abusive system, they make the world a far worse place. I find it perplexing that left-wing thinkers, who clearly believe that the state should maintain a strong role in the day to day life of the everyone, would characterize the opposite view as being like a 'strict father.' Surely if we have to pick a familial metaphor, the liberal system would be a rather overbearing and highly judgmental mother, and the conservative view would be a somewhat neglectful father?
Here's some news for George and his "progressive" buddies over at UC Berkeley. The free market isn't evil. It is simply, blindly, amoral. That's why we have laws to protect people and we enforce them with the court system.
Build a society full of people who believe that they are capable of making the world better for themselves and others through individual action and responsibly, give them an environment where they can do so, and provide them with a firm moral basis upon which to draw in making difficult choices, and I suspect we'll end up with the kind of world Lakoff sits around and just dreams about.