2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUnderstanding Trump by George Lakoff
'But as a longtime researcher in cognitive science and linguistics, I bring a perspective from these sciences to an understanding of the Trump phenomenon. This perspective is hardly unknown. More that half a million people have read my books, and Google Scholar reports that scholars writing in scholarly journals have cited my works well over 100,000 times.
Yet you will probably not read what I have to say in the New York Times, nor hear it from your favorite political commentators. You will also not hear it from Democratic candidates or party strategists. There are reasons, and we will discuss them later this piece. I am writing it because I think it is right and it is needed, even though it comes from the cognitive and brain sciences, not from the normal political sources. I think it is imperative to bring these considerations into public political discourse. But it cannot be done in a 650-word op-ed. My apologies. It is untweetable.
I will begin with an updated version of an earlier piece on who is supporting Trump and why and why policy details are irrelevant to them. I then move to a section on how Trump uses your brain against you. I finish up discussing how Democratic campaigns could do better, and why they need to do better if we are to avert a Trump presidency. . .
The conservative and progressive worldviews dividing our country can most readily be understood in terms of moral worldviews that are encapsulated in two very different common forms of family life: The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative).
What do social issues and the politics have to do with the family? We are first governed in our families, and so we grow up understanding governing institutions in terms of the governing systems of families.
In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the fathers authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they are in charge of. When his children disobey, it is his moral duty to punish them painfully enough so that, to avoid punishment, they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world. What if they dont prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. This reasoning shows up in conservative politics in which the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving, and the rich as deserving their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you; society has nothing to do with it. You are responsible for yourself, not for others who are responsible for themselves.
Winning and Insulting
As the legendary Green Bay Packers coach, Vince Lombardi, said,
Winning isnt everything. Its the only thing. In a world governed by personal responsibility and discipline, those who win deserve to win. Why does Donald Trump publicly insult other candidates and political leaders mercilessly? Quite simply, because he knows he can win an onstage TV insult game. In strict conservative eyes, that makes him a formidable winning candidate who deserves to be a winning candidate. Electoral competition is seen as a battle. Insults that stick are seen as victories deserved victories.'>>>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/understanding-trump_b_11144938.html
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)elleng
(130,901 posts)I've been frustrated for years, that Dems haven't learned from him.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)Some good advice at the end
central scrutinizer
(11,648 posts)Lakoff and Chomsky, always worth reading and heeding.
elleng
(130,901 posts)calimary
(81,262 posts)Unfortunately, that's counter to what we've all been relentlessly force-fed for years - "relief - fast, fast, fast!" for example. The good guy always gets the bad guy - in just 23 minutes because it's a half-hour show and you have to allow for commercials. But it's all well 'n' good by the end of the show.
Problem is - nobody wants to find the time to READ. To dig into these things. To stop and think and not just to react. Nobody's interested anymore. After all - we're now keeping it to 140 characters...
Color me discouraged.
elleng
(130,901 posts)wiggs
(7,813 posts)look like their idea of father figure.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Food for thought!