Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FaultLine who wrote (51217)	6/22/2004 12:52:46 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

"The highest principle in the conservative moral system is extending and preserving the moral system itself, where the highest principle in the progressive moral system is helping individuals who need help," Hi, FL. 1,000 crowd a church, eh? I am glad to see something is putting the fear of God into Berkeley! :>) I think the Prof is on target with his definition of progressive morality. It holds altruism as it's highest value, and believes it is moral to sacrifice the individual for the good of the group. That is what "helping individuals who need help," translates to, IMO. The conservatives start out with Religious altruism, but they translate that to Individualism in the secular world. That does create a dichotomy for them. And they are constantly at war over it. But it is a more acceptable message for people. But the Prof is right. The progressives are in a death spiral because they have followed Socialism, "The God that failed."

To: FaultLine who wrote (51217)	6/22/2004 9:13:15 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

This is nonsense: Lakoff says conservatives have been taking language seriously for 30 years, ever since they joined together to resist a left they feared was a threat to traditional values. Conservatives haven't been taking language seriously, they've been taking ideas seriously. They haven't "devised language," they have been refining their ideas: They have created 43 think tanks and spent $2 billion. They devise language that reinforces their values and distribute it through broadcast commentary, books by conservative thinkers and other outlets. Ideas first. Language follows as you try to develop and make the ideas clear. Lakoff's comment, if true, makes clear that the left, or "progressives" as he calls them, are no longer the owners of serious thought: "The highest principle in the conservative moral system is extending and preserving the moral system itself, where the highest principle in the progressive moral system is helping individuals who need help," Lakoff said. Altruism is admirable but is not an adequate foundation for a moral system. In the political realm it leads to disastrous results. By the way, I think there is an error in the article. In this paragraph I'm sure Lakoff meant to say, or did say "Republicans": "And pretty soon the Democrats are talking about their plan for tax relief," Lakoff said. "It gets into the synapses. They've gotten into our brains and we have to change that. It took a lot of years talking about small government before it made sense. It had to fit into a conceptual system.'

To: FaultLine who wrote (51217)	6/22/2004 9:35:53 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793916

Terrific piece, FL. Thanks for bringing it here. People vote values, not logic, and liberals must appeal to them with a moral language of their own, every bit as coherent as the right's, he says. The politics of coalitions and interest groups divides what ought to be the moral unity of the liberal message. "Liberals are responsible for acting within the unity of their own philosophy," Lakoff writes. "As long as liberals ignore moral, mythic and emotional dimensions, they will have no hope." Exactly. Precisely. The problem with present liberal agendas is that the carriers of the myths they present are so deeply flawed. The Kennedy family had the potential to be mythical in this sense but after Chappaquidick, a drug death, drug use, rape allegations, a murder, alcoholism, the reports on JFK'sprivate life, affairs with nannies, and lots more examples of thuggish behavior, any hope for the Kennedys to carry a mythical torch no longer exists. They really blew it. MLK may have been able to do it, but he's dead, and Rev. Jackson is a poor and bombastic substitute. The Clinton's have the potential to be myth carriers but their own corruption has been a millstone around their neck in this regard. Reagan was a natural, of course. I do know how you feel about him. You've got to admit, though, as a myth carrier, Reagan fit the bill perfectly. I think McCain has the right stuff for the job, yet he seems curiously unwilling, and he's running out of time. I thought that Bill Bradley, a decent human being, had the potential to carry a potent liberal moral message, but he has inexplicably decided to miss the battle. I completely agree with the article's analysis. So long as the liberal myth carriers reside in Hollywood, have dicey backgrounds, and are otherwise flawed in a significantly more extensive manner than the the ones on the right, the liberals are doomed for the foreseeable future. For what it's worth, the myth carriers seem to share a common characteristic, i.e., they have all achieved something outside of government and politics. I think this is what validates them somehow as genuine. I don't buy the notion of W as a myth carrier in the sense Lakoff describes. In fact, I see in his administration many of the incipient problems that bedevil the Dems, and of course I don't refer to specific issues but to the overall moral tone, religion aside. Thanks again for this thought provoking piece.

To: FaultLine who wrote (51217)	6/24/2004 10:21:29 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

FaultLine, you might be interested in knowing that Lakoff figures prominently in The Atlantic's lead piece in the July/August issue, When George Meets John, which deals with their debating skills and styles. He makes a few very perceptive comments, including a few on how smart and clever a debater W really is. He cleaned Ann Richards' clock during the Governor's election in Texas despite the fact that she was believed to be a lot smarter, quicker, wittier, etc., than him. Kerry is a consummate pro, having been involved in formal debates since he was a pup at St. Paul's. I don't think Kerry will be able to shake his cool patina. If he sheds it, his lack of sincerity will be palpable. You can't fake the qualities necessary to appeal to NASCAR dads, though you can fool a few soccer moms. You'll have to pay for the privilege of reading the article since it is not online. It's worth the price of admission because there are a lot of other very good pieces in the issue.