Katrina Defining Liberal Values: People Over Profits
by Alexander Shaumyan
George Lakoff, UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive
science, argues that progressives/liberals do not have an effective way
of framing their issues. He suggests that the conservative political
model is framed in line with the "strict father" family model and the
progressive/liberal model is framed in line with the "nurturing parent"
family model. He says:
"Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent
family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be
made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good;
parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the
responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are
responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as
governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government
regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil
liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability
(derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open
government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy
that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are
traditional progressive values in American politics.
"The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the
world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and
must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who
supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches
his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful
discipline -- physical punishment that by adulthood will become
internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once
grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those
children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or
recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut
free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.
"So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing,
the good citizens are the disciplined ones -- those who have already
become wealthy or at least self-reliant --and those who are on the way.
Social programs, meanwhile, 'spoil' people by giving them things they
haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only
to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment),
and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In
this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure
of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take
away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned
and spend it on those who have not earned it."
To a great extent, Lakoff's observations are correct. Conservatives
have portrayed the poor as "unruly and spoiled children", who live off
the government and have no desire to fend for themselves.
Conservatives love to talk about self-discipline, knowing right from
wrong and the strong work ethic. Their favorite phrases are "life
isn't fair" and "there is no such thing as a free lunch." They love
to talk about tough love parenting and tougher sentences for those who
commit crimes. On the other hand, liberals see the roots of poverty in
social injustice, exploitation, racism, neglect, and unfair treatment.
Empathy means trying to see the problem by imagining yourself in
another's shoes.
Lakoff argues that the problem is that liberals/progressives have not
presented their world view with an effective frame. Some people have
misinterpreted his ideas, thinking that Lakoff simply says that
Democrats need a bunch of buzzwords to present their ideas to the
public. In other words, the image or presentation is more important
than substance. The Bush administration was skillful in presenting its
policies, so as to have an appeal to general public. For example, the
Bush administration got away with anti-environmental legislation with
names like "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies." This is what is
commonly known as propaganda or, as Lakoff would call it, dishonest
framing. Democrats have the facts and science behind them. What they
need is not propaganda, but a more effective framing of their issues.
To fall into a trap of using Republican words like "tax relief" or
"partial-birth abortion" is to validate their world view.
While I agree with Lakoff that language has a powerful way of affecting
our thinking, I find that his family model of government is not the
best way of defining what progressives/liberals really stand for.
First, the idea of government as parent treats the citizens as
children, not as adults. In democracy, people are the ones who elect
their government and they are the ones who decide what the role of
government should be. The idea goes back to Marx's analysis of
capitalism. The problem lies not in different parenting views, but in
economics. Marx describes it in terms of wage-labor and capital:
"A rapid growth of capital is synonymous with a rapid growth of
profits. Profits can grow rapidly only when the price of labor -- the
relative wages -- decrease just as rapidly. Relative wages may fall,
although real wages rise simultaneously with nominal wages, with the
money value of labor, provided only that the real wage does not rise in
the same proportion as the profit. If, for instance, in good business
years wages rise 5 per cent, while profits rise 30 per cent, the
proportional, the relative wage has not increased, but decreased.
"If, therefore, the income of the worker increased with the rapid
growth of capital, there is at the same time a widening of the social
chasm that divides the worker from the capitalist, and increase in the
power of capital over labor, a greater dependence of labor upon
capital.
"To say that 'the worker has an interest in the rapid growth of
capital', means only this: that the more speedily the worker augments
the wealth of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall
to him, the greater will be the number of workers than can be called
into existence, the more can the mass of slaves dependent upon capital
be increased.
"We have thus seen that even the most favorable situation for the
working class, namely, the most rapid growth of capital, however much
it may improve the material life of the worker, does not abolish the
antagonism between his interests and the interests of the capitalist.
Profit and wages remain as before, in inverse proportion.
"If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of capital
rises disproportionately faster. The material position of the worker
has improved, but at the cost of his social position. The social chasm
that separates him from the capitalist has widened. "
--From "Wage Labor and Capital" by Karl Marx, 1891 pamphlet.
In other words, in the capitalist system, the rich get richer and the
poor get poorer. One doesn't have to be a Marxist or socialist to see
this basic truth. The basic problem is not that liberals/conservatives
don't have an effective frame, as Lakoff argues. The vision was
always there. The conservatives have always argued that laissez-faire
capitalism would improve the quality of life for everyone. The more
wealth is created, the more wealth is distributed to the most poor
members of society. This is Adam Smith's "invisible hand". This is
Reagan's "trickle down" economics. We've been hearing the same lie
over and over -- removal of government regulations and tax breaks for
big businesses will lead to general prosperity for everyone. It
doesn't take a Marxist to see that it doesn't work. It certainly
didn't work for the poor in New Orleans. We've seen it in the tragedy
of Katrina and in the oil price gouging in times of disaster.
The message for liberal/progressive values is very clear: we must put
people above property and profits. And this means people all over the
world -- it is the poor who get killed in wars that fill the corporate
pockets. The war in Iraq was about the oil and US hegemony, not about
any "weapons of mass destruction". The "liberation of Iraq" is a lie.
We should be talking about the "occupation of Iraq" and the killing of
innocents. We should be talking about human cost of the war both in
the United States and in other parts of the world. We should be
talking about American corporations taking their business to the Third
World to exploit cheap labor. Remember Bush talking about the economy
in a warehouse filled with boxes labeled "Made in China"? Bush's tax
cuts create jobs for workers in China . Caring about people means
protecting the environment and fighting for social and economic
justice. Why is there so much opposition to national healthcare?
Because it cuts into the profits of insurance industry. Why is global
warming not taken seriously? Because the change cuts into the profits
of the oil and coal industries. It's about the common good, not
corporate self-interest. People over profits. The vision was always
there. It is time to stand up and articulate it to the rest of the
world. It's not about just framing the issues, it's about conviction
and standing up for what's right.
--Alexander Shaumyan
http://www.shaumyan.com
.
|
