Strict-Father Conservatives vs.
Nurturing Progressives —
Comments by George Lakoff

Written by

in

Berkeley professor George Lakoff has some interesting comments on the difference in world views of conservatives and liberals in an October 2003 interview.  In a nutshell, he says that conservatives assume that "the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good."  Soi-disant progressives, on the other hand, believe "the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better."  (To me it seems blindingly obvious that both views contain crucial elements of truth.)

Here’s an excerpt:

… Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, ‘Here’s several million dollars, do what you need to do.’ And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV.

They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.

Meanwhile, liberals’ conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, ‘We’re giving you $25,000, but don’t waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don’t use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.’

So there’s actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better.

[Interviewer:]  Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better.

Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people.

Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones — those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and those who are on the way.

Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven’t earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant.

Wealth is a measure of discipline.  Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

The whole interview is worth reading.

Comments

5 responses to “Strict-Father Conservatives vs.
Nurturing Progressives —
Comments by George Lakoff”

  1. John Wilkins Avatar

    I love this guy. His institute, http://www.rockridgeinstitute.com is amazing.

  2. EssEm Avatar
    EssEm

    Just the way Lakoff frames his talk about the frame indicates why I am no longer a progressive. He is not far off in divining the paternal energy which drives conservatives. But “Nurturing parent” is both pc-vague and abstract. By attempting to be inclusive, it winds up being typically empty. And it’s a cover, denial, ignorance or avoidance of the ruling archetype of the “progressive” left, which is actually a specific form of The Mother.
    From a Jungian perspective, I would make the grossly oversimplified case that the archetypes driving the conservatives and progressives are, respectively, the great Father with his son, the Hero vs the great Mother with her son-consort, the Puer Eternus. As for independents, moderates and cross-overs, they are acting out the role of the Princess, who alternately woos Daddy and colludes with Mommy!
    Long live the King!

  3. bls Avatar

    Hmmmm. Personally, I’ve always thought of liberals as orally-fixated and conservatives as anal-retentive. That must be the “Freudian perspective.”
    But of course these days I can’t stand either one – nor am I interested in being a Princess. Another “parent” model, as a matter of fact, just doesn’t do it for me; I already have two parents. I’ll work on developing the “sibling” model: Libertarianism with a heart.

  4. Shirley Ohlson Avatar
    Shirley Ohlson

    I’ve just finished rereading “Don’t Think of an Elephant”. Thanks so much !! As I read, I couldn’t help but think of times I’ve used reframing without even realizing I was doing it.
    One case was when I was talking with a conservative Doctor who was whining about liberals and their “Tax and Spend” attitude. My answer was simply “In a country as rich as this one, there is no excuse for any child to ever be hungry”. What could he say?
    Another examle: I was talking with a rep.county official who gave me that old line about “When I was young and impressionable I was a liberal and thought with my heart, but when I grew up I began to think with my mind”. My answer was– “When you have a leader who thinks only with his mind, you run a great risk of ending up with a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein”.
    Reframing isn’t difficult and you don’t even have to memorize a bunch of “facts” or dry statistics which go out of the hearer’s mind as soon as they are out of your mouth. It’s a beginning to the start of a new mind set, which is what we really need to accomplish if we ever want to get this country back on track to its path to greatness. Let’s start now in every conversation. Kerry let us down almost as bad as Liberwitz and Gore.
    So, even in your interchanges with other liberals, practice reframing until it becomes automatic. It’s
    easy.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Shirley Ohlson

  5. Sam Avatar

    I think some of these comments are over analyzing and missing the point of the model, which actually fits quite well when examing the types of policies that make it to conservative and progressive platforms. This is particularly true in terms of social programs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *