I was introduced to George Lakoff in my Cognitive Science classes as UNM and it was part due to his work and writings that were inspiration for my Master’s thesis, known affectionately as “Ants and Pathways†in some circles. A professor at Berkeley, Lakoff is a leading name in the fields of cognitive science and linguistics. I believe Jason is familiar with his work, specifically one of his earlier books called “Women, Fire and Dangerous Things†which explores the significance of metaphor in our language and unconscious thoughts. If memory serves me right, the title of that book springs from the fact that an aboriginal tribe in Australia uses essentially the same word to express all three concepts. Further studies have shown that amongst people in a variety of cultures, the same areas of the brain show activity and fire synapses and such when these words are used. On a broader scale, Lakoff uses this to argue for a concept of “framing†which is central to the theories he presents in this book. Through Lakoff’s ground-breaking work, cognitive scientists have been able to develop a theory of “framing†that describes unconscious mental structures into which we categorize our thoughts. In many ways, our frame definitions define what we casually think of as “common sense.â€Â
In “Don’t Think of an Elephant,†Lakoff presents evidence that the Republican Party has been effectively controlling the way political discussions are presented based on a cohesive plan they began to implement in 1964 with Barry Goldwater’s campaign. Since that time the conservatives have had a well-defined plan on how to frame their debate in words and concepts that will attract average American voters to support their party in spite of the fact that doing so is not in their best interest. In fact, Lakoff dispels the notion that people vote in their own economic self-interest. If the last election doesn’t prove this then I don’t know what does. For forty years the Republicans have invested millions of dollars in think tanks and a conservative infrastructure with the intent of creating a cultural war of identity that will ensure they maintain power by using a language that appeals to this frame of mind.
Conservatives have assembled a team of linguists that have effectively allowed Republicans to frame the political debate in their terms. By using phrases such as “tax relief†they evoke positive feelings and when liberals counter that they are against “tax relief†it goes against what is essentially common sense. Any amount of thought on the matter shows that the tax relief is eliminating things like needed social programs and the social security lockbox, but the facts don’t matter. In current political debates, liberals lack a clear defined set of their own terms, yet conservatives are constantly flooding the media with their own terms like “compassionate conservative.†The result is that the liberals are playing ball in the conservatives court, and even when they use language that negates the concepts, by using the terms they are still reinforcing their validity in America’s unconscious.
Lakoff also explores the frames that make people either conservative or liberal. He points out that conservatives and liberals almost always share the same set of values but that it isn’t apparent why because the nature of the issues doesn’t necessarily show that they are related. For example, what does an anti-abortion stance necessarily have to do with the desire for school vouchers or tax relief? Lakoff’s answer is an interesting one. He contends that people adopt either a “strict father†or “nurturing parent†worldview through which they see issues. Conservatives feel comfortable with the “strict father†approach, which is many ways is consistent with mainstream religion. The is an all-knowing God who knows what is best for his children and those “bad†children will be punished as they deserve to be. This concept maps to a God-complex in the conservative elite that allows them the right to make decisions for the whole without the need to feel any kind of accountability. They have earned their positions and wealth because they are worthy and elite. They know what is best for the poorer masses and they are entitled to enforce it without being questioned. Their followers don’t see any reason to take issue with this because it fits their framework based on their religious beliefs. It is also consistent with their lack of empathy for the poorer classes. Sinners make mistakes and go to hell. Poor people are poor and in their situations because they have not helped themselves. If they cannot afford health care or other amenities that would be provided by liberal spending programs then it’s their own fault and they should suffer the consequences. Conversely, the “nurturing parent†model embraces concepts like helping others and progress through discussion and friendly international relations. Liberals don’t embrace the idea of the “strict father†model and therefore don’t accept as common sense that America has the right to establish its will on the world because it is the strict father figure that knows best and that’s that.
Lakoff also exposes many of the ulterior motives of conservative policy so I’ll list a few that piqued my interest. Tort reform is a hot issue and conservatives are eager to cap trial settlements. They paint the picture as though the settlements are causing a surplus of money to be wasted. In reality, these restrictions would allow big businesses to operate more freely, and even budget in a maximum in trial expenses for their environmental and medical malpractices. Also, trial lawyers (think John Edwards) are responsible for as much as 80% of all private donations to the Democratic Party in some states. By capping the limits of these law suits, conservatives also severely limit the amount of money coming into the liberal coffers. Note also that conservatives feel justified in their raping of the environment for religious reasons. God provided nature as a tool for man to use for his profit. Another example is the one of tax relief. Conservatives found that it was a long and difficult battle to eliminate social programs one by one, but if they give Americans tax relief they can take care of them all at once because there simply isn’t any money to fund them. Americans in general like the idea of “tax relief†and don’t associate it with the elimination of social programs. Perhaps the most frightening one is school vouches, through which conservatives hope to maintain their base by educating elite children in their schools, to which they will appoint conservative educators. Those poor people who can’t afford the vouchers don’t deserve them anyway under their model of the world.
Likewise, the conservative think tank realizes that issues such as gay marriage and partial-birth abortions apply to almost no one; however, these issues allow them to start down the path that will eventually limit much broader things. By making partial-birth abortions illegal, conservatives have opened the door to make all abortions illegal. They have planted the seed in America’s collective consciousness that opens the door for this train of thought to thrive.
I wish I felt there was a more optimistic conclusion to the book. Lakoff seems to believe that liberals can counter with the same methods, and that the votes can swing because everyone inherently possesses both the “strict father†and the “nurturing parents†frames and a lot of the middle-of-the-road voters would swing. Unfortunately, he doesn’t do a good job of convincing me this can happen any time soon. In fact, reading this book almost make me feel more bleak about the state of the nation. The conservatives have achieved the cultural war they need to thrive, they control 80% of the media and they have a 40-year head-start in using linguistics to their advantage. The book reinforces what should be obvious and that one can’t use reason to argue with most people, and I find that to be utterly depressing.
The book as a whole has a few flaws, but they are mostly forgivable. I get the feeling it was rushed to publication. It’s a quick and easy read, but in a few cases subject matter is needlessly duplicated and there are even a few glaring typos and writing errors. Considering its timely release and dealings with current issues, I can understand the need to rush it through publication and I give it a pass. In a few cases he reaches beyond what I see as intuitive and the forces of academia shine through. For example, in one section he does an effective job of presenting some metaphors that the 9/11 attacks have planted in the minds of Americans. Some of these are realistic, and help explain why conservatives can use the fear of terror to their advantage and to justify a war that is actually serving to breed more terrorists. But when he compares the Pentagon to a vagina and the plane striking it as penetration, it’s a little much for me. It’s a short book (117 pages of fairly large print) and well worth the time it took to read.
