Thinking Points Discussion: Model of Left and Right Falls Flat
Conservative strategists have successfully shifted political discourse in their favor. Progressives can shift the debate back by understanding how the political mind works. In order to do so, however, it is necessary to move beyond the faulty idea that there is a horizontal political spectrum from left to center to right.
This is the first of a three part series, to be published over the next few days. Part 2 dissects the metaphors behind traditional political strategies based on the political spectrum of left-right politics - including an updated version of the Overton Window discussion withdrawn from Rockridge Nation for revision two weeks ago. Part 3 presents the real strategy used by conservatives to shift debate in their favor and offers guidance for progressives to turn the tide.
In reality, there are basic progressive and conservative worldviews, and many people have both but apply them to different issue areas. The people “in the middle” actually have many different combinations of progressive and conservative thought. There is no ideology of the middle, no unified worldview that everyone in the “center” agrees on, and no linear ordering of the issues. Something much more interesting is going on.
Most thought is metaphorical. Why does this matter in politics? Because some metaphors have undue influence on our thinking that leads to failed strategies. This is the case for the metaphor of a linear spectrum of political thought.
Real political thought is expressed through collections of concepts that we call worldviews. The values, ideas, and assumptions that shape our views of the world are far more interesting and complex than the horizontal position on a scale.
The pioneering work done by George Lakoff, whose linguistic analysis revealed the coherent worldviews of progressives and conservatives, has shown that there are two idealized models for political thought. The models make sense through metaphors of nurturant and strict families. The concepts in one model are often mutually exclusive from the other model, so that their meanings may be contradictory. This is why the idea of religious freedom can be expressed in the competing forms of (1) freedom from religious oppression and (2) freedom to "spread the good news" in public places. One version leads to substantive neutrality while the other leads to the endorsement of a single religious view by government institutions.
Both worldviews exist in our culture, and most people learn both, but apply them to different areas of life. People may differ considerably in how they fit the progressive and conservative worldviews to various areas of life. The existence of two incompatible conceptual worldviews in the brains of individuals is what we call biconceptualism.
Old habits take time to change. Even though there is growing awareness of biconceptualism, most political strategists and commentators still make the mistake of thinking that there is a linear scale with extreme left- and right-wing politics (with a centrist position for the "middle" of the scale).
If you are a strong progressive, the important thing to remember about biconceptuals is that they already agree with you on certain issues (but may use different language). If you stick to the areas where they agree with you, you will be activating your worldview in them as you talk to them. That will strengthen the synapses in their brains for your worldview, even if it is only over a limited range. The more your worldview is strengthened in them, the more likely it will be applied to additional issue areas.
The Long Failed Experiment
Many political strategists — both progressive and conservative — promote the use of extreme positions to make the ones they seek to achieve appear more reasonable. Other strategists, mostly Democrats, take the opposite approach. They encourage candidates to "move toward the center" to win swing votes. Both approaches make use of the Line of Political Positions metaphor.
While conservatives have consistently used the first approach, which they call the Overton Window, progressives have been divided between versions of both approaches. A successful strategy for progressives to shift discourse in our favor can only be seen when we talk about it in the context of the human brain.
The technique known as the Overton Window is not new. It has been around since the 1960's when activists on the left took extreme leftist positions in the hope that it would make very liberal positions seem centrist by comparison.
Years later, Joe Overton was credited with the explanation of this technique (though it was first written extensively about in Gordon Tullock's 1967 book, Politics of Persuasion). Many liberals and progressives have used this approach since then, but have not been very successful.
The Overton Window - taking very extreme positions to move the spectrum to the right - appears to work for conservatives. Why doesn't the Overton Window work as well for progressives?
While progressives have "moved to the center," conservatives have consistently expressed values based in a moral worldview held by all conservatives. As they express their values, their way of thinking that makes sense of them becomes more pronounced in the brains of people who hear them. This does not move people "to the right." It moves them toward a purer mode of conservative thought, until that way of thinking seems like common sense.
Progressives who “move to the right” are accepting forms of conservative thought in doing so. When they express these conservative views, they activate conservative views in biconceptuals, which is counterproductive. Moving to the right is a losing proposition.
But shouldn’t true progressives try to move centrist Democrats in a progressive direction? Yes, but … There are two cases to consider.
Remember the centrist Democrats are biconceptual — basically progressive, but conservative in some of their views. Again, you want to activate their progressive worldview without activating their conservative worldview.
We can do this by expressing our values as clearly and consistently as possible so that our way of thinking becomes common sense, because it is activated over and over in people’s brains.
But there is a danger, one which has stymied the extreme left in the past. “Extremists” tend to be “militant," even when they have progressive goals — that is, they use conservative (strict father) means to a nurturant (progressive) end. This approach is punitive and often abusive in its means. Punitive, abusive approaches constitute conservative means to a progressive end. By using conservative means, you are activating in people’s brains a version of the conservative worldview. In doing so, you are working against, not for progressive views.
Conservative extremists don’t have this problem. If they are militant and use punitive and abusive means, they are using conservative means to conservative ends. Their means are consistent with their ends. It is for this reason that militant extremists on the right have been more successful than militant extremists on the left.
Part 2 of this series dissects the concepts involved in the Overton Window to show how it is flawed. Then the real conservative strategy for success is presented in Part 3, laying the groundwork for how progressives can shift debate back in our favor.
If you use a web bookmarking service, you can share this entry.
Thanks, Joe.
Very exciting work, Joe. I'll be waiting with as much patience as I can muster for the next discussion.
I hadn't considered the invocation of strict father thinking when one makes extreme Progressive arguments.
left/right
Very clean effective explanation, thanks. I have noticed this in discussions with fellow progressives. Sometimes they take a very striking "strict father" attitude when voicing how to effect a progressive outcome. I also find myself sometimes adopting this retributive strick father attitude on certain issues. The irony struck me, but not the fact that it would reinforce the strict father frame in others. Very good point. I find that you have to really concentrate on what you feel and why, and select your words very carefully to avoid falling into using phrases and metaphors from others that do not really convey what you feel. I found it very helpful to memorize the progressive values given by Lakoff in "Whose Freedom", think very carefully about why I embrace those so strongly, and then use them to couch (frame) arguments on why I feel/think what I do on an issue in discussions with others. I now spontaneously argue against an issue because it is unempathetic or unkind and therefore immoral. It is very comfortable for me, because those are my deeply held beliefs.
I find Rockridge very educational and helpful.
Tom
Ah, yes indeed...
It's common for progressives to call people stupid or idiots. But think about it... If someone was really stupid, then why scold the person? The person doesn't know any better and needs to be educated. Hurling abuses at someone is the strict father way of making someone learn.
Progressive "Militants" and "Extremists"
Joe,
Does your usage of the terms "militants" and "extremists" refer to a hypothetical Progressive who might use the verbal techniques of an Ann Coulter or Michael Savage? How about someone a little less extreme in tone like a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity?
The funny thing I am trying hard to think of someone who is a Progressive that uses hyperbole and anger and the only one who comes to mind is Mike Malloy who always refers to the Bush Administration as "the Bush Crime Family" and regularly says how he "hates these bastards" and gets quite angry. Have you heard his radio show?
However, his anger seems to come from a powerless despair - like that of a man who is tied up and forced to watch his wife being raped and house being vandalized. Anger born of despair seems to be a different kind of anger than the anger of the right which seems to grow (or at least not diminish) as their domination over the country becomes more complete. The anger of the right during the Clinton years might be understandable as they were out of power and frustrated, like Mike Malloy. The fact that they are angrier (or at least as angry) today is significant because anything less than total victory and DOMINATION is DEFEAT to the rightist.
Getting back to my one Progressive example, Mike Malloy - do you think that his type of speech qualifies him as a "militant"? By Lakoff definitions I must be a "bi-conceptual" rather than a complete Progressive because of 1)my position on the death penalty (too nuanced to go into here - but I'm not opposed to it) 2) my insistance that I am a Progressive for selfish rather than altruistic reasons and 3) Language: I respect the use of "muscular" language by the right, I think its appeal to anger and its use of ridicule to cripple the opposition are effective (though I draw the line at Coulter and Savage who go beyond the pale) and because I hate the "woosie" humanist language used by Lakoff to describe Progressives - even the term "nuturant" for the Progressive world-view makes my skin crawl - really.
So if I am a "bi-conceptual" - why doesn’t Mike Malloy then activate my “conservative” side? Instead he energizes me and make me want to take to the streets and overthrow this corrupt regime. Am I an anomaly or does this fit into your theory somehow???
Ummm, pretty well covered:
joe said:
"But there is a danger, one which has stymied the extreme left in the past. “Extremists” tend to be “militant," even when they have progressive goals — that is, they use conservative (strict father) means to a nurturant (progressive) end. This approach is punitive and often abusive in its means. Punitive, abusive approaches constitute conservative means to a progressive end. By using conservative means, you are activating in people’s brains a version of the conservative worldview. In doing so, you are working against, not for progressive views."
So it seems to me that Malloy kinda does activate your conservative side. And on that note, Rnadi Rhodes is kind of abusive also. Ed Schulz is moving along up there on BOTH the abuse AND ridicule scale. AL Franken is definitely a ridiculer....Shall I list the WHOLE of Air America? All they seem to want to do is list the faults of the conservatives (really only the Republicans for them), and don't want to hear ANY criticism of the supposed progressives, the Democrats. Lieberman of course is fair game because he left the Democratic party.
JMO
Response to Clarification
Joe,
It sounds like you meant the reference to Extremist and Militant to relate specifically to actions, not to language and you have clarified your original point. Although I am much more interested in the topic of miltancy in language (and would love a response from you specifically on my comments with regard to militant language posted above) - I am going to "take your bait" and consider your point from the vantagepoint of a self-confessed "bi-conceptual."
As long as the "violence" committed by the Extremist Progressive is in proportion to the "violence" committed by the Corporate Villian or Government Villian - I am morally fine with it. An "eye for an eye" "fight fire with fire" my strict father side tells me so I'm at the barricades again...Your concern is that this doesn't "promote a fair and just world where people .... feel encouraged to preserve all living things" but rather promotes a world where "might-makes-right and the strongest will dominate". And once again - just like in the language example - this ultra-nurturant position is completely unappealing to me. My SF says that there will always be bullies in the world who will try to dominate with brute force. And making nice to them and trying to reason with them won't stop them. Folks like me don't believe "wishing will make it so" and we don't want a Dennis Kucinich and his ridiculous "Dept of Peace" - we want toughness with a sprinkle of idealism for inspiration and passion - like a Bobby Kennedy (I dream that Jim Webb may also be of this breed???)
Interestingly, I think we may have come to a similiar point in a discussion of Militant Actions as we would have if we discussed Militant Language. My kind of Progressive is turned off by "overly nuturant" speech AND "overly nuturant tactics". The irony that I would like you to address is the following:
when my type of Progressive encounters overly nurturant language and overly idealistic positions it actually activates our Strict Father rather than the Nurturant side which you want to activate. If one is angered or annoyed by what one perceives as weakness - than SF is active. So I think you have the whole issue in reverse - at least for folks like myself....!
Interesting Use of Nurturance
Hi Wendy,
I can see your biconceptual stances expressed in the language you use. It is pretty cool to get to explore this with you. Thanks for your openness and comfort in this discussion.
One thing I want to focus on is the way you seem to understand "nurturance." Please correct me if my interpretation is off, but it seems that you associate Nurturance with Weakness. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that you consider the nurturant response to aggression to be passivity or avoidance - as though a nurturant person is a strongly committed pacifist.
Nurturance is a contested concept. It's meaning is quite different in the moral context of the nurturant worldview than in the strict worldview. This contestation is a source of discomfort for many people when introduced to Lakoff's ideas. I would like to separate the meanings from the label "nurture" because I want to talk about the ideas and concepts - not the word itself.
In the worldview associated with conservativism (based on the idealized model of the family Lakoff calls "strict father"), the right thing to do when confronted with a crying child is to avoid coddling it. The understanding behind this is that a parent who comforts the child every time it cries will end up spoiling the child. This understanding is often applied to the word "nurture" - resulting in the idea that a nurturer is a person who lacks the self-control necessary to resist coddling a spoiled child.
In the worldview associated with progressivism (based on the idealized model of family Lakoff calls "nurturant"), the right thing to do when confronted with a crying child is to provide emotional support that increases the parent-child bond. The understanding behind this is that a parent who comforts the child every time it cries will provide a stable emotional environment - resulting in a well-adjusted, socially functional adult later in life.
This understanding of nurturance is not specifically about how to respond to aggression. One thing that is worthy of noting is that the "nurturant" parent will build a strong emotional bond with the child through ongoing interactions. If a threat appears, the parent will act on this bond to confront the threat. This may result in acts of aggression against the threat.
The point I am rambling toward is that a "nurturant" person is in no way passive. The person may choose to become a pacifist - but this is not something that most progressives do. Most progressives fight strong and hard against the things that threaten them. They also work strong and hard to promote the things they hold dear.
The difference in meaning arises with the deep moral frame that each person tends to associate with nurturance. It seems that you have applied the "strict father" worldview to this word.
Does this help the discussion move forward?
Joe
I'm Back for Round #3
Hi Joe - I took a few days off from blogging...thank you for your reply - here's mine...
I understand that you want to talk about the concept, not the meaning of the word "Nuturance. But as Lakoff has taught us about words having unconcious frames, then isn't it important if the WORD Nurturant might unconciously connote "maternal" for some of us. Lakoff may use the term "Nuturant PARENT" but - when I hear the word Nuture or Nuturant the picture which forms in my mind is that of a baby nursing at her mother's breast!!
The other reason that Nurturant Parent terminology is problematic is that while many men today are truly Nurturant Parents with their own children - even my Republican brother is a unrepentent "child coddler" - that doesn't mean that we want to VOTE for a Man or Woman we associate with nurturance and softness (especially post 911). I want fathers to NUTURE and form emotional bonds with their children, and comfort a crying child, but I want my Presidential Candidate to radiate Strength - which in OUR Society is not a MATERNAL frame. Have you read "The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars & the Politics of Anxious Masculinity" by Stephen J. Ducat?? Insightful book - and it explains why every modern Presidential Contest ends up as a Alpha Dog pissing contest - with the Republicans trying to portray the Democratic Candidate as a Sissy...
Without disrespect intended here: Why does Prof. Lakoff want to saddle Democratic candidates with language which conveys the very characteristic that Republicans spend millions of $$ trying to taint Democrats with: WEAKNESS and Effeminacy... It's that old cliche that the Democrats are "The Mommy Party" . Not a good thing to be thought to be after 911.....okay - I know you will say this is not what Lakoff is doing - but that is because you and he are such NP's that you just can't hear your words through the ears of a SF Progressive.
You say that I have "applied the SF meaning to the word Nuturant" - but the point I have been trying to make is: IT is YOUR language that has evoked the Strict Father Frame !! As you have stated quite clearly that your intention is to use language so as NOT to evoke Strict Father in the Bi-Conceptual, but rather NP, I am asking you to reconsider your choice of language in your communications to us!
I read Part III about Ronald Reagan and the Welfare Queen Parable and I was delighted that you used this particular example. In the 1980s I was a single, young woman employed in a low wage, pink collar job, living in a squalid apartment feeling frustrated and feeling hopeless about the ability to better my financial situation. When I first Ronald Reagan's tell his Welfare Queen story, it totally resonated for me at the time and from your article I can now see why. The values contained in the language he used still resonates as powerfully for me today - but the VILLIANS in MY VERSION of Reagan's Parable are different. So once again, your suggestion for the Progressive response to Reagan falls flat for me. Here is how a Strict Father Progressive would communicate a Progressive message to other Bi-Conceptuals USING Reagan's Parable because WE SHARE SOME OF THOSE VALUES:
The positive moral mission: Help working and middle class Americans who work hard for a living see WHO ARE THE REAL FREE-LOADERS in our society today!
The moral problem: There are people who take advantage of hard workers and threaten the system that rewards effort and discipline. This challenges the moral mission. ABSOLUTELY - IT'S CALLED CORPORATE WELFARE. And those Welfare Queens are ripping off us working folks by not paying their taxes, outsourcing good American jobs, paying slave wages and getting Government Hand-outs! They are stealing the bread from our mouths!
The solution: Dismantle the program that encourages this immoral behavior by getting rid of the welfare program. Absolutely! End the concept of Corporate Personhood, Make Corporations pay their taxes, create economic disincentives for outsourcing American jobs, etc...
The heroes: Progressives with the Cajones to fight these crooks and hard working Americans
The villains: Corporate Free-loaders like Walmart who pay slave wages and then send their workers onto the Public Dole for their Health Care and Food Stamps while at the same time taking advantage of the Commons paid for by the people.
In the article you say " Many conservatives found the idea of a free-loader to be disgusting. This made them angry." Joe, I assure you it is not just Conservatives that find the idea of a free-loader causes them feelings of disgust and anger. And frankly I am not ashamed of these feelings. My only shame is that when I was younger I was fooled into channeling these feeling against people who 1) had even less than I had and 2) were not the cause of my suffering but instead were the victims of the same Villians as I was.
You say:
"The strategy is simple:
1. Know your values and be authentic - CORRECT
2. Express your political views using language that expresses your values (Refuse to accept language that undermines your values) JOE - REAGAN'S LANGUAGE DOES EXPRESS MY VALUES AND IT IS YOUR NURTURING LANGUAGE THAT FEELS UNDERMINING FOR ME...
3. Point out the consequences of progressive and conservative approaches to government - I THINK MY EXAMPLE DID JUST THAT BY SHOWING WHO REALLY IS THE FREE-LOADER.
4. With enough repetition, people will start to see that you are talking about things that make sense RIGHT!
5. As more people see the world through the progressive lens, they will find progressive policies more acceptable (and conservative policies will be less acceptable). I HOPE SO!
6. Avoid being punitive or abusive. " AH HA - WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN BY THIS? YOUR "PACIFIST" REFERENCES ARE SHOWING AGAIN AND THEY WORRY ME. I SAY FIGHT JUST AS FIERCELY AS A REPUBLICAN AND FIGHT TO WIN..,
I look forward to your reply!
It does for me but I still like more examples
Reading down through the comments, I see this as a partial response to my question of wanting more examples. But in terms of creating tools for folks to use, having a more complete list of examples would be quite useful. Spikes in trees is an extreme tactic but saving ancient trees is not. So I am a little confused between extreme tactics and extreme positions. Is there a risk when staking out extreme progressive positions that we reinforce a conservative worldview, or is just the tactics used to stake out those positions. It sounds to me that staking out extreme positions is not a problem; its how you do it.
The "extreme" left never was
One of the most successful right wing campaigns, that informs folk even today is the old "Freedom vs Communism" Shibboleth. That the most extreme anti Communist position is the most free, when in fact, taken from a more logical position it is very Right wing and fascistic.
There was an old joke that under Communism, a tiny unaccountable elite that ran the Government, ran the economy. While in the US it was just the opposite! That the tiny unaccountable elite that ran the economy, ran the Government. While that has not been the complete story in The US, only that has kept it from feeling that way, and the fact that that is where the political right want to go tells the real story.
It can be further pointed out that most dedicated Communists, in Russia, Germany, and the US (like David Horowitz) did not go from being Communists to European style Socialists but to the other Authoritarian standard that was really so much like them. Just as the Nazis used Socialist in their name, the Communists were no less disingenuous, being no more Socialist than they were Democratic as was also in their name.
Today we are in a fake war against more Religious conservatives, who are again very much the same as our own, but the propaganda machine is busy trying to cast Islamists as being different than Christianists (Or Dominionists as they are also called). By raising the specter of an alien "enemy" as what you are against, you imply that you are for the opposite, when that is obviously not the case. This has caused the Right to be very nonspecific about many such issues, we must not let them get away with that.
Passion is not extremism
(pardon my multiple posts but there are three distinct Ideas I need to express)
I have often been accused (particularly by the Right) of being an extreme leftist, often without expressing any policy opinion at all, only because I was early to use the web to learn from and thus aware of the path of destruction the Gang Of Pirates was headed for from before the Y2K elections in ways you could not have learned from the MSM. More famous folk like Howard Dean were similarly charged even though they were not very far left in any sort of policy discussion.
So here also I have to disagree about "extremism" or "militancy" necessarily evoking the abusive, or strict father vision. Liberals have also been rolled badly trying to avoid that label, and been highly successful with strength and passion when appropriately expressed. Mike Dukakis was most memorably rolled in this manner, when tossed the attack about how he would react if his wife and daughters were attacked and raped, and he did not react passionately. The question was of course very SF in its framing, but a passionate NP response would have possibly won the race.
By passionately engaging Right wing framing with real straight talk, calling the SF model the abusive, drunken, child molesting father figure that they are, with the highly successful, (and should be permanent) description of the Gang Of Pirates with a Culture of Corruption, who will like a used car salesman, take any position depending on the situation, speaking only for the effect he expects on others, with no basis of any reality or personal opinions.
Liberals are the ones who care passionately about others, and the "conservatives" who have no concern for the welfare of others. Bush playing his guitar while New Orleans drowned, is not the frame of incompetence, but that abusive, disconnected drunk that so needs a passionate reaction.
The "Overton Window" has an older, darker past
While you might find examples of the "Overton Window" that had the noted effect, such as the move from a time when a King or at most a few families jointly ruled a country, to eventually became the American Experiment, or the Napoleonic rise, at no time was this a conspiratorial program that people deliberately moved an agenda forward.
The first real example of an Overton Window deliberately applied that I can think of was 1920's-30's Wiemar Germany, where the actions of the Government were consistently blocked, and made ineffective by the very people who were deriding the government for being ineffective. And while they would be laughable and laughed at for the beer hall Putsch, after a very few years that window had moved to the point that they were able to accomplish those goals.
That this was a deliberate plan is no doubt, though I do not see it laid out as a specific name. However it needs to be researched and definitely linked with the "Overton Window" because that is the real origins.
Examples please
I like this and part 2. I'm intrigued by your closing argument in Part 1 that tactics used by extremists, even for progressive goals, reinforce the conservative worldview. I'd like to see more on that. Some specific examples, perhaps even some "do's" and "don'ts" would be helpful. I see these tactics used in my community and I assume a future section will deal with an alternative approach. But for now, it would help to be able to readily identify destructive tactics and nurture in my community more productive tactics.
Tim
Starting with Self-knowledge...
Hi Tim,
Thank you for asking for specific examples. It is very important that we figure out concrete strategies that will work - without shooting ourselves in the foot along the way.
I think the first step in the process is to align your values with the outcomes you hope to achieve. This will be helpful in recognizing when a specific strategy does not move you toward your ultimate goal(s). So, with the example of preserving ancient forests, it is helpful to figure out which values are involved in your motivation to save them. These are likely to be among them:
* Flourishing (of life)
* Empathy (for other living things)
* Connectedness (the web of life)
* Interdependence (what we do to the world, we do to ourselves)
* Responsibility (to preserve that which we depend upon)
* ...and so on.
The next question, in the context of developing successful strategies, is to envision the final outcome. Do you want a world where people care for and preserve our natural history and its heritage? Do you want a world where people live in harmony (with each other and with the broader web of life)?
This process is one of moral imagination. Imagine scenarios where people's understanding of how the world works is shaped by their experience of your strategy. This is where the military campaign to "battle" with industry fails miserably. It reinforces the idea that it is "us against them" and that "industry is a villain."
Another strategy, such as promoting the kinds of markets that explicitly value the aesthetic qualities of natural setting (combined with an understanding that government serves a moral mission to preserve our natural heritage as a source of pride), reinforces the idea that this is how the world works.
These examples may be more general than you are looking for. If so, please help direct me with more questions. I am taking the general approach initially to show how long-term thinking is a necessary component even for short-term success. By acting in the world in a manner that expresses the kind of world you want to see, you promote your understanding of how the world is - increasing the realm of what is possible through the clarity this brings to others about where you stand and what kind of person you are.
Joe
New! Clarification of "extremist"
Hi Wendy,
Your questions are excellent, and get into a number of issues worth discussing. I would like to comment on just one of them for now because there seem to be different impressions in peoples' minds of what "extremist" is. This is likely to be a combination of the facts that it is a very emotionally potent term and that it has been applied as a label to members of the left (such as Michael Moore) as a form of character attack.
The point I am trying to make is not about the label itself. I am referring to a strategy that uses militant strategies that include discipline and punishment (in the manner of a strict family) to achieve progressive goals.
As an example, consider the tactic of a group of environmental activists who drive large metal spikes into trees that are about to be logged so that they will damage logging equipment. This is a tactic that uses the "war frame" to treat logging companies (and by extension, their workers) as "the enemy." While this tactic may slow down the logging of virgin forests, it also reinforces the strict father understanding of the world that the world is filled with good guys and bad guys (and the bad guys will not change their ways unless they are punished)
This reinforces the notion that some people are inherently bad and that the only viable solution is to punish these people so that they "learn their lesson" and change their behavior - i.e. they become more disciplined and develop more self-control.
One problem with this tactic (out of several I could suggest) is that it is filled with internal conflict as to which moral philosophy shapes the world. Does the endorsement of military strategies that inflict harm on other people (and property) promote a fair and just world where people care about natural ecosystems and feel encouraged to preserve all living things? Or does it promote a world where might-makes-right and the strongest will dominate (so if you want to protect forests, you have to be stronger than the "enemy" logging company)?
This is why strict means to progressive ends are often (but not necessarily always) counter-productive.
Has this helped clarify what I mean?
Joe