Thinking Points Discussion of Chapter 2: Biconceptualism
Last week we kicked off our discussion of Thinking Points with Chapter 1: Winning and Losing. In this article, the second installment of an eight week series, we explore the nature of biconceptualism. This new perspective carries strong implications for the Myth of an Ideological Center and how to effectively connect with swing voters without alienating our progressive base.
I would like to begin by saying “thank you!” to everyone for making our discussion of Chapter 1 a tremendous success last week. Many wonderful insights have been offered by members of the Rockridge Nation community that help us better understand how to connect with fellow progressives. You are an inspiring group of compassionate and intelligent people to work with! Keep it up!
We have seen in Chapter 1 that there are numerous traps to avoid when working to unify people around the progressive vision. Now let’s go deeper into the problems progressives face when trying to attract new people to our cause. Chapter 2 starts out with the following:
“Understanding who we are talking to – and whom we want to talk to – is crucial before progressives begin to articulate what it is they have to say and how best to say it. This is true for progressive candidates as well as activists and activist groups.”
The challenge we face is two-fold:
1. We want to activate our base while reaching swing voters at the same time.
2. We want to do so without having to lie, distort, mislead, or pretend to be something we aren’t.
Essentially, this means we need to be authentic. But how do we do that and connect with more people when it seems that most people are not strongly progressive or conservative? And what do we mean when we say they aren’t strongly one way or the other? The standard answer is that there is an ideological center where most voters reside. We will see in this discussion that the standard answer is misleading in ways that are harmful to our cause.
We are making a controversial claim here. Politicians, pollsters, political scientists, and campaign strategists have built their careers on the existence of an ideological center, and many of them ardently believe it exists. Our claim is potentially controversial because the idea that an ideological center exists has been assumed for such a long time. As we will see shortly, the evidence actually contradicts the ideological center. We are talking here about the kind of controversy that arose initially around the Theory of Evolution (and has recently had a resurgence with proponents of Intelligent Design), the kind of controversy that rubs some people's deeply held beliefs in a way that causes them to feel threatened.
Let’s talk about what is necessary to understand in order to advance our cause. As long as we understand the problem to be one of “moving to the right” to attract swing voters, we will lose. Plain and simple. Alternatively, we can win by clearly articulating our values in a way that resonates with swing voters. What, you may ask, is doing the resonating? It is the Nurturant Parent value system we hold dear that resounds in swing voters. They have the same values as us…along with another set of them.
This is the point where we throw in a bulky word, biconceptualism. Biconceptualism is the reality that we have the capacity to carry in our brains two competing moral worldviews at the same time. Every one of us has both Strict Father and Nurturant Parent moral systems in us. The thing that determines how we identify with others politically is which one is dominant in our political lives. For many people, it is a combination of both.
The Mythical Center
Before going into greater depth about biconceptualism, let’s see what is misleading about the Myth of the Ideological Center. By going through this exercise we will begin to see its limitations and discover how to get around them. The Myth of the Ideological Center has four different versions. Here is a brief version of each and a discussion of how it leads us astray:
The Label Myth
This is when people are asked to give themselves one of three labels: liberal, moderate, or conservative. A discovery made by psychologists years ago is that people commonly make mistakes when asked to identify themselves with labels. This happens because we have preconceived notions of what the labels mean that are accompanied by good or bad feelings. These feelings bias our application of the labels. For example, in The Politics of Polarization centrist Democrats William Galston and Elaine Kamarck obtained the following poll results:
(Disclaimer: Misleading Title)
Liberal 21%
Moderate 45%
Conservative 34%
They interpret these results to mean that strong liberals will only manage to rally 1 in 5 voters by speaking as a liberal. What they failed to take into account is that in 2004 (when these polls were taken) the word “liberal” had been branded negatively by conservatives. People did not want to identify with this negative term. However, the word moderate implies the person to be well reasoned, cool headed, unbiased, and balanced. This sounds like a good thing so people self-identified more often as moderate even though they might side with liberal ideology! The reality is that we cannot reliably tell which moral worldview people ascribe to when the question is framed this way. (This is an example of bad polling procedures that contribute to the Poll Trap discussed in Chapter 1.)
The Linear Myth
This myth is based on a bizarre metaphor. We can visualize it as citizens lined up from left to right, with some people on the extreme ends and others in between. Their locations correspond with their positions on individual political issues. According to this metaphor, the center is a real location where most people reside. Becoming more moderate, according to the linear myth, entails moving toward the center. This is visualized by the idea that “moving to the right” will result in more people being “to the left” of you. This increased number of people to your left is understood as the portion of swing voters you were able to bring to your side.
Serious problems arise when this idea is applied to campaign strategies. It creates an ethical dilemma by requiring a candidate to become inauthentic by moving away from his or her true values. The strategic disadvantages are two-fold:
1. The candidate is more likely to offend his or her base and lose credibility.
2. The candidate expresses values from Strict Father morality that strengthen the position of opponents by spreading conservative ideas and values.
The two moral worldviews (Strict Father and Nurturant Parent) are mutually inhibitive, meaning when one is activated it suppresses the other. Also, as we will see in Chapter 3 when we talk about deep frames, repeated exposure to Strict Father values reinforces their activation.
The Moderate Myth
This myth is interesting because it seems to be the optimal compromise. The idea is that people who act with moderation in their lives – well reasoned, cool headed, balanced, don’t want to go too far one way or the other – have a political worldview structured by moderation. It sounds great until you look at it a little closer. For starters, this disposition is not an ideology. There is no consistent set of moral values that constitutes moderation as a worldview. It really gets to be problematic when we consider the fact that many issues take the form of yes-no choices. Here are some examples:
Do you support capital punishment?
You can’t kill someone only a little or in moderation.
Should abortion be legal?
It is meaningless to suggest that a person have an abortion in moderation.
What about assisted suicide?
You are either for it or against it.
Things really get sticky when we consider a person who applies the principle of moderation universally to political decisions. This person seeks the balanced view on all matters, resulting in a series of compromises. Or worse, the person could be indecisive when presented with yes-no choices that are ambiguous. These are not the qualities of a moral leader and people do not connect with or trust in them as leaders.
The Mainstream Myth
This myth assumes there is a real center of public opinion as determined by polls on particular issues. Here’s how it works. Ask a large number of people which issues are most important to them and what their positions are on those issues. Perform statistical analysis on this data to figure out what the average position is for the group of people polled. Assume this average position represents the average voter – this is where things get distorted – and prepare a campaign platform to attract the average voter. In reality, this average voter doesn’t exist. It is like the household that has 2.3 kids. No such household exists but it appears as a result of the number crunching. You may not find a single person who holds the same views as the fictitious average voter. This is because there is no ideology – no worldview or system of values – connecting the different positions reflected in the polls.
Lay the Myth of the Ideological Center to Rest – People are Biconceptuals
Hopefully by now you can see how each of the four myths misrepresents real people. Political strategies built upon the Mythical Center fail to capture the essence of politics. This happens because real people don’t think and act in the ways assumed by the metaphors of the center. We are not the labels placed upon us. Nor do we line up in a linear fashion to represent our values. While moderation is a good thing in many aspects of life, its limitations in the field of politics lead to trouble. The diversity of people in our country cannot be packaged in a bundle of averages without losing the core of political life – our moral identities.
The reality is much more inspiring. We each hold within us the capacity to imagine competing moralities. My friend Mark Johnson (who has co-authored three books with George Lakoff and is an expert in moral philosophy) wrote a book titled Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics that argued for the importance of imagination in our moral lives. He described how we create scenarios (or stories) to explore the outcomes of different choices to help us learn about the impacts of our actions.
Biconceptualism – perhaps it is more clear to describe it as compartmentalized ethics – naturally arises because of the way our brains work. We require the flexibility to ponder multiple courses of action. In the realm of morality, this means we benefit from having more than one cognitive model to build upon so that we can construct competing perspectives.
Let’s put this into more concrete terms with an example. When watching an action show on television, we need to activate concepts in our brains that make sense of the story. This requires a Strict Father worldview. All of us can understand the story because we hold within us the conceptual structures of the Strict Father worldview. When watching a family drama focusing on relationship issues, on the other hand, we cannot understand the story without activating the Nurturant Parent worldview. All of us can understand the story because we also hold within us the conceptual structures of the Nurturant Parent worldview. While watching either of these kinds of shows, our brains must suppress the competing worldview in order to have a coherent understanding.
What this means is that we have both moral worldviews in us, though for people who are strongly conservative or progressive, the competing worldview only exists passively to aid in comprehension. Swing voters actively use both worldviews in different aspects of their lives. This is why we call them biconceptuals – they actively use two incompatible systems of concepts to reason about moral issues.
Authenticity is the Key
When we talk about “speaking to your base,” what we mean is that it is important to express your real values (which are the basis of your moral foundation). Expressing values different from your own will be inauthentic and people will smell you out. It is difficult to pretend to be something we aren’t. That’s why actors get paid to do what they do – it’s really hard to appear authentic when it isn’t true.
Let’s talk about this. Is there anything about these ideas that is unclear to you? (Don’t be shy. This is pretty difficult stuff!) Can you think of ways to improve how we reach out to swing voters? If so, please share them with the rest of us. Perhaps you have examples of biconceptuals that you would like to share.
I really look forward to our discussion!
(On Wednesday, March 21st I will explore examples of different kinds of biconceptuals here on Rockridge Nation. Next Monday, March 26, 2007, I will introduce Chapter 3: Frames and Brains, which gets deeper into what framing is and how it works.)
If you use a web bookmarking service, you can share this entry.
Swing vote
I really enjoyed the discussion presented here. I haven't yet read the later chapters, so I don't know if this is yet to come. I thought this would be fun to debate over, though.
There is one topic that I'd like to bring up that isn't mentioned in the chapter (as far as I can see). A biconceptual is someone who can embrace either a Strict Father or Nurturent Parent worldview depending on circumstance. As a result, they can identify with all sides of the spectrum. However, when it comes time to cast a vote, they can't "sit on the fence" anymore. My concern is that people "on the fence" may feel that they're being forced to identify "with us" or "with them," so they choose no side at all.
For example:
How many people do you know that don't cast a vote, because it doesn't matter to them who wins?
How many people do you know that vote for a third party that isn't even close to winning, just because they feel they're being forced to choose between two ideologies that just don't fit them?
My question here is: How do you reach out to swing voters to convince them to embrace your side, without making them feel like they are betraying the other side of themselves? How do you convince them, when it comes time to choose a side, that your side is worth choosing?
Moderate vs Biconceptual
This is actually I topic that either I still don't fully understand, or that I don't totally agree with and I want to agree with it. It makes sense in theory, but as I think about it, I begin to disagree. I get that there is no quintessential moderate person who has safe views on every issue. Your contention is that moderates are people comprised of progressive and conservative views.
But a) doesn't that through us into a false/rigid binary (progressive or conservative point of view) and b) can't you have a moderate point of view on something?
For example, there are those who would argue that we shut down every powerplant in the world to protect the environment. There are those who think we need to wait for better technology. There are those who think we should curb emissions. There are those who do not care or think we should ignore environmentalists.
Don't we then have radical, progressive, moderate, and conservative views?
And I feel like your examples beg the question.
Should abortion be legal?
It is meaningless to suggest that a person have an abortion in moderation.
True, but what about the degrees within the abortion debate-- unregulated abortions, partial-birth abortions, first trimester abortions, abortions only in the case of rape etc.
What about assisted suicide?
You are either for it or against it.
But even if you are for it, there are a number of conditions under which you would favor or oppose it.
Now to complicate my view, I remember Gore giving a speech in which he said I support gays but not gay mariage. This is an example where he probably lost progressives and conservatives by taking a moderate view. This is an example of where he failed to activate either base. A swing voter might have gone with him had he fought to curb global warming, but opposed gays, and vice versa.
Still. Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems that in deconstructing the voter who is or is not a moderate, you are ignoring the possibility of moderate views.
Does this make sense?
Thoughts?
Ha.
I've been thinking about this all day almost point by point to what you wrote (down to binary). I'm still not sure exactly what to write - but you beat me to it. I'll be back.
Moderate vs Biconceptual
I too am a novice at understanding framing and other issues at Rockridge, but I am learning.
Perhaps part of your confusion about this topic can be answered by a review of the "Policies-are-Values Trap". As I understand it, biconceptualism refers to values, not policies.
For each situation, there are a range of actions (solutions?), not just two. Polarity on issues, like biconceptualism on issues, is a fallacy. As was pointed out in an earlier comment, individual choices made on issues (voting, abortion, assisted suicide, etc.) are guided by whichever value set is currently ascendent.
Unfortunately, the Conservative (Now there's a word in dire need of reframing!) value leaders, those who fancy themselves strong fathers, have selected their position on various issues, and, with the help of Rush Limbaugh, have told their "children" what to think. Progressives have allowed themselves to be trapped into selecting a single opposite position. We need to rethink positions on national and local issues to determine whether the traditional "liberal" (anti-conservative)position is the most valid for progressives, or whether more than one possible outcome to the problem would fit into our value system. This is consistent with the nurturing parent model wherein the parent imparts values to the children but allows them to choose their own path from a range of acceptable solutions.
In the past, the people who did not automatically cleave to the "approved conservative" position and also did not cleave to the "approved liberal" position had no other way to describe themselves other than as moderates or centrists. The best way for progressives to appeal to those people, who are in fact the swing voters, is to move beyond a single approved "liberal" position on any and every issue. Focus without compromise on our values, not on issues. Examine proffered solutions to various issues by comparing them to our values. Show the world which solutions would be acceptable, not as a binary choice, but on a widely publicised scale wherein, for example, this group of solutions rate A for compatibility with progressive values (or B or C or whatever) and this group of solutions are rate D or F for compatibility with progressive values and would therefore be considered unacceptable to progressives. Tell people why the particular evaluation was made, then let them choose. I believe that they will choose more wisely under that scenario, than they do now.
A not inconsequential side benefit is that it would also force the conservatives to justify their "approved" position against not one, but against a range of alternatives.
If biconceptualism
If Biconceptualism refers to values and not to issues, then why present issues as a basis for argument as was done above? And the issues used, as pointed out by DavidP, are not exactly yes or no questions, either.
>Do you support capital punishment?
>You can’t kill someone only a little or in moderation.
No, but you can support capital punishment in some cases and not in others. For instance, down here in Texas, they want to start executing child molestors, even if they have never killed anyone. Now, I can see the reactions to that statement ranging from from "Yeah, fry the sicko freaks!" to "We need to HELP these poor mentally ill people, not kill them!" (And I'm talking about the reactions of people here at this blog, not in Texas) The conservatives in Texas would have us believe that these "monsters" have caused such harm that they are deserving of DEATH. But I'm getting away from my point, which is that there ARE degrees in the argument. Remember, the answers you receive are only as good as the question you ask.
"In what case or cases would you support capital punishment?
1. First degree murder
2. Child molesting
3. Drug smuggling
4. Drug dealing
5. Shoplifting
6. Anal sex
7. Other
8. None of the above
9. All of the above
You may think I'm joking on some of those choices, but it seems to me some people in this country want to move this country backwards to the point where people shoot each other on the street for looking at them funny. S'why I tend to refer to conservatives as "regressives". But the question does make my point, I think. You could choose one, some, all, or none of the choices.
Now it could be that your choices would be based on competing frames, but isn't that what biconceptualism is? Using different worldviews in different situations? You may use Strict Father on murder, but Nurturant Parent on drug dealing, or even child molesting (after all, we do have evidence it is actually a mental illness, right?).
So that is why it is important to begin from the ground up and communicate our VALUES, not our ISSUES.
Hmmm, I think I actually just moved back around to the beginning of this with that last paragraph. I think I just explained (at least to myself, if no one else) why people DON'T actually have a "moderate" view on things. They would pick the different choices based upon which worldview is stronger within them on a given choice. For instance, for me, it would be 8, none of the above. Someone else might pick murder only. A third person might pick drug dealing. And so on. This of course could ALSO be based on actual events in their life that have affected their perceptions. But that is part of what creates our worldviews, I guess.
I'm not really sure I've made anytthing any clearer for anyone. If I have, good. If I've confused you more, sorry. If y'all think I shoudl just shut up from now on...too bad. :)
Moderation is Not a Worldview
Hi David,
I want to sincerely thank you for asking these deep questions and for trusting us with your honesty. These are difficult ideas to grasp and no one is expected to fully understand them on first glance. I will try to shed a little more light onto the idea of biconceptualism. Please let me know if there are still things that have not become clear (I don't expect this response to be comprehensive, but rather I hope it helps clear the waters a bit more).
Now, to begin, let me say that biconceptualism does NOT make moderate views impossible. There is still plenty of room for the Principle of Moderation to apply to politics. The idea that we need to part ways with is the idea that a Moderate Worldview exists.
There have been several other excellent posts and I will apologize now for not responding specifically to each of your comments. However, I do recall Irasmusn making strides in the right direction. Let's start with the central importance of values. Politics is inescapably about moral values. When we take positions on issues, we are expressing moral values organized in a systematic way through a moral worldview. Also, when we apply a strategy to the question of what the particular policy approach should be to an issue, we are again expressing moral values that are organized through a moral worldview.
Let's explore this with the example of abortion. I will suggest that any "moderate" approach to abortion will still be an expression of Nurturant Parent values. One thing about moderation is that it is definitely not an expression of absolute right or wrong. Recall that the Strict Father worldview requires every situation to have absolute rights and absolute wrongs. So, if we are talking about moderation for abortion, we are already in the realm of the Nurturant Parent worldview.
If we are already activating Nurturant Parent morality for moderation on the issue of abortion, how can we allow for a plurality of possible policy approaches? The answer is that moral worldviews DO NOT restrict us to one approach versus another. It is a common misunderstanding to think that if there are only two moral worldviews we are restricted to only two policy choices. This is definitely not true!
Now for the Principle of Moderation. What does it mean to take a moderate position on an issue? For starters, it does not mean our values are distinct from Nurturant Parent or Strict Father values. It is not possible to be moderate without the values of fairness, equality, freedom, protection, etc. Taking a moderate position means something else. On the issue of abortion, taking a moderate position requires empathy, fairness, and protection...all of which are Nurturant Parent values. If I decide that abortion should be allowed, but only in some cases, how do I choose which cases are allowed? The way I do it is by
1. Imagining different scenarios and empathizing (empathy) with the characters involved
2. Asking myself if they are considering an abortion to keep themselves or their potential child safe from harm (protection)
3. Considering the implications of their actions seriously (socially and personally responsible)
4. Making a choice that is consistent with their life needs (fulfillment and prosperity)
All of these values involved in my application of the Principle of Moderation are expressions of the Nurturant Parent worldview.
I hope this helps clarify how moderation is still possible. We are not suggesting you throw out moderation. Rather, we are suggesting that you need to express your values authentically in order to connect with others (including swing voters). This requires you to understand that only two moral worldviews exist and an ideological center does not exist.
Please let me know if this is helpful to you.
Thanks,
Joe
Think I Get it Now
Thanks this does help.
I think I get it now. A moderate point of view on an issue is an inherently nuturant position. The strict father position does not allow for this. The crucial step for the candidate then is to decide where she or he authentically stands on the issues and why. When B. Clinton was running and asked where he stood on abortion he said "abortions should be safe, legal, and rare." Voters believed him. Voters identified with his concern for the mothers (safe/nuturant) but they also could see this as a moderate stance on abortion. While he was saying this, he was activating those in his base which stood for abortion rights. He was not advocating a moderate world view, but applying the principle of moderation you describe.
Does this sound correct?
Sounds good to me
Yes, I think you capture it well. The most important thing to keep in mind is what your values are. The Principle of Moderation arises naturally in many settings where the issue is multifaceted and personal for those involved. In order to make responsible decisions, it becomes necessary to empathize with all affected parties to some extent. Through multiple perspective empathy it is often the case that a moderate policy will prevail. But this "moderate" policy does not grow out of a moderate ideology, rather it is a pragmatic solution to a difficult problem that is resolved through authentic expression of moral values.
The importance of understanding cognitive science
I feel that the concept of Biconceptualism is one of the most significant advances made in "Thinking Points" as it evolved from "Don't think of an Elephant". However, the primary problem with understanding this concept, as it is with many of the concepts Dr. Lakoff addresses, is the fact that the underlying Cognitive Science which informs his theories is poorly understood by most progressives.
I believe there are several reasons for this. First, I think that Dr. Lakoff unwittingly did progressives a disservice by oversimplifying his theories in the Elephant book. That is, the theories seemed to appear out of thin air. They had the appearance of that all too often occuring scenario of afterthought science, done to uphold preexisting theories, rather than the product of real scientific inquiry. This opened the Doctor up to any number of critiques, mostly from 2 sources, i.e. those who didn't have a clue what he was saying,completely misunderstood his concepts, and just wanted to be heard complaining about him and those who knew all too well what he was saying and hoped to preserve their outdated concepts, mostly in service of continuing income as viable pundits of political language analysis.
There was perfunctory reference made to "Moral Politics" the 1996 work by Dr. Lakoff which represents his first venture into explaining politics using the principles of Cognitive Linguistics, but the science was not clearly explained or deeply delved into. Although this lack of depth is understandable I think that it has had a positive end result in that Rockridge now exists and the quantum leap that is "Thinking Points" is now available to all.
Second, it is my opinion that most people who choose to be politically active consider themselves intelligent and creative thinkers whose ideas are unique and valuable. Many of these people pride themselves on being knowlegdable and/or well informed. Upon taking the bait and reading "Moral Politics" or at least doing further research into Cognitive Linguistics and more generally Cognitive Science they discovered that it was very difficult for them to make the mental leaps of faith necessary to accept that their thoughts are overwhelmingly unconscious and that words could dramatically affect those thoughts, even before they became conscious. This had to be some form of Voodoo or Mind Control. After all, they were in complete control of their thought processes at all times and those unique processes they utilized were what made them superior thinkers.
Third, once convinced that addressing issues addresses values directly, it is very hard to see issues as symptoms rather than causes. These folk are very similar to western medicine practitioners who treat symptoms rather than causes. They do so because their discipline values such treatment. They have difficulty accepting alternative methods that treat causes because they "aren't playing fair". Therefore, they persist in looking from the inside of issues out, rather than looking from the outside in. A concept must address their pet issue with specificity or they will discount it out of hand.
These reasons combine to create a scenario where the progressive activist treats framing as though they were from Missouri, taking a "show me" posture, demanding that framing advocates "prove" their theories by providing proof that it applies to their pet issue perfectly, that it does not contradict their intelligence or the legitimacy of their thought process and that it is not simply a trick designed to make the author tons of money, signifying nothing.
Reading "Moral Politics" with an open heart and mind has great value toward understanding that the "strict father" and "nurturant parent" concepts weren't just pulled out of a hat but were the result of a legitimate scientific process by which a problem was clearly stated, a list of specific criterion for models to solve that problem were also clearly stated, then experiments were designed and conducted which continued to narrow the possible models that could meet the criteria until one model emerged that could safely be said was the only possible model for solution.
But if one wants to truly understand how Cognitive Science led Dr. Lakoff to publish his political works and involve in creating Rockridge I recommend that they read "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Dr. Lakoff and Joe's friend Dr. Mark Thompson. Granted, this is a scholarly work and is thus only slightly less daunting than Joyce's "Ulysses" to read and digest, but for those who make the effort, once again reading with open minds and hearts, a clearer picture of what we are really dealing with emerges. Because of advances made in Cognitive Science much of what has been considered sancroscant in Western Philosophy must now be completely overhauled.
The word cognition comes from the latin verb cognoscere which means "getting to know"
Cognitive Science involves learning about how we "get to know" what we know. It works at describing and predicting the processes we use to form thought, learn, and organize thought using aspects of psychology, philosophy, linguistics and computer modeling. The computer modeling comes in because so many of these processes happen underneath the radar of general scientific method i.e. they cannot be adequately measured by examining normal humans in their waking state. Computer modeling predicts what is occurring that cannot be adequately measured in the real world by working backwards from outcomes to show what processes do or do not have the potential to contribute to those outcomes. The discipline is quite young because the computing power to crunch numbers to the degree that any sort of accurate results could be expected is a relatively young reality.
OK, so what does all this gobbledy-gook have to do with anything? Valid question. As Cognitive Science has over the last 15-20 years studied how humans process information about their universe, how they store and access that information, and how they use that informaion to make decisions about their lives certain things arose again and again, in that way which leads the scientist to declare hypotheses he attempts to prove to the degree that they become accepted theories and if exceedingly lucky, laws. Among these nearly universal discoveries of recent Cognitive Science are the fact that it appears clear that over 90 % and perhaps more like 95-98 % of all thought is unconscious in a way that we have absolutely no conscious access to it. This mean that the sum total of our conscious thought and our shadier "sub" conscious thought make up a total of 3 to 5 % of our total thought. This is an even smaller number than that generally accepted for human use of the entire brain which is around 10 %.
The second most distinctive discovery of cogntive science is the fact that thought is embodied. That is, thought cannot be separated from the process used to perform it. Therefore there is a biochemical reality inolved with human thought that cannot be separated from thought itself. The mind cannot be considered as separate from the function of the brain to any great degree. This creates some serious issues for western philosophy, particularly rationalism, which is dependent on the concept of a transcendent, rational mind which is universal and exists outside the physical reality of the human mind. If we cannot separate thinking from the activity of the brain then there cannot be any so called "mind" that exists outside the brain that we can have commonality of access to, shared with other brains.
The implications of these discoveries are vast and rank right up there with "I think, therefor I am" as representing a profound paradigm shift of how we percieve human thought and its processes. They mean for one that the world cannot safely be considered to operate rationally. There are other factors which trump rationality as a method for the world to work. They also mean that after we exhaust the hard wired biochemical responses of simple fight or flight or sexual decisions, more complex decision making involves choice and choice involves multiple concepts and multiple concepts, without the existence of a common, transcendent mind, implies communication of those concepts.
As we see in babies, preverbal communication involves a mostly pictoral model of thought. As humans processed more and more information their cerebrums grew, cerebral function grew and communication became a process of processing information, storing it, accessing it when necessary, and finally communicatiing it. As a real means of doing this, clear mind pictures associated with distinct feelings were revealed as the easiest things to store and process biochemically. Only at the conscious level did these feelings and pictures need symbols associated with them to facilitate communication between individual humans. Words came about when a need arose to communicate a particular feeling associated with a thought picture. Therefore words are most closaely associated with conscious efforts to relate the mind to unconscious thought stored in the deepest recesses of the mind. It is not efficient for the mind to store verbal narratives. The mind uses words as the computer user uses aliases, as a symbol that points to the real thought.
My standard story of how words(and ergo, language) came about revolves around the caveman Ogg who sees a sabre toothed tiger behind his friend Mogg, ready to eat him. In Ogg's mind he has come to associate the sound "Gaaa" with a sabre toothed tiger. We don't know why this particular sound repesents a tiger ot Ogg nor do we need to. These internally heard sounds are simply the means Ogg uses to categorize the many different things his new, bigger brain is processing. Trying to warn Mogg of the presence of the predator he yells "Gaaaaa". Mogg has no idea what Ogg is saying and just stands there, looking at Ogg quizically as the tiger pounces, tearing him limb from limb. The beneficiary of this gruesome scene is Bogg, who was standing nearby and watched the whole thing. He was a beneficiary because several months later Ogg saw a tiger threatening Bogg and yelled the same defining sound "Gaaaaaa". Bogg remembered the sound and associated it with the grisly picture of Mogg's demise. He turned to look for the tiger and was able to run away before it pounced. So Ogg was able to use his mind picture and associate sound of the tiger plus the effects of time to influence Mogg to relate to a shared symbol that represented a clear and strong feeling.
This is how language began and it continues as mutually accepted use of aural symbology for specific thought pictures in a deep unconscious portion of the brain. If we were to have access to this part of the brain our communication would slow to a crawl as we consciously analyzed every utterance anyone put forth for variances and subtle differentiations. Our thought MUST be primarily unconscious if we are to have any chance of adequately processing those millions of thoughts we access daily into anything resembling intelligent communication.
Along the way the mind establishes obvious shortcuts to processing the information to make the entire process simpler, similar to the codec algorithms used to compress large music or photographic files into smaller, more managable MP3 and JPG files. This is where is concept of metaphors comes in. When one word is coupled with another the thought pictures associated with them are merged somewhere in the unconscious mind and a more detailed thought picture emerges. Along with the clearer picture comes a clearer more detailed thought which has more than the original 2 dimensions. This clearer "fleshed out" three or four dimensional thought picture can describe a very precise yet much more fully descriptive and complex idea. Because it is precise we can call it a metaphor and that precise coupling of words will evoke the same complex thought process, especially when 4th dimensional thought, or time, is applied to the thought picture.
We use these complex metaphors to provide a communications shorthand to convey complex feelings and concepts in a short time. For example the metaphor ice storm evokes a complex picture in the mind of beautiful ice covered trees and bushes as well as cars in the ditch and commerce ground to a halt. This is a frame, a metaphor that evokes not just a simple picture but an entire landscape in the unconscious mind. A picnic does not fit into the ice storm frame and even if you pack a lunch and venture out with your friend to sit next to an icy path and eat a sandwich that truth does not fit the frame to the degree that you would need to expend tremendous energy to get anyone to believe it was true, probably needing to actually take them there to see for themselves.
As you can see the energy needed to prove something is true that does not fit the frame of a situation is a thankless, nearly impossible task, yet politicians daily put themselves in that position by evoking frames that do not include their own solutions. Even if the politician is sincere, their use of language condemns them to be perceived as inauthentic, and as we know perception is 90% of reality.
This is the power of frames and to appreciate what Dr. Lakoff and the Rockridge are doing one must accept that language frames are more powerful than our rational truths, regardless of their veracity. What is a positive thing to remember is that it requires as much or more energy to maintain a frame based on ignorance as it does to prove an unusual truth existing inside an unlikely frame. This means that although regressives have spent tremendous amounts of time, talent and treasure establishing frames based on ignorance, or untruths, it will take less energy to create other, more powerful frames based on truuth than it would to try to prove those truths in the context of their false frames. Let me state this another way. It is more efficient to create your own truth based frame than to try to prove that same truth inside the structure of their ignorance based frame. If you want the world to see a rose it would be so much easier for you to paint your own picture of a garland than try to find a place to paint that rose inside of Picasso's "Guernica". Number one hardly anyone would ever see a rose inside of "guernica" and number two even if they did see it it would be hard to associate it with anything besides war in the context of that brilliant work of art. And believe me most right wing frames are anything but brilliant works of art. They are however thought pictures often universally accepted by most people as reasonable. They do this by grafting a picture of ignorance onto one accepted as highly reasonable. Then they distribute that thought picture far and wide until almost everyone has seen it. Eventually people will accept the ignorance as reasonable through guilt by association.
So enough about all this science. The initial conversation here is about Biconceptualism. The concept of biconceptualism can be related once again to the anolgy of the medical practioner. If one looks only at one issue (read symptom) then yes, it can be determined that a particular viewpoint (treatment) either helps, doesn't help or has no effect (right, left, center). However when assessing health from a holistic standpoint more than one symptom (issue) may be present. Therefore different healers may have differing treatment plans, involving several different options from several different disciplines. The world does not exist in 2 dimensional dualities as a natural course. The world is multidimensional and when looking at something as allegedly universal as politics it is ridiculous to believe that every one of us can be plotted onto the same dualist continuum of conservative/liberal with moderate in the middle. The more issues and concepts considered the more a persons position on that continuum would have to be a factor of averaging out disparate positions on many different issues.
The world is much more a three dimensional model that has any number of two dimensional axes present on which we can plot relative positions. The political pundit who believes in the concept of the "political moderate" would try to analyze only the sphere closest to the center of a three dimensional graph and plan his campaign accordingly. This analysis would undoubtedly create friction between the candidate's own place on that graph and the target area. He would have to appeal to people he did not share much with and say things that would not appeal to others he did share much with. The effect would be to turn away more people than he would if he was just himself and let the chips fall where they may. Authenticity attracts opposites where disingenuity repels those similar. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize that when peoples opinions are all over the place that it is easier to be yourself than try to be something you are not in an effort to appeal to the most people. Being yourself you get into fewer logic traps, you don't do things that appear silly or false, and your policies have a consistency that people admire rather than a measured quality that people immediately recognize as used car salesman syndrome.
The fact that families gravitate towards 2 major models of operations indicates that most realities have 2 primary components that define each other. Human endeavor must have awareness of both of these oppositional concepts in order to be quality human beings, regardless the nature of the concepts. Hoever, at any given time we must be living in one while looking at the other. Proper framing and respect for the biconceptual nature of reality is what will allow us to be true to ourselves as activists yet develop language that will gently persuade people to look out from our frame at the world we imagine instead of looking out from their frame and forcibly trying to turn people's heads toward that world we see so clearly. It is really a matter of not having the requisite energy to bring the mountain to Mohammed. We need to accept that bringing Mohammed to the mountain results in the same circumstance.
It is also important to remember certain things. First the Democratic victories in 2006 were not based so much in any great change in people's acceptance of a progressive vision but more in a disgust with the failures of the Bush administration and a tendency of the people to "Give the Dems a chance, they can't mess things up much worse than they are now". But believe me that the Dems are on a very short leash with the people and the radical, right wing framing machine has not gone on vacation and has, in fact, responded quite well to progressive framing by stating our problems in a very progressive way while pointing to the same corporatist answers wrapped in a more "caring" language. It is "commpassionate Conservatism" raised to a higher power and the signs that this rhetoric is having the desired effect are everywhere.
Therefore we must remain diligent and we must also understand what winning really means. It is not just the election of Democrats over Republicans. We must remember that our goal is to create a situation where progressive values inform the world we create and we don't just use language to manipulate people into thinking their representatives are serving their needs while they really serve a much darker master. Authoritarian corporatism has tremendous means at its disposal and its economic goals have the ring of religious fervor to them that assures it's purveyors will do everything in their power to create the illusion that the people actually run things when in fact the corporatists continue to.
It will be continually important to be able to accurately assess how well progressive values resonate with the public because ultimately it still is the public who allows whatever leaders we have to lead. Therefore, establishing a strong foundation of citizens who know in their hearts that a progressive vision is the way toward prosperity is the best thing we can do to assure that America and more importantly, the world continues to move toward being a place where everyone has a chance to live a healthy, happy lifestyle that serves the common good, rather than a severely compromised lifestyle that serves only the rich and powerful.
I continue to relish the work done by the Rockridge Institute to promote deeper understanding of what it truly means to be a progressive and how to best express what that means. I look forward to continuing discussion about this and other important topics over the passage of time.
Blue brains and red brains
"The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, a study says. [...] 'But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development.' (>Brain function different between liberals, conservatives: study< http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/10/2028113.htm)
"The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience..." (>Political Leanings May Be in Your Head<
http://newsfeedresearcher.com/[…]/idt2007.09.11.13.07.59.html)
Still Thinking About My Reponse
Like StaceyG, I have been thinking about my response since readingthis last night. I fought the impulse to reply immediately. I am still not ready. However, I just read a diary over at DailyKos ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/19/15637/4608) which is right on point with this discussion. It takes a particular recent event, General Pace's comments on homesexuality, and deconstructs the presidential candidates' responses. It then offers a mechanism for candidates to develop better responses to situations such as this.
I will say this much about my ultimate response to this post. I firmly believe that progressives should always frame their conversations in terms of theivalues. But I also e strongly that ther is much more to how people respond to issues than a binary concept of progressive vs conservative (or even Strict Father vs Nurturant Parent).
As the Governor of California once said, "I'll be back".
I also wish
that these comment postings had a spell checker available.
Myth or nuance?
The chapter offers several valuable insights for progressives to develop effective campaign strategies. The awareness of Partial Progressives and the value of authenticity have been lacking in recent campaigns.
But the debate of “centrists” versus “biconceptuals” is largely one of nuance. Many centrists would likely say that they can see both sides of an issue (others may just want to get elected). That would effectively make them biconceptuals. The centrists may choose to call themselves “centrists” because a name like “biconceptuals” could likely feed into the conservative view that everyone on the left is an “elitist snob.”
It’s very complicated. I’m someone who commutes everyday via bus and train and owns a home that’s covered in solar panels. Yet I can rattle off a dozen of environmental laws that are counterproductive. Does my opposition to some environmental laws make me biconceptual? This is why the awareness of authenticity is so important.
Time recently had a cover issue on the growing “center” in the abortion debate. Many opponents are now using ultrasound machines rather than protests to promote their view. One physician said she refuses to perform the procedure if a patient shows any signs of doubt. The article described one group of opponents and supporters that insist on continuing their discussions. So it is possible to have what could be considered to be a moderate view of abortion.
Finally, there seems to be an error in the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 2. It should likely read that “…’moral issue’ voters tend to oppose abortion and gay marriage because they support a strict father world view.”
Since gandharva brought up Moral Politics, I have to note that the Strict Father theory of conservatism is less consistent than the Simply Selfish theory, which gets ridiculed in the book. The Strict Father theory’s component of self-reliance runs into problems on issues like college legacy admissions and inheritance taxes. If conservatives really believed in a meritocracy, they’d support a universally fair education system and wouldn’t suggest that those who inherit their money be taxed at lower rates than those who work for it. What these views have in common with their opposition to taxes and regulation is that both are selfish positions.
some comments
Thanks to CBauer for actually reading my entire lengthy post. Regarding the simply selfish concept I would ask how does one embrace selfishness as a viable lifestyle if not from a strict father mentality. There is a hierarchical nature to the strict father's world that would allow for one opposing leagcy admission programs based on the fact that the meritocracy should exist only for those who deserve it, who have the requisite moral authority to even be in the game in the first place. The children of lawbreakers do not have such authority in the eyes of the strict father adherents who value law abiding citizens as having higher moral authority than those who might be in a simple, inclusive meritocracy.
Regarding the inheritance tax system the strict father conservative does, in his mind, argue for fairness. He maintains that this money has already been taxed once and that the heir did not ask to be born into wealth and certainly did not ask for his rich parent to die and therefore is being discriminated against by having his inheritance taxed. Estate taxation is actually quite difficult to defend from a progressive standpoint for this reason. All it has going for it is precedence and the fact that our nation relies on it for a considerable portion of it's resources. The best progressive argument that can be made for estate taxing is that the person did not earn the money therefore it is legitimate for the state to tax the heir for the privelege of having all this money dumped in his/her lap. Not the most convincing argument especially when the frame is "Death Tax".
Regarding HugoEstrada's crunchycons this is an excellent example of several concepts I have been devoting some time to exposing. One is well known and is the case of the partial progressive voting republican based on the activation of their conservative side over their progressive one. This is often done in conjunction with religion, often Catholic, as in the case of my sister who teaches yoga and votes republican. These folks often differentiate between their private lives and their understanding of their public i.e. political life. They live progressive lives but have been convinced that some conservative issue, often abortion or gay marriage or immigration trumps all other considerations as an overriding issue and that they must vote accordingly, even if it means voting against their personal, day to day values.
One reason this happens is that they separate their own lives from the corporate life of the American citizen. I have heard numerous people say they don't get into politics because it doesn't mean anything to their lives. This disconnect serves to provide a nice, tidy spot for the insertion of ignorance based framing into an otherwise logical outlook on life. This stance is actively supported by those creating the ignorance based frames they wish to insert into people's lives.
The other concept that leads to crunchycon-ness is the simple fact that there are progressive conservatives, and lots of them, not so much in the biconceptual way but in the sense that they continue to vote republican because the roots of republicanism are small government and low taxes. This devotion to the roots of republicanism is similar to many progressives who continue to vote democratic because of the democratic party's root values of taking care of the little guy, even in the face of persistemt evidence that many democrats are as big on corporatism as most republicans. These people are purists and the fact that they are progressives does not translate to informing their politics.
I have been loudly advocating that liberal progressives work toward activating conservative progressives so that they might have more influence in the Republican party to the degree that we might begin to see both parties working together in the harmony of compromise to move the world forward into a lifestyle that adheres more firmly to basic American values of equality of opportunity, respect of the individual and devotion to the moral and legal pursuit of happiness.
Like it or not many Republicans share a common appreciation of these basic American values and through the understanding of Biconceptualism and how that understanding can be used to identify and develop candidates and formulate campaigns which will resonate with people who wish to see America move FORWARD, which in my pea brain is the goal of progressivism. I think one of the fastest ways to see real work done to make America more progressive is to make the Republican party more progressive. We are fated to governing alongside them for the forseeable future.
This is not as crazy as it sounds. True Republicanism is based on truth. Don't laugh. It's precepts are viable and deserving of respect. The neo-cons are maintaining control over the Republican party by expending tremendous energy. If we can oppose them to the degree that that energy must be increased we can eventually "Soviet Union" them by forcing them to expend more resources than they have simply to maintain their power. I remain optimistic that their seemingly unrelenting race to imperialism can be stopped.
I reiterate that our goal as progressives is not necessarily to vote for Democrats or Greens but to make the country more progressive i.e. sensitive to our need to make life altering lifestyle decisisons as individuals and as a corporate nation, in order to move us into the light of human joy and away from human suffering, BY WHATEVER MEANS WORK.
One thing I left out of my earlier rant is that when you plot your own positions on the three dimensional graph it will never come out as an exact sphere. It will have the appearnce of an amoeba with all your various biconceptual positions on various issues occupying points all over the place. In order to raise a sufficiently large tent to accommodate all of the strange and wonderful amoebic shapes we all take on we need to allow for many differing opinions, especially those differing from ours. What we do need however is to see a commitment to make the world a better place to live, starting with how we live our own lives.
So I am very prepared to allow a crunchycon to vote Republican if he/she must, as long as they continue to promote healthy living. It is our movement and it's direction that are important. If we persist in seeing this struggle simply as a political one between 2 parties and not as a lifestyle struggle between good stewardship and personal joy on the one hand and greed, selfishness and oppression on the other then I fear we have completely missed the point.
Sort of off subject
But in reply to one part of your above comment, gandharva:
"The best progressive argument that can be made for estate taxing is that the person did not earn the money therefore it is legitimate for the state to tax the heir for the privelege of having all this money dumped in his/her lap."
We actually could reverse that and make an argument that the person did indeed earn this money. Therefore it is income, and like all income, subject to taxation by the federal government. they are still only paying their fair share.
I've also never understood the argument that the money has already been taxed once. The government doesn't tax the money, it taxes the people receiving the money. If that argument had any validity, no one would be taxed at all anymore, because surely someone paid the taxes on the money we're earning now already.
"Republicanism is based on truth"?
I must admit that I did not read gandavara's full post.
If the Strict Father theory accepts that being born to a legacy family gives one the "moral authority" and causes one to "deserve" special treatment in college admissions, then it certainly accepts the conservatives' framework. To me it's more sensible to simply regognize and criticize the selfishness that's clearly there. That's being authentic.
I second GregL's comments on the inheritance tax. I suggest that progressives reframe that tax as the "Paris Hilton tax."
In what context could Republicanism over the past several decades possibly be "based on truth"? Certainly not by what they've said and done. Read the books Landslide and The Triumph of Politcs about Reagan. Supply-side Reaganomics was all a huge lie. And today - the recent firings of the U.S. Attorneys have nothing to do with the truth.
The honest conservative
CBauer,
I feel that gandavara is correct. There are many people who are honest conservatives. When they choose conservatism, they were attracted to the idea of small government and small taxes, and fiscal responsibility. These are not bad values in themselves.
It is not the fault of the private conservative that a small group hijacked their party the way we are not at fault for a small group hijacked the liberal party.
more comments
Just like to say that reading through CBauer's response I can see that we are probably talking about 2 different things when referencing "legacy" college admissions. Therefore I have little to say about that issue. However, I feel it is important when dealing with such volatile emotions as greed and selfishness to understand where these feelings come from. To my mind it is very difficult to assign selfishness as a trait only to neo-conservatives. Pretty much all people are selfish in some way. Therefore I look toward some other factor which clearly separates conservatives from liberals, which was the original intent of the scientific work done by Dr. Lakoff. When approaching the problem of what social models most accurately describe the difference between conservatives from liberals I still find the strict father/nurturant parent model to best fulfill the criteria .
I think that when folks work backwards from Dr. Lakoff's principles there are numerous sitiuations where one can say that another factor or set of factors works better to describe that particular issue. It is the fact that the strict father/nurturant parent model works so well overall to describe the innate differences in the 2 modes of thought that make the hypothesis valuable.
We are not so much looking for a reason why conservatives do this thing or the other here as we are trying to find a window into how their mind works, a mirror into their soul. Knowing what is important to a conservative makes it that much easier to fashion a dialogue that will have impact on biconceptuals to the degree that these resonant frames will cause them to rethink their political positions. There is no chance in hell of ever changing the hearts and minds of the strong conservatives but we are not called to do that. They will always be there and better understanding their nature allows us to promote policy that leads in a progressive direction that cannot be strongly opposed by one who adheres to consevative principles. They have been doing this to us for years, creating legislation that a liberal cannot in good conscience oppose, primarily because it makes so much sense on the surface that their constituency would abandon them if they did oppose it.
Regarding republicanism I agree with you about the last several decades. I am talking about a time further in the past when demoscrats were truly populists and republicans truly conservative. I see progressives working hard to return the Democratic party to it's populist roots and away from corporate sell out and would welcome a republican movement back to it's fiscal conservative roots and away from empire building. Ideally fiscal conservatism should be closely looked at by all progressives as a viable economic stance for government use of public resources. This is the primary reason I call myself a progressive instead of a liberal.
Liberalism, to my mind evokes an effete elite throwing money at problems from a distance as they get dressed for the opera. The neo-cons get lots of mileage from promoting all progressives as resembling that description. We know better. We know that is an ancient description no longer applicable except to a small minority of progressive activists. Most of us cannot afford the opera and are people of small means. The framing of the limosine, Hollywood liberal by the extreme right continues to be effective because it is not being clearly opposed. This is just another signal that progressive framing needs to improve if we are serious about people getting it.
This may sound harsh but we, as progressive activists, must surrender to the truth that the unconscious minds of rednecks and stupid people nation wide are stronger than our most brilliant conscious minds and we must also accept that people like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz are smarter than us when it comes to communicating with those unconscious minds. Or at least they have been. I continue to tell folks that it is much more effective to frame the truth properly than it is to frame a lie. This means it won't take us 30 years and billions of dollars to establish our frames like it did for the neo-cons. It will only take about a decade of clear progressive language to activate enough partial progressives to create a majority robust enough to move America toward it's true goal of a more perfect union.
Read the Preamble to the Constitution if you want progressive talking points. It's all right there in black and white, the legitimization of virtually every progressive value, leading directly into our culture's most cherished document. We the people created the Constitution for the very reasons stated in the preamble. Use it !!!
As a service I have included it's text here. I am afraid too many of us have not read or contemplated it for a long time. Note which words are capitalized. I offer that American children should recite the Preamble in school rather than the Pledge of Allegiance, with a portion of the text of the constitution to be studied daily after the recitation in "Homeroom".
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
the real GOP
Hugo,
There are several things about the conservative ideology that I identify with as well. After I read Don't Think of an Elephant, I read Dobson's Dare to Discipline. There were several sections that I completely agreed with. I'm a big fan of discipline and order.
But I beg to differ that a small group has hijacked the GOP. I understand that more than a small group cheered when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot. Small groups can't win primaries. Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and poor judgment were fully apparent before both presidential elections. I agree that there are responsible Republicans but I'm confident that they're currently the minority.
gandavara,
I'd be willing to wager that the party registration of opera-goers is predominantly Republican. Liberals are far more prone to belong to the Sierra Club than attend operas.
I'm reluctant to use the term "smart" for the Roves and Luntz's of the world. "Crafty" maybe. "Smart" should be reserved for those who know how to make an America that's peaceful and prosperous for everyone. Those two don't know where to start. I agree with your point about their ability to steer opinion. The best explanation of this phenomena that I've read is in Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas. I also agree that the truth is easier to sell than a lie. We just have to resist the inclination to think the truth is self-explanatory. We need more courage.
Don't forget conservative discipline
CBauer,
I agree with you that responsible conservatives are now a minority in the GOP, but they are numerous in numbers. They are probably the majority of those who vote Republican, or were until recently.
We must remember that Republicans are very disciplined. My feeling is that the neo-cons took over the party by associating themselves with the current power group. Once there, they are exploiting the party discipline for their advantage.
Remember how they can consistently get their representatives to vote against their conscious and their constituents. Even the outspoken senators or representatives, those who disagree with Bush policy, will end up voting the party line.
This leaves most of the voters alienated from the GOP.
What about the budget?
Hugo,
(The "C" in "CBauer" is for "Cam" incidentally.)
I have a brother who fits your description of a disciplined conservative. He's been fuming at his party for years.
I guess I bristle at the use of "discipline" to describe conservatives in the same way I bristle at calling Rove and Luntz "smart." Conservatives are "fervently tribal." Ronald Reagan blew the budget before he was reelected in 1984. So I would argue that the loss of fiscal discipline isn't really new or limited to a minority of the GOP. In his memoir, The Triumph of Politics, Reagan's Budget Director, David Stockman, describes how he tried to get Reagan's budget priorities by breaking the budget down into about 50 items and having him assign the cuts. Unilaterally, Reagan came up $800 million short of a balanced budget.
I would also associate discipline with things like fighting white collar crime and keeping your home (environment) clean.
I'm curious what you have in mind regarding representatives voting "against their conscience and their constituents."
Disciplined as in party
Cam,
They have party discipline. What I mean by this is that when they get orders, they follow them, for the good of the party. This can work wonders for a movement, because everyone can present a unified front. Another famous example of party discipline wer
New! The Meaning of Choice
Hi Grayshade,
The question you ask is excellent, and I hope others will also chime in to offer perspectives. The answer to your question is going to have multiple components including how deeply entrenched one set of values is versus the other, which domain of experience each moral worldview is active in, and what the major life experiences are that shape perceptions of importance at the time of an election.
All of these aspects (and others yet to be named) are important. What I would like to focus on in my answer is something else. The way you frame the question suggests that people "choose one side over the other" in a conscious manner. The reality of decision making is quite a bit more complex.
For starters, neither of the Strict Father or Nurturant Parent worldviews is consciously available for consideration. In the work we do at Rockridge and the web discussions that take place among Rockridge Nation members, we perform conceptual analysis to reveal these deeper patterns so that they can become "objects of analysis" that we "hold in our minds". This leads to the illusion that either worldview exists as an object of the conscious mind that people choose between. It is an illusion that is misleading because the worldviews shape our perceptions of reality as we construct it in our minds.
To draw from another realm of cognitive science, we can see how this works with the example of "mood". A person who is depressed will be in a mood where risks are exaggerated and opportunities are diminished. The biased perspective they carry is not an object of the conscious mind. Instead, it is the lens they use to color the world. The fact that their mood shapes their perceptions prior to becoming conscious contributes to the difficulty of recovering from depression.
When we talk about moral worldviews shaping people's thoughts (and the importance of framing to activate one worldview over another), we are talking about things that shape our thoughts BEFORE THEY ARE THOUGHTS! What people choose depends strongly upon how their thoughts were constructed before becoming conscious. This is why framing is so important. The "available choices" are defined by the frame that is activated. When the scenario discussed is about providing relief the choices are quite different from a different scenario where we discuss investing in communities. This is why it is necessary to choose carefully between phrases like "tax relief" and "tax investment".
I hope others will enter this discussion. It is a very important one for all of us to have. I just want to be sure we all realize that our choices are not quite as conscious as they may appear upon reflection. Our brains are not set up the ways we assume in our "commonsense models of human thought".
Thanks again for the question. I hope this helps!