Digby makes an interesting
comment in the context of talking about the efficacy of negative campaigning:
And, nobody recognized that negative, ugly, hateful campaigning was what
worked. It seems that we all feel that if we had just reached out and touched
people we could have made a difference. We don't "connect," which
may be true, but let's face facts --- Bush doesn't "connect" with
people's better natures, he "connects" directly to their id. And,
I'm afraid that the id trumps finer feelings in many, many people. Yet a large
number of these suggestions have to do with sincere appeals to try harder to
empathise and relate to those who didn't vote for us. Hey, maybe it'll work.
We are the "nurturant parent," after all.
Digby's comment is, of course, a reference to the whole Lakoff
framing discussion. Regular readers of this blog know that I am a big fan of
Lakoff's work. I think he has done a marvelous job of identifying the importance
of frames in political discussions and of identifying the frame that is behind
the modern conservative movement (the "Strict Father"). Digby's
sarcasm is directed towards Lakoff's "frame" for progressivism: the
"Nurturant Parent".
Sadly, I must agree with that sarcasm. The "Nurturant Parent" label
evokes the image of wimpy, hands-off, do-as-thou-wilt, let-bygones-be-bygones
liberalism. The very wishy-washy image that we need to overcome if we are to be
taken seriously on issues of national defense.
But I am reminded of a button I saw this past weekend:
Sarcasm: yeah, that'll work!
Sarcasm is an inadequate response to the weak frame of the "Nurturant
Parent". We need to develop a better frame to replace it. I have a
suggestion. It involves bringing back the "L" word into progressive
politics.
Love.
The frame is the "Loving Parent". It contrasts with the
"Strict Father" in many ways.
The "Strict Father" frame is based on the idea that Man is bad and
that it is only through the imposition of strict discipline that he can suppress
those tendencies enough to do what is right.
The "Loving Parent" frame is based on the idea that Man is capable
of doing the right thing and that Love is the best way to encourage it.
The "Strict Father" presumes that we are children who cannot be
trusted and must be watched at all times to prevent us from falling back into
our wicked ways.
The "Loving Parent" presumes that we are adults and potential
adults who can be trusted to ultimately do what is right if given the chance to
do so.
The "Strict Father" starts from the position that we are evil until
we prove that we are good. It presumes that we can never truly be good without
intervention, so we will always be evil unless we surrender our will to the
"Strict Father".
The "Loving Parent" starts from the position that we are good but
can be turned to evil. It presumes that it is through encouragement combined
with discipline that the latter can be avoided and the better angels of our
nature will shine forth.
The "Strict Father" is based on a model of God whose creation
defied him and who must then punish that creation until it surrenders its will
to God. This is a model that presumes that God unintentionally created something
imperfect. It is necessarily demeaning to the idea of God.
The "Loving Parent" is based on a model of God whose creation was
given, from the beginning, the choice between good and evil, is trusted to do
the right thing in the end. Otherwise, why even bother creating us this way in
the first place? Would God deliberately create us in a way that we are
guaranteed to fuck up? What kind of malign thug would do such a thing?
God is Love.
God is Trust.
God is not simply a bully who can't keep his children in line.
God is a parent who loves his children enough to let them make their own
mistakes while having faith that those children will eventually do what is
right.
The God of the "Loving Parent" believes in us and believes enough
in his own competence to know that his creation will come back to him.
The God of the "Strict Father" believes only in himself, yet does
not trust his own creation to do what he wants it to do.
The "Strict Father" does not consult with his children about how
they should be raised. Does God consult with his creation on how the world
should be run? But this equates the "Strict Father" with God. This is
blasphemous.
The "Loving Parent" understands that only God is perfect. The
"Loving Parent" can never presume that they have all the answers and
that they don't, occasionally, need to talk with their children about what is
the best way to raise them. This is humility.
The "Strict Father" is all about discipline. You defy the
"Strict Father" at the risk of serious punishment. Obedience is the
number one priority.
The "Loving Parent" tempers discipline with Love. They don't just
punish, they also try to understand how the situation got bad enough that it
required punishment. They care about their charges enough to listen to their
concerns.
I could go on forever.
The "Loving Parent" is a better frame because there is nothing
wimpy about Love.