No Center, No Centrists
George Lakoff examines the inaccuracies behind "centrism" and the consequences of such inaccuracies.
"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.
There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought — call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.
Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas — the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.
The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment. Protection is far more than the military, police, and fire departments. It includes consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety; social security, and other safety nets. It also includes protection from the government itself, and hence a balance of powers, openness, fundamental rights, and so on.
Empowerment include roads and bridges; public education; government-developed communications like the internet and satellite communications systems; the banking system; the SEC and institutions that make a stock market possible, and the court system, mostly about contracts and corporate law. Progressive government makes business possible. No one makes any money in this country without the progressive empowerment by government. A progressive foreign policy is not based solely, or even mainly, on the state — about the "national interest" defined as our military strength and GDP. Progressive foreign policy focuses on individual people's interests as well as national interests: on poverty, disease, refugees, education, women's and children's issues, public health, and so on.
These are simply American values. The progressive movement is a patriotic American movement. People who call themselves "centrists" share progressive views on important issue areas, but have conservative views on other major issue areas. The areas vary from person to person. There is no single moral perspective, no single set of agreed upon issues.
The very idea that there is a "center" marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term "center" suggests there is a "mainstream" where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false.
The fallacy matters in terms of Democratic electoral strategy. The Democratic base consists of people who are mostly or totally progressive, just as the Republican base consists of people who are mostly or totally conservative. How does the Democratic Party as a whole, and how do Democratic candidates in particular, speak to those who are biconceptual?
I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people's brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals.
And of course, you don't negate or argue against the other on their framing turf — remember Don't Think of an Elephant!
That was the winning strategy of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown is a thoroughgoing progressive who never moved one inch to the right. He talked about the issues where he agreed with his Ohio audiences — and legitimately spoke for them.
Think about Barack Obama going to Rick Warren's megachurch and getting a standing ovation from evangelicals because he talked about the places where he agreed with them, he activated his values in them (values they already had), he came across as a man of principle, and he didn't get in their face about where he disagreed.
The losing strategy is to move to the right, to assume with Republicans that American values are mainly conservative and that the Democratic party has to move away from its base and adopt conservative values. When you do that, you help activate conservative values in people's brains (thus helping the other side), you offend your base (thus hurting yourself), and you give the impression that you are expressing no consistent set of values, which is true! Why should the American people trust somebody who does not have clear values, and who may be trying to deceive them about the values he and his party's base hold?
Harold Ford is a perfect example. He just wasn't believable as a good ole boy Tennesseean when he took conservative positions. He just didn't seem real. The "not a real Tennesseean" ad pointed up the discomfort that Ford's overt appeal to the right aroused in Tennessee. It was perceived as sleazy, and the "Call me, Harold" ad pointed to it as well. The ads were racist in part, but they were more than just racist. It would be hard to imagine such ads directed at Barack Obama.
Which brings me to the DLC, which Harold Ford now heads.
My colleague, Glenn W. Smith, has pointed to the DLC strategy of getting as many "swing voters" as possible and the minimum number of base voters needed to win. That is why the DLC and Rahm Emanuel argued against Howard Dean's 50-state strategy and for a swing-state alone strategy.
The DLC has concentrated on policy wonkishness (see their 100 new policy ideas on their website) rather than values. Their concentration on laundry lists of policies rather than vision, values, and passion has not helped the Democrats electorally.
The reason the DLC has been attacking progressives, Smith argues, is that DLC members have major conservative values and are threatened by the progressive base. Some of those values are financial: Wall Street, the HMO's and drug companies, agribusiness, developers, the oil companies, and international corporations that benefit from trade agreements, outsourcing, cheap labor abroad, and practices that harm indigenous populations but bring profits. A powerful motivation for the party has been that, if they take such positions, they, like the Republicans, can get big money contributions from Wall Street.
But there is more involved here than money. The DLC seems also to share the foreign policy idea that we should be maximizing our "national interest" — our military strength, economic wealth (measured by GDP), and global political clout (presumably coming from economic and military clout). This is opposed to a foreign policy that maximizes the well-being of people, both at home and abroad.
But worst of all, the DLC has been cowed by the conservatives. They have drunk the conservative Kool-Aid. As Harold Ford intimated in his debate with Markos Moulitsas: To win you have be a hawk on foreign policy, a social conservative on abortion and gay marriage, and not raise taxes. Nonsense.
Even worse, Ford is suggesting that those in the party who don't hold those views say that they do. There's a name for someone who goes against his principles to pander for votes. It's not a nice name.
In all the commentary about that debate, an important aspect has gone without comment. Markos certainly bested Ford. But to do so, he also had to best the moderator, David Gregory, who insisted on using the conservative-tainted word "liberal." Over and over, Markos resisted Gregory's frames. Gregory was not using Markos' frames and Markos insisted on his own.
It is important to stand up to the DLC, and to the idea that there is a unitary mainstream center, that they are it, and that progressives are extremists and deserve to be marginalized.
If you use a web bookmarking service, you can share this entry.
I know Sherrod Brown
Sherrod Brown is my senator.
Sherrod Brown must of been a bi-conceptual when he voted for the military commissions act that suspended habeaus corpus rights from Americans. A basic progressive value is protection of all Americans. What happened?
It was a sad day for those of us thought we knew Sherrod's values, that are mostly progressive.
Need Biconceptualism Graphic?
Nice article. The idea of centrism and centrist positions has been discussed so often that many voters may simply assume they are accurate ways of discribing American voters. The concept of biconceptualism is a new idea for many. I suggest someone at Rockridge produce a clever graphic that gives people a clearer idea of what biconceptualism is and is not. I think a picture will help speed up the acceptance of this helpful model and decrease the number of individuals who will buy into the DLC's idea of "appealing to the center." Pictures help ideas stick. Does anyone else think this would help the progressive cause? Cheers - Rob
Political Thinking Illustrated
I took a stab at your challenge to create a visual explanation of political thinking:
http://blog.attitutor.com/[…]/political-thinking-illustrated.html
Let me know what you think.
Don Berg
Only 2 Value Systems?
"There are two systems of values and modes of thought — call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have)."
So is this a claim to be taken at face value or is it a convenient exaggeration? At "face value" the claim is that there are no other systems of values in U.S.A. politics beyond the nurturant and strict systems you have found in your research. According to this view there is no system of permissive political values (to use the generally acknowledged third parenting philosophy as a possible alternative.)
Are there only three coherent systems of values in parenting that can be metaphorically applied to political thought? Are there any other source metaphors that help organize our political thought, even though they may be marginal?
No Center...
This is really a thought-provoking and significant idea. It will take more contemplation to "buy-in" and digest. My initial reaction is to reject the idea there is no center. I agree that centrists are all over the place in their views, which is why they're also called "swing-voters". Depending on the strength of one issue or another at a given time, and the appeal candidates present in accordance with those issues, determines at that time which party, which candidate a centrist will vote for. I agree no single set of values defines the "center", but I also think there doesn't have to be a single set of values for it to exist. I think the same of progressive values, that there isn't a single set of values that defines "progressive". (But I may be wrong, further contemplation is needed.) Its hard for me to understand a single set of values for anyone, I consider gray area to be a part of nearly every issue. I think of it more as a range of values, where circumstances of an issue or experience can trigger a person to react in different directions. I think there are very, very few issues or actions that can be strictly defined as "right" or "wrong" 100% of the time.
I consider myself a progressive, but I do hold a few conservative values. Which to clarify, I remain pragmatic about those values. For example, I support capitalism, but also support regulation to keep markets from trampling people and environment. I support individual responsibility, but also support government help when people hit bottom and have no other support to help get them back on their feet. Welfare for citizens is deeply abused by some people in this country, I'd like to kick the abusers off the rolls but keep the program going for those who really need it. Are these views defined as "progressive"? Or "biconceptual"?
My perspective at this point separates the groupings by ideology. No doubt in my mind conservatives are driven by ideology. My concern is that "full progressives" may also be driven by ideology. Everyone in-between is not ideological overall and can go either direction on various issues. I view ideology as a severe weakness. I consider a liberal value as the absence of ideology, I wonder if others view progressive as the same. I invite anyone to share their views about these questions or thoughts. Feel free to rip me apart if thats your perspective. I'm trying to sort through this stuff. The more perspectives one can learn the better.
in other words
"moral values" is kind of redundant.
Breaking down Joe's last sentence a little more:
"Because I care about people and feel our government is responsible to promote health in society, I believe we should have universal health care provided to everyone."
care about people - value of empathy.
our government is responsible to promote health in society - value of, well, responsibility.
I believe we should have universal health care provided to everyone. - position
Good Stuff
Thank you Joe. Good response. That gives me context and another way to look at things I hadn't thought of. I get ganged up on at other sites by conservatives, which, I expect it since I'm active more on discussion boards at conservative or libertarian sites. They blast me as a liberal with no hesitation, although I argue regarding capitalism (for example) like how I explained in my post. You put it perfectly, they view the markets as an authority that should never be questioned. They apply the same but opposite limited-view to government, that it can't do anything right.
"It also challenges their notion that government has no business helping the poor - or as they would describe it, taking away incentives for the poor to become more disciplined."
Funny, they don't use the word "discipline" at all. Its redistribution. As in liberals want to take our money (raise taxes) and redistribute it to the poor.
Good point about values vs. positions.
"Instead of saying "I value health care," we would say "Because I care about people and feel our government is responsible to promote health in society, I believe we should have universal health care provided to everyone.""
Thats good. I'm going to try using statements with a formula like that in debates: value + value = position. Your statement is specific and clear about the position. "I value health care" is very vague and could mean many things. Thats how politicians speak, but I think the political discourse among people in general is commonly like that also. You put yourself out there with your statement, but you back up your position with values. That makes it stronger. I can't wait to see how it works!
I just want to say, I'm happy I found Rockridge. I'm happy it exists. I already feel like I'm better at dealing with right-wingers. They ARE very good at framing, I can recognize it now. Keep up the good work!
rob
The DLC
- This is my first try on any weblog. It's an important one. So I will try to be modest, yet still make a point or two.
I've read George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant" twice recently. I agree with all his points, not just to say that, but because I've been studying this issue since 1977. At that time there was no syllabus for it. I read two books about rhetoric: "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (although some would say that's not what the book is about), and "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric" by Howard Kahane (a college textbook). Both books show how rhetoric, particularly political rhetoric, bamboozles and confuses the American public, and, particularly in Kahane's book, how the mediamanages the news. These are rather important books and both are little known and read.
Formal Logic textbooks do the same, for obvious reasons. Formal reason and logic are independent of politics, though some woud argue to the contrary. I remain convinced they are, and they need to be.
Lakoff's book is in the same tradition. He makes statements, but he also gives us resons for accepting them.
The good thing about both of these books is that they discuss the use of rhetoric without taking any kind of political side. Kahane's book pillories Democrats as well as Repuhlicans.
I attended a MoveOn meeting a couple of weeks ago and asked if anyone had read theElephantbook (for short). No one had. I suggested that the couple organizing the meeting do so. The e-mail response was "We'll try to get the book and read it." Had they done so, I believe they would have come back to me by now.
Is it not funny how people say they are going to "try to" things, "look at" things, and make things "a priority" when in truth they aren't going to do anything of the kind?
If Democrats and Progressives can't find common ground, we will continue to be at the mercy of those who can - the so-called Neo-cons. And that is not good.
It was apparent from the meeting that the attendees were against the Iraq War, but they seemed surprised to hear that W is using it to bankrupt Social Security, which he is, according to the New York Times.
No one would volunteer to stage a rally, here, in Fremont. One attendee told us about his personal knowledge of various nefarious plots by the administration and others (which Kahane would call the fallacy of the unknown fact), and how he had been given a million dollars to develop his internal combustion engine that was twice as efficient as any other in existence. All of this did not gain him a lot of credibility with those in attendance.
To say the least it was a motley crew. We need better than that.
This is consistent with Lakoff's observation that there are all kinds of subgroups among Democrats and Progressives. It also seems clear, to me at least, this has been the case for decades, and is a major reason why the Conservatives are in power and the Progressives are not.
In my modest opinion, it would be useful if Progressives and Democrats could agree on a set of ground rules by which to discuss anything. And by that I don't mean just don't swear and don't take Ad Hominem shots at each other.
Another suggestion would be for participants in the debate (re: DLC) to keep in mind that their personal interests (and their arguments which assume those interests) are often not going to be in the best interests of the nation. For example, if you are affluent, have a good job with health insurance, and are a Democrat or Progressive (or both), you may not, in your heart of hearts, want Medicare for everybody because you haveearnedyour healthcare, and others 'have not".
I belive the reality of the matter is that the healthcare systems of other affluent Western countries are significantly better than ours. Self-interest is not always the same thing as the national interest. The national interest is NOT for people without health insurance going to emergency rooms. It is for them to receive medical treatment like everybody else. Polio was not eliminated in this country by asking children if they have health insurance before being innoculated. It was a matter of public health.
I guess I am disappointed that we Progressives and Democrats can't agree on our priorities, regardless of self interest. I'm also disappointed that so few of us have taken the time, and done the mental work to hammer-out our collective values and stick to them, come what may.
Perhaps my view of people is a bit too idealistic. It was idealistic for President Kennedy to say we'll put a man on the moon and return him alive in this decade. Yet, that incredible accomplishment captured the imagination and admiration of the entire world. That, to me, is what Progressives and Democrats are all about. Forget your self-interest and get behind the best interests of our nation.
Ken Zowal
Fremont, California
New! Values not same as positions
Hi robpo,
Perhaps I can help clarify one part of your thinking. When you say that you support capitalism, but also support regulation of the market, this is not a dichotomy of conservative and progressive values. Most progressives acknowledge the good things about competition in the market. But we don't treat the market as the unquestioned authority that can do no wrong. We don't think the market functions properly without regulation.
A conservative understands capitalism in a very different way than a progressive does. I am very progressive, and I acknowledge the worth of a progressive form of capitalism. The version I support is adequately regulated to protect people from harm (pharmaceuticals are tested before selling them, for example). At the same time, the version I support empowers people with opportunities (to find meaningful and fulfilling work that also provides for their basic needs).
Unlike conservatives, I consider capitalism to be abhorrent if it is not kept in check by the government. This challenges their notion that the market is an authority that should never be questioned. It also challenges their notion that government has no business helping the poor - or as they would describe it, taking away incentives for the poor to become more disciplined.
At Rockridge we use the term "values" in a different manner than many people in politics do currently. For us, this term does not mean "that which I find worth considering or having." So we don't think of capitalism as a value. We use the term in the way it is often used in moral philosophy, which is that a value is a moral feature that is deemed to be good or bad. This is why the values we list for progressives include empathy (caring for and identifying with others), responsibility (to act on that care), opportunity (because we resonate with the feelings of others and want them to be fulfilled), and so on. This list does not include health care, education, or any other policy position. Policy positions extend from core values, not the other way around. Instead of saying "I value health care," we would say "Because I care about people and feel our government is responsible to promote health in society, I believe we should have universal health care provided to everyone."
Does this help clarify some of your thoughts?
Joe