Saturday, November 06, 2004
Red and Blue Redux
The headline above links to an NPR piece given by George Lakoff (a linguistic professor) on the differing world-views of conservatives and liberals. I have to credit Josh Langhorne here for linking it up to me. It was aired a month ago, but I think it's just as poignant today in the midst of all this talk of seceding from the rest of the country.
For those of you who don't want to spend 30 minutes listening, I'll sum up quickly:
Lakoff argues that the two sides (liberals and conservatives) both have their own set of moral standards, and the simplest way to view that is through the eyes of a family. Strict father (for conservatives) vs. nurturing parent (for liberals). In light of this, low taxes, harsh punishments, and moral unilateralism all come into focus for conservatives. On the other end of the spectrum, social welfare, environmentalism, and human rights all make sense for liberals.
Of course, like everything else in life, it isn't quite so simple. Lakoff argues that we have both worldviews in us; that we can sometimes use them in different parts of life. Does this mean that we have the ability to understand the other view? Does this mean that we don't always have to fight? Can't we all just get along? Well, also like everything else in life, it's much easier to point out the problems that it is to fix them. There isn't any real explanation about how this will help unite our nation, other than to say that we should respect the other views. Yes, that may help, but it doesn't stop me from thinking they're wrong.
During the segment, a caller calls in who says that conservatives are "equal opportunity" and that liberals are "equal results". As soon as the words were out of his mouth, I thought "equal results? That's not what liberals are about!" Lakoff immediately pounced on this, saying that thinking of it that way was a conservative view and only furthered his point: we don't see eye to eye. In fact, both liberals and conservatives think they are about equal opportunity. We just have different ways of getting to that end.
What troubles me the most is the way that he depicts this as a moral problem. The death penalty may not work: it doesn't deter crime, it costs more, and it often puts innocents to death. That doesn't matter to conservatives: it's morally right to put people to death who murder others, and despite the practical evidence against it, you can't argue against an ideal. And liberals aren't any less guilty of this either; while championing environmental rights, jobs are lost and people lose their livelihoods and futures, exactly what liberals are supposed to be all about. But you can't understand other people's morals if your own are in opposition. That's why, although this is enlightening, merely respecting other people's views isn't going to solve the problem. Conservatives want a world where we all worship the same God, and I want a world where we worship nothing. My middle ground would be where churches and temples do their own thing, separate from the government, not interfering with other people's lives. Their middle ground would be where atheists stayed in the closet and let churches do God's work. After all, my morals were shaped by our society, a predominantly Judao-Christian one, they say. I guess that's where we find ourselves now. Right in the middle.
Back to the topic, though, there are a lot of moderates out there, and like Lakoff said, everybody can at least passively understand both views. There will always be opposition from either side, but if the liberals can capture the middle, they have a chance. And that's what they should have done with Kerry; the strict father role is so appealing when we feel we need to be protected, and Bush plays that better than him. Kerry tried to capture that with his tough talk, but maybe what he should have been doing is pushing the 'kindler, gentler US" rhetoric. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and the next presidential election will be a whole new ball of wax.
The take-home message: These world views may perhaps enlighten how we think, but they don't explain why we think it. I still believe that our nationwide division is as much a product of geography and money as it is anything else, and I think those are the issues we need to address. That being said, we could all probably stand to stop calling each other morons, Jesus-freaks, liberal-hippies, religious wackos, pussies, hicks, and bigots. It may not solve all the problems, but it probably isn't going to make things worse.
For those of you who don't want to spend 30 minutes listening, I'll sum up quickly:
Lakoff argues that the two sides (liberals and conservatives) both have their own set of moral standards, and the simplest way to view that is through the eyes of a family. Strict father (for conservatives) vs. nurturing parent (for liberals). In light of this, low taxes, harsh punishments, and moral unilateralism all come into focus for conservatives. On the other end of the spectrum, social welfare, environmentalism, and human rights all make sense for liberals.
Of course, like everything else in life, it isn't quite so simple. Lakoff argues that we have both worldviews in us; that we can sometimes use them in different parts of life. Does this mean that we have the ability to understand the other view? Does this mean that we don't always have to fight? Can't we all just get along? Well, also like everything else in life, it's much easier to point out the problems that it is to fix them. There isn't any real explanation about how this will help unite our nation, other than to say that we should respect the other views. Yes, that may help, but it doesn't stop me from thinking they're wrong.
During the segment, a caller calls in who says that conservatives are "equal opportunity" and that liberals are "equal results". As soon as the words were out of his mouth, I thought "equal results? That's not what liberals are about!" Lakoff immediately pounced on this, saying that thinking of it that way was a conservative view and only furthered his point: we don't see eye to eye. In fact, both liberals and conservatives think they are about equal opportunity. We just have different ways of getting to that end.
What troubles me the most is the way that he depicts this as a moral problem. The death penalty may not work: it doesn't deter crime, it costs more, and it often puts innocents to death. That doesn't matter to conservatives: it's morally right to put people to death who murder others, and despite the practical evidence against it, you can't argue against an ideal. And liberals aren't any less guilty of this either; while championing environmental rights, jobs are lost and people lose their livelihoods and futures, exactly what liberals are supposed to be all about. But you can't understand other people's morals if your own are in opposition. That's why, although this is enlightening, merely respecting other people's views isn't going to solve the problem. Conservatives want a world where we all worship the same God, and I want a world where we worship nothing. My middle ground would be where churches and temples do their own thing, separate from the government, not interfering with other people's lives. Their middle ground would be where atheists stayed in the closet and let churches do God's work. After all, my morals were shaped by our society, a predominantly Judao-Christian one, they say. I guess that's where we find ourselves now. Right in the middle.
Back to the topic, though, there are a lot of moderates out there, and like Lakoff said, everybody can at least passively understand both views. There will always be opposition from either side, but if the liberals can capture the middle, they have a chance. And that's what they should have done with Kerry; the strict father role is so appealing when we feel we need to be protected, and Bush plays that better than him. Kerry tried to capture that with his tough talk, but maybe what he should have been doing is pushing the 'kindler, gentler US" rhetoric. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and the next presidential election will be a whole new ball of wax.
The take-home message: These world views may perhaps enlighten how we think, but they don't explain why we think it. I still believe that our nationwide division is as much a product of geography and money as it is anything else, and I think those are the issues we need to address. That being said, we could all probably stand to stop calling each other morons, Jesus-freaks, liberal-hippies, religious wackos, pussies, hicks, and bigots. It may not solve all the problems, but it probably isn't going to make things worse.
# posted by Stuart @ 2:05 PM 
