Comments for John's Bytes

Comment on George Lakoff – How conservatives and liberals think. or not. by danielfee

danielfee — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:10:01 +0000

I don’t know what happen there, I was trying to start a new paragraph and it posted my comment.
I just wanted to add that I noticed that Lakeoff had used the word “alone” in the quote you posted. I thought it was odd for a linguist to use an absolute term like this in his statement. Was this from the speeech or was it written. I know that when I speak I will sometimes get lazy and use terms like “always” or “never” and my wife will call me on it. I noticed in your response you have a tendency to do the same thing. For example, using “exclusively driven by” is one of those phrases. I don’t think anything is “exclusively.” I think better words are “tend”, “lean” or “prefer” for example. But I am and engineer, language was not my forte.
On your Keystone point, you said I fell right in line with the environmental lobby. But also the elected officials in Nebraska did as well. I think we need to look at this in a much broader policy context. Yes, there is the environmental vs jobs aspect to the argumet. But consider the bigger picture that oil and coal are old technologies and will not be the energy sources of the future. Should government policy continue to support old technologies which may negatively impact things like the water supply which the farmers are using for irrigation? Contaminating this supply could have very negative impacts on the food supply. Is it worth the 6,000 +/- jobs that building the pipe line would create (I know that hire numbers were submitted, but eve the company admitted that they were counting using one job for one year, so yhe one job was counted as 2 or 3 jobs over the life of the project.) My position is that from a government policy perspective we need to be moving away from the old energy sources towards the new. The old will continue for awhile longer, and will be secondary sources in the future but policies should be pushing the future new sources. If we want to stay as the economic superpower we need to be at the forefront of this change. When you look at history, the dominant economic power in the world has always been the country that was at the front of the energy technology of the day, such as the Dutch with wind, British with coal and U.S. with oil. I think everyone agrees that oil as the primary energy source is on the decline. Should we try to hold onto the old and go down with it, especially if it has other detrimental impacts?
Here is a question I have, and I have not researched this issue, but why not build a new refinery near the source instead of piping it all the way across the country? We don’t pipe our sewage from South Florida all the way to Tallahassee to get to a treatment plant. The longer your distribution system, the more potential negative impacts you will have.
I will check out the charity study.
Dan

Comment on George Lakoff – How conservatives and liberals think. or not. by danielfee

danielfee — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:20:22 +0000

John,
Since you called yourself lazy I couldn’t resist taking a little jab at you. But you obviously spend more time thinking about and exploring new ideas than most people do even if you don’t like to read entire books. The way I conceptualize the “strict father” vs. “nurturing parent” models is along a bell curve with one model at each end of the curve. Most people are clustered around the middle portion of the curve. Then there is the 15 to 20% that are out further on the curve. The social/religious conservatives are out there in this group, which is why I think it might be easier for you to see the “strict father” model being applicable to them. They are much more idealistic than those that are economicly conservative. Personally I am more economically conservative than those out on the far end of the liberal portion of the curve. But I am obviously on the other side of the mid point of the bell than you are.

Comment on George Lakoff – How conservatives and liberals think. or not. by John Kenney

John Kenney — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:30:45 +0000

hi dan:

good timing. i am waiting on something.

yes, i grant you i am lazy and not good at reading entire books. i do spend a lot of time on this stuff – more than i should, so there are limits.

he did say in the talk most all the further explanations you suggest – that people have elements of both in them, that some people are in the middle (e.g., me), and so forth.

yes, i accept that in a general way, the way he describes the left and the right has some elements of truth to it. i’m more easily sold on the ‘nuturing’ idea for the left, but the ‘strict father’ thing might take some getting used to, in part because there are many, many conservatives, including almost all the ones i know, who are not religious.

i think if he’d offered up his ‘strict father’ model as applicable to social / religious conservatives, i’d have bought into it more easily. but by offering it up for all types, including economic conservatives, i don’t feel that works.

to be clear, he’s the one that listed those elements of the progressive ideology very specifically in a list which concluded ‘and that’s it.’ after finishing point #3.

and i agree that his general concepts are not unlike other frameworks other people have used. i guess that’s the point of my disappointment – it doesn’t seem all that insightful to me. or not that it is not insightful – surely it is – but it is not particularly new to me.

i do agree about the power of language, too. this is crucial stuff, absolutely. but again, i am very familiar with this type of thinking having spent my early years involved with some aspects of cognitive science and linguistics, including work with some of the top linguists in the country. it also doesn’t hurt that i’ve spent years in consulting and marketing and know well how the tiniest nuance of speech can affect comprehensive.

one of the most interesting parts of his talk was where he explains that progressives somehow collectively are not very informed about this. i have to say that is surprising given people like clinton and obama who are masters in the use of words.

and it explains partly why they get so upset at people like karl rove (and luntz) who apply this type of thinking to politics in very sophisticated ways.

as to the charity stuff, see this post from the other day (i was on a roll). http://johnsbytes.com/2011/11/14/conservatives-are-selfish-people-not/. it has links to a few sources. you can google it, too. ‘charities by political party’ or some such.

i don’t much buy you point that it, in a reverse logic sort of way, further proves that conservatives are exclusively driven by personal responsibility. i agree it is a central tenent, but my sense is that you and progressives vastly overplay this idea. i don’t know of anybody who is conservative who actually believes the major social programs should be abolished. i accept that some conservatives probably do believe that, but i’d be extremely, extremely surprised to see data that indicates that the majority of conservatives or republicans would choose to eliminate those programs.

just because somebody on the right says something, that does not mean every single person believes the identical same thing. the right is not that monolithic – as Lakoff eventually acknowledged in his talk.

but really the central problem i had with his ideas is that they aren’t rich enough to explain or predict specific progressive policy preferences. i don’t think these general ideas include either detailed enough constructs (maybe the book somehow knits it together better) or encompassing enough ideas.

for instance, the idea that bigger government is the path to better nuturing. how does that follow from his general principles? there are a zillion assumptions and beliefs between his principles and the idea that ‘big government is good’, let alone all the specific programs that progressives prefer. big government is not necessarily the only way that high nuturing could be achieved, but it is the way progressives prefer to obtain it. why?

i think this has to do with a belief that i got from one of your posts: progressives believe that people who work in government are inherently ‘better’ people who are able to rise above the petty behaviors that lead to bad results in the private sector. i have to admit this observation of yours has been quite a revelation to me – far more so than Lakoff’s comments. i’ve discussed it with many people and most can’t even begin to fathom why and how you believe this – there is so much evidence to the contrary – but you do – and now that i see that, i can see that many progressives believe this and it strongly guides their policy preferences.

or the example i cited at the end of the post about energy development. there are many things about domestic energy production that would achieve apparent progressive benefits: more prosperity, more safety, stronger, more secure community, etc. but in this case, progressive aversion to environmental degradation is soooo strong that it moots these other more immediate concerns.

if you push this point very far, you see that to avoid developing domestic energy, progressives are prepared for us to maintain a huge military and go to war to provide for it from overseas. this makes no sense to me and is not explained at all by his construct. now progressives probably don’t see it this way, but the reality is that it is so. if we wanted to, we could be an energy independent nation (or very close to), but we can’t even get remotely close to that because of the environmental lobby.

this was brought home the other day with the Keystone pipeline decision. here again Lakoff offers no help. the environment trumps unions / jobs? and everybody, including you, fell right in line with that. no hesitation. no question. astonishing.

i’m not sure if i am communicating this well or not. the point i’m trying to make is that i’m looking for explanation at a more micro level than the model Lakoff seems to be offering- perhaps his book offers a much deeper model that will explain these types of policy choices.

but as i wrote in a subsequent post, after giving it more thought i don’t know that it is possible to even write this stuff down because i doubt it actually fits into a coherent, internally consistent model (for either party). it is situation specific – obama’s choice on Keystone was made in the exact circumstances of the moment. no one, perhaps not even him, could have predicted that 6 months ago, much less penned a predictive model years in advance.

about the Lakoff quote I pulled. seriously, please. you are being crazy if you believe this statement of his to be true in the absolute way he has phrased it. yes, they lean towards individual responsibilty, but ‘individual responsibility alone’ – i doubt even a single conservative believes that on the entire planet. the fact that they team up into all these think tanks and so forth to advance their cause illustrates how absurd this extreme phrasing is. if even the most enthusiastic conservatives prefer help each other by working in groups, imagine how the 99% of other conservatives feel about sharing and collaboration.

this is a good example of the ‘simplistic’ piece that i don’t like. if he had a genuine appreciation for real conservatives in real life, there is no way he’d make such a extreme comment.

i can’t respond to all your points, but as to your answers to my rhetorical questions, i think you are taking this stuff way, way too far. i’d encourage you to talk with more conservatives using neutral language and see what their answers are. very few, if any, actual people would answer these questions as you have answered on their behalf. certainly not a single one that i know. and none that i read in the Wall Street Journal. not even the commentators on Fox News hold positions like this. i’m not saying none do – particularly the provacteurs – but seriously you need to start weeding the wheat from the chaff.

as to the obstruction charge against the House, it takes 2. both sides are holding their ground. neither side is relenting. if one side were giving in, then there would be votes. i see this oft repeated charge is a misdirect. why don’t the Dems just yield to the GOP, then we’d not be at loggerheads? why do you and others assume that it must be the GOP that yields? when the Dems are in opposition, it is always a ‘prinicpled’ opposition. when the GOP is in opposition, it is assumed to be venal.

i appreciate the dialog, dan, it is instructive and informative.

Comment on George Lakoff – How conservatives and liberals think. or not. by danielfee

danielfee — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:17:49 +0000

John,
I am glad you wanted to know more but sorry you are too lazy to read an entire book. The problem with short cuts is that you never get a full picture or understanding. The same goes for reading just one book. If you prefer one written by a conservative, read Russell Kirk’s “A Conservative Mind”. It won’t give you a comparision between liberial and conservative thought, but it is considered an very influntial book by many conservatives on conservative thought. If you had read Lakeoff’s book I think you would have picked up that he said almost everyone is bi-conceptual holding some views that would fall on both sides. But usually one side is more dominate and that is how an individuals worldview is framed. The family model approach as he describes the “strict father” and “nurturing parent” is not something random he chose to support his preconceived positions. It is actually a model that I have seen used often. I am sure you have heard people (including Rush) refer to the Democrats as the “mommy” party and the Republicans as the “daddy” party. This is very similar framing to what Lakeoff and many others have used. You shouldn’t be dismissive because of a personal bias that you may or may not have based on the writer being either liberal or conservative. Also, you should recognize that, how he descibes both models are in a pure idealistic form which rarely applies to individuals, although you might be able to find a few people. If you have ever read Ayn Rand she also writes in a very idealistic form, even though reality never exists in the ideal.
I don’t think that you can deny that conservatives believe in a system based more on “individual responsability” and that people should “pull themself up by their bootstraps” and “people should not expect things to given to them.” Nor can you deny that liberals believe in a system based more on “we are all in this together” and “we need to look out for one another.” I am not a religious person, but if you listen to preachers on each side they are a good example of this “me” verses “we” divide based on what portions of the bible they chose to preach. Compare the dominionist theology and those who preach that if you are wealth it is because you were chosen by God to be so. Verses the more liberal religious sects who preach the Sermon on the Mount and what you do to the least of my brothers, you have done to me. Or look at child rearing books written by conservatives like James Dobson and others and you will see that they promote a very strong “strict father” model. I am not attempting to make a religious point here, but I do think that those who are very religious do tend more towards the ideals of the “strict father” or “nurturing parent” memes.
I am not sure what studies or where you have read that “conservatives give a lot more of their income to charity, being more likely to devote their own time to charitable causes (volunteerism), and when they do volunteer, to spend almost double the amount of time doing it.” I have not run across anything showing this, but I would be interested if you could give me a reference.
But what I found interesting about your comment is the quote that it was in response too.
“Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other.”
I read your comment a couple of times and I think you actually provided proof of his statement. Parse what you said, conservatives give more time and money. But what is implied in your statement is that they make an individual choice to do this, and to what level of time and money they are willing to give. This fits right in with Lakeoff’s statement that “conservatives believe in individual responsibility.” So this is not so absurd on its face. I often hear conservatives arguing that government programs like food stamps, medicare, medicaid, and should be elimnated because people should take individual responsability. And for those who can’t take care of themselves, churches and charities, not the government should take care of them.
Finally to answer a few of your questions:
Do liberals actually believe that conservatives don’t want a supportive community? Yes, they believe that conservatives would like to dismantle the governmental social safety net programs and leave community support to charities and volunteers. We had this type of a system in place back in the 1930′s and it did not work very well during the depression. Why would we want to go back to that type of a system?
That they don’t prefer cooperation?
Yes, Exhibit A, the Republicans in Congress. They will not even vote for things they have supported in the past because it might make Obama look good. Exhibit B, the Tea Party’s or rigt-wing radio hosts who’s stated position is that there should be no compromising with Obama or the Democrats. Exhibit C, Mitch McConnell saying we will work with Obama if he adopts our position. Where is the cooperation?
That they prefer lying over the truth?
I don’t know if the prefer it, but they sure have gotten good at it
That they don’t want prosperity?
No, they want prosperity, but it seems to be a more of a winner take all prosperity that they prefer. If special interest can lobby to get the rules changed to their advantage, or the disadvantage of others that seems to be OK with conservatives. Liberals also want prosperity but believe that there should be a level playing field.
That they don’t want their kids to be safe?
No, everyone wants their kids to be safe. But what about other peoples kids?
“Except maybe in the most general of way, these sorts of simplistic academic ideas are not where the communication breakdown between the parties is occurring.” I don’t think these are “simplistic academic ideas”. Frank Luntz, like George Lakeoff, understands that framing and language matters at the most base level in a persons world view. That is why Luntz coaches conservatives to use phrases like “death tax” instead of “estate tax”.

Comment on Obama: Job Killer-in-Chief by danielfee

danielfee — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:19:35 +0000

John,
Your right that I will frequently reference Reagan. I do it for two primary reasons. First, todays conservatives hold him as the ideal conservative and they are all striving to be the next Reagan. Listen to Republican debates and see how many times they invoke Reagan and compare that to how many (if any) times Bush is invoked. But when they do refer to Reagan it is the mythological version not the real Reagan. This is why they are having a hard time finding someone to live up to those standards. Second, it was Reagan who brought us supply side economics (or as George HW Bush called it Voodoo economics). We have been living with it ever since 1981. Reagan during his 8 years increased the national debt by 186%. GHW Bush increased it by 54.4% in only 4 years and GW Bush increased it by 150.1% in his 8 years. By contrast Clinton increased it by 31.6% in his 8 years. If you look at Clinton’s numbers you will also see that the percentage of increase went down year after year. So Republican presidents controlled the White House for 20 of the 28 years under a supply side economic system and the Natiional Debt went from $997.8 billion when Reagan came into office to $11.9 trillion when GW Bush left office. So the evidence tells me that they are not fiscally responsable and when I hear them crying about deficit spending and the size of the debt, they have no credability. Obama’s deficit spending is too high but the year over year percent of increase is declining from Bush’s last year. Federal revenues are way down as a percentage of GDP (the lowest since 1950) so you can’t expect to see Obama turn it around in a couple of years. I am willing to give him his full 8 years to get things turned around.
I don’t think I specifically referenced you when I was talking about regular FOX News viewers. I was not trying to make it personal. I was trying to make a more general point.
For myself, I don’t read NY Times. On occasion I may run across an article from them. I do watch MSNBC. But I read a lot of books and the only magazine I get is the Economist.
Can I name 3-5 major policy positions (economic or social) held by the liberal community that you disagree with? I doubt it, that is why I am not a conservative. When it comes to social issues I actually believe in individual freedom and civil rights. I think people should be able to marry who they want, serve in the militray if they are gay, or have an abortion if the choose. I like the Jefferson quote, “if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I am not a gun control advocate, so a FOX vewer might agree with that position. Although I will qualify my position by saying that I don’t think individuals should own military grade weapons. On economic policies it is difficult to find any position that I would agree with the right on because I think supply side economics has been the problem for the past 30 years. We now have 30 years worth of data and we have the widest income and wealth gaps since the late 1920′s. Trickle down is not trickling down. We have gutted our consumer base, the vast middle class no longer has discretionary income to spend on products and services. When the economy is 70% based on consumer spending it can only lead to a shrinking economy. It can be temporarily be held up by expanding credit (at all levels) but that can only occur for so long before the whole thing collapses. That is where we find ourselves today. We are in a credit contraction (deflation). But we are not going to solve credit deflation with budget cuts and austerity measures. So I guess if I don’t accept supply side theory and the propsed supply side solutions to the problems that it has created, then I must be on the liberial side since it seems that everything has to be black or white. I guess there is no gray in the middle anymore. Although I would say that most liberals couldn’t tell you the difference between suppy side and Keynesian economics. Actually most people find economics oo boring.

PS: John Dean didn’t do the studies that are cited in his book. He and Barry Goldwater (before he died) had come across the numerous studies that have been done since WW II and put the data in the book. The term “follower” was just used to distinguish between authoritarian “leaders” and those who follow them. I have thought for quite some time that the Republican Party is far more authoritarian, which is why they can keep everybody in line, and that they look at China’s authoritarian capitalism model as the ideal system. Big business tends to likes this type of a system because they can negotiate with a authority figure who can enforce the deal. At Saturday’s debate Michele Bachmann came out and said it. She said that the U.S. should be more like China. A Republican presidential candidate said out loud that we should be more like a communist country. And they question the patriotism of liberals?

Comment on Comparison of Top 1% by Im Dating A One-Percenter

Im Dating A One-Percenter — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:00:40 +0000

Like the article. Relevant information!

Comment on ‘Conservatives are selfish people’ – Not by John Kenney

John Kenney — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:59:46 +0000

as ever, wisdom and insight. thanks, ben.

Comment on ‘Conservatives are selfish people’ – Not by Ben Hoffman

Ben Hoffman — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:18:27 +0000

Conservatives are idiots. Just look at their presidential candidates!

Comment on Obama: Job Killer-in-Chief by John Kenney

John Kenney — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 17:05:34 +0000

Yes, I totally grant you there are major inconsistencies in the Republican platform. Very obvious.

And I completely agree that there is rampant distortion of facts, cherry picking of data, changing messages, twisting of positions and so forth by Republicans. Some of it may be warranted because of changing circumstances – e.g., you frequently reference Reagan running up debt 25 years ago as a justification for why it is unfair for the right to criticize Obama for running up debt now. Times have changed and positions need to change to – I don’t see one as justification for the other.

What is remarkable is not that the GOP does this, but the implied point that the left does not. It seems like you think that when you read the NYT and watch MSNBC that they are telling the ‘truth’. But they are cherry picking their facts, changing their positions to suit the current climate, etc. just as fast, if not faster, than the right.

Not that I would take the time, but I could provide you with similarly large numbers of examples from the left as you claim to be able to provide me from the right of distortions and obfuscation. That said, I know you have a special place in your heart for the inherent evil and deeply twisted motivations of Fox, so you may find that hard to believe.

I also continue to try to say to you, but you seem immune from hearing it, that I don’t actually get most of my news from Fox. I had literally never even watched the channel prior to this summer, so your constant assertions that my worldview has been shaped by Fox and/or that I am parroting back what I hear on Fox is absurd.

And when I watch Fox, it is hardly the case that I agree with everything they say, but if I compare what I hear on Fox to what I hear on MSNBC, I am definitely going to agree with the Fox view more of the time.

I could likewise say to you (and have) that you sound like you are parroting the MSNBC party line. Or the opinion columnists of the NYT (excluding Brooks and Douthat).

I asked you once before and don’t think I got a reply, but can you name 3-5 major policy positions (economic or social) held by the liberal community that you disagree with? And by this, I don’t mean that you hold a position even further to the left than the mainsteam of the party, but rather positions you hold that are farther to the right. Positions that folks on Fox News might agree with (at least directionally). I’d be surprised if you can, but it’d be an interesting exercise. I can easily do so.

But I digress, the point is that the problem of distortion and selective thinking, etc. is rampant on both sides.Do you agree with that? Is there a comparable amount of distortion on both sides?

P.S. – I listened to a lengthy interview from 2006 with Dean. I don’t find it compelling. Sounds like he has demons that he’s trying to excise. But whatever the motivations, a lot of what he says about Republicans being followers and being resistent to changing their views even in the face of facts, etc. applies plenty good to many liberals (leaving aside the authoritarian part). Fighting and suppressing others who dissent? – I remember that happening a lot when I lived in MA. And the part about needing a motivating enemy to rally against and drive fear into the hearts of voters: Fox News anyone? Climate change? Loss of social security benefits? More rape and crime on the streets?

Comment on Obama: Job Killer-in-Chief by danielfee

danielfee — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:53:17 +0000

John,
There is no doubt that we look at issues from a different perspective. IF you want to get a better understanding of why, there are 2 books that you should read. I think I have mentioned them to you before: John Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience” and George Lakoff’s “Moral Politics”. Both deal with big picture framing in our subconscience and the personality types that are attracted to each. After reading them, when you listen to politians speak, you will better understand how they are framing their messages to fit into their perspectives,
The interesting thing is that those on the right who scream the loudest about protecting the Constitution and personal freedoms are the first that will give them up. First they advocate taking them away from someone else, then they will give up their own. The pro-life/pro-choice fight is the first that comes to mind but I could list many. It is because their personality type is that of an authoritarian follower (described very well in Dean’s book). It is a top down hirachy. Compare the TEA Party vs Occupy Wall Street. The TEA party may haxe started out at a grassroot level but very quickly it was co-opted by big money groups and people who ran to the front as “the spokesman” for them. The message was very quickly refined to sound bites. Why? Because they had professional organizations like Freedom Works behind them that crafted their message. Then they run out there and say “yea, that’s what we are for”.
Take Dodd-Frank for example. More than 80% of people were against bailing out the big banks and thought that we need to do something to break them up. More than 80% cuts across all party lines and political philosophies. Then for a year and a half Congress worked on new regulations to reign in the big banks. Those politicians that have been bought off by the big banks water it down and now we have even bigger banks and some modest rules that will allow the government to take control of a big bank and unwind it.
But those with the authoritarian personality type, who were opposed to the bailout, are now opposed to Dodd-Frank because it infringes upon the free market. Their position has been turned 180 degrees. Then you get arguments like “Dodd-Frank is a job killer” in an effort to defend an undefensible position. The problem is still too big to fail banks. The banks will not get smaller on their own, so government regulation is the only way it will occur. People moving their money out of big banks will help, but that is not the long term solution.
Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, is a grassroots movement that doesn’t have an identifable leader. The biggest complaint you hear in the media is that they don’t have a coherent message. The media keeps trying to fit them into a top down hirarchy because that is also how the media corporations operate, with FOX News being the most authoritarian of all.

If you read these two books, I don’t think you will make the claim “it defies common sense” and my position will make more sense to you. I understand where you are coming from although I don’t agree with your position. I see where you are trying to fit facts into the narrative of your world view framing. I am sure you will say the same about me, but if we both understand this premise then we can argue how best the “facts” support one or the other of these frames. Your “Obama: Job Killer-in-Chief” article caught my attention because on its face is a ridiculous notion. He has been trying to do everything he can to create or retain jobs. You may not agree with what he has done or proposed, like the auto industy bailout or federal aid to state and local governments to retain public employees, but you cannot then turn around and call him a job killer by citing the Keystone pipeline or a few other policy decisions that conservatives disagree with.

I agree with you that we see things from opposite sides. But I would argue that if conservatives, particularly those who are regular FOX News viewers and right-wing radio listeners are the ones who have the inverted lenses. I could cite 100′s if not 1000′s of examples where they have distorted stories by 180 degrees by leaving out relevant facts or just making things up. Were you aware that Nebraska had asked for the pipeline decision to be delayed because they are concerned about their drinking water source? Is a few tousand jobs worth the potential contamination of Nebraska’s drinking water? But in right-wing world this feeds into the “Obama is a job killer” story line. Never mind 3 million private sector jobs have been created since January 2010. “Obama is bad for business and a job killer. That’s our story and we are sticking to it.”

Dan