GEORGE LAKOFF SHOWS HOW TO FIGHT WORDS WITH BETTER WORDS.

Democrats are frustrated.  They believe the facts are on their side, but voters persist in giving power to the Republicans, even against their own economic self interest.  George Lakoff argues that facts and reasoning are not enough, but that there is a way to better understand how to influence voters.  Words count.

Reasoning is the main weapon of the Democrats, but they overlook the critical role of emotions.  The conscious reasoning process is already lagging behind the unconscious reflex process.  The unconscious mind is the base for much of our conscious decisions.  There is discussion of neural connections and how everything fits into established unconscious patterns.

Lakoff divides voters into two main camps--conservatives and progressives, but very definitely allowing that most people have a little bit of both tendencies.  There are words and images that tie to one "frame" and over a period of time can steer us in a direction.  If you listen you will notice that the Republicans use a well defined frame for their policies and criticisms.  Although no one is all conservative or all progressive in their thinking, we can be steered to accept views that are not totally compatible.

Conservatives are authoritarian and favour a strict father while progressives are more nurturing parents.  Discipline is admired as is loyalty by conservative.  An example is that when Bush pardoned Scooter Libby for taking the rap for disclosing a secret service employee (Valerie Plame) the conservatives admire the loyalty displayed.  Masculinity (including what I call machoism) is part of the same package.

A favorite word of conservatives is "entitlements" and they have even been able to get Democrats to use the term.  It infers that safety net items are luxuries that should not be taken for granted, instead of something voters help pay for.

A pet theme of conservatives is that regulations stifle business.  De-regulating is a stated goal of Republicans, but if you examine the issue what they really mean is the regulations that cut their ability to maximize profits.  A progressive view is that they are really protections.  Lakoff contends that if politicians always counter with the word "protection" voters would eventually realize they have a stake in the issue--their health, their financial security and their safety.  It really is a life and death issue, but Republicans have succeeded in picturing regulations as harmful.

Another beef he has is that conservatives are always wanting to privatize different functions on the premise that private business can do it more efficiently.  The problem from Lakoff's view is that the government has a mission to protect citizens while private businesses have profit as the highest priority.  These two goals are often in conflict.  One example of privatizing:  Black Water started by Erik Prince (brother to Betsy De Vos who wants to privatize education) contracts military services, but are not accountable.  It has changed ownership and names, but still active.

9-11 was initially termed a crime, but was soon converted to terrorism and the government adopted war powers putting Democrats on the defense.  Criticism was regarded as unpatriotic and many people suffered.

The Bad Apple defense is often used by conservatives.   A few underlings with little authority take the blame, not the organizers/designers.  One example was the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.  The big decisions were made at the presidential, cabinet minister level, but they were not punished.  Instead the focus was on low level employees.

Still another abused term is "Job Creators" who are pictured as the over taxed citizens who would start up factories, etc if they had the money when in fact no jobs are created without consumers spending money.  Usually poor people when given a little extra money are more likely to spend it than the rich who just gain a bigger cushion and the ability to better protect their greedy interests.

At the same time government jobs don't count.  Overlooking the fact that not only do their employees spend money, but they facilitate a wide range of market activities whether teachers, police, researchers, infrastructure workers or even bureaucrats.

Taxes are always bad and progressives are criticized as spendthrifts who take hard earned money from deserving people and waste it.  Expenditures should be seen as investments--facilitating and protecting.  Yes there is waste and government which is accountable to the voters must make efforts to control waste.

Metaphors are a critical tool we all use to make sense of things.  Republicans have mastered many of them.  Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2016/11/metaphors-are-more-pervasive-and.html

"The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt provides another perspective to my way of thinking.  It demonstrates some of the underlying differences that voters start with.  He is sympathetic to conservatives, but I think explains their base. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/02/the-righteous-mind.html

Paraphrasing Bill Clinton, "As we all become more interdependent we are more inclined to look for win-win solutions instead of win-lose."  It reminds me of  Stephen R Covey and the fear Republicans spout about dependency.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/09/dependency-new-hot-topic.html

Deregulation and privatizing mark a shift from a government with accountability to the public to a government (private business) without accountability to the public--from a government with a moral mission to a government with a mission of maximizing profit.

I

A BOOK ON JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES

Economics can be awfully boring and I admit it was a struggle to get through "Keynes, the Return of The Master." I wanted to understand his message a little better and perhaps succeeded. You may not have heard of Keynes as in some circles he is very much out of favour. But after the Great Depression his ideas were heralded as the solutions to handle future depressions.

He is dismissed by conservative thinkers who now seem to have the bigger stage. Keynes is criticized as the guy who wants to increase spending during a depression or recession even to the point of a deficit. Those who think that is terrible (and some of them seem to be in control) say that it is far better to cut expenses. They overlook that his theory includes the idea that governments should run surpluses when times are good and then spend when it is needed for the very slow times that otherwise result in unemployment. In fact he thinks that running a surplus keeps growth from getting out of control when it could precipitate a crisis.

I discovered that underlying his mathematical and psychological thinking is a different kind of philosophy than one hears much of these days. The purpose of economics is not to make finances more efficient. Keynes feels that the only purpose is so that people could live "wisely, agreeably and well." He didn't restrict that to the rich, but felt income inequality was part of the problem. One of his most famous quotes is "..in the long run we are all dead."

As ordinary citizens we hear a lot about how important it is to protect the job creators, but in truth we are all job creators. Meeting our needs and wants is what gives someone else a purpose (and an income). We in turn use our talents and energies to meet other people's needs and wants. Governments are not the problem as was famously said by Ronald Reagan, but they can facilitate the solutions.

The author recounts history noting that governments swing from conservative to liberal and back to conservative. The problem is that society goes too far in one direction creating a crisis that causes a swing in the opposite direction. One of the problems comes from a political context. Rich people are at bottom interested in protecting and expanding their wealth and power. A philosophy that justifies what they want to do to benefit themselves is just another tool. With their wealth comes power that can be leveraged to attain their goals.

The author, Robert Skidelsky has written a lot of books on economics including a much more substantial book on John Maynard Keynes. This one is struggle enough, but it is fairly current covering events up to 2009. He recognizes that Keynes had his limitation, lived in a different era, but that his wisdom still shines and should be heeded.