In this classic text, the first full-scale application of cognitive science to politics, George Lakoff analyzes the unconscious and rhetorical worldviews of liberals and conservatives, discovering radically different but remarkably consistent conceptions of morality on both the left and right. For this new edition, Lakoff adds a preface and an afterword extending his observations to major ideological conflicts since the book's original publication, from the impeachment of Bill Clinton to the 2000 presidential election and its aftermath.
Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle.
Learn more
FREE Two-Day Shipping for students on millions of items. Learn more |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Special Offers and Product Promotions
- Buy $50 in qualifying physical textbooks, get $2 in Amazon MP3 Credit. Here's how (restrictions apply)
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
Review
"[An] unusual mix of judicious scholarship, tendentious journalism and inflammatory wake-up call." - Editors' Recommendation, San Francisco Chronicle; "Lakoff, the cognitive linguist, understands 'how' you understand. In Moral Politics, [he] deftly applies that seemingly arcane understanding to the heart of American politics.... His commitment is strong and deep, but his language is far from the rhetoric usually associated with political partisanship.... Even those who disagree with him will profit deeply from encountering his challenging ideas." - Paul Rosenberg, Christian Science Monitor; "Lakoff's stunning book opens a whole new understanding of public discourse in America. Both conservatives and liberals have much to learn from this work." - Robert Bellah, University of California, Berkeley
From the Inside Flap
In Moral Politics, the first full-scale application of cognitive science to politics, George Lakoff analyzes the unconscious worldviews of liberals and conservatives, explaining why they are at odds over so many seemingly unrelated issues-like taxes, abortion, regulation, and social programs. The differences, Lakoff argues, are not mere matters of partisanship, but arise from radically different conceptions of morality and ideal family life-meaning that family and morality are at the heart of American politics, in ways that are far from obvious. For this edition, Lakoff adds a preface and an afterword explaining how "moral politics" makes sense of events like the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the 2000 presidential election.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
418 of 445 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Political positions are usually cast as being either "liberal" or "conservative." But what is the basis of liberalism or conservatism? How is it that conservatives, disapproving of big government, can support rolling up large deficits or extending "welfare" to corporations. Where is the logic? According to the author, the explanation lies in morality. What best explains the politics of conservatives and liberals is their fundamentally different moral worldviews. Those views are grounded in models of family morality.
The "Strict Father" model of family morality that conservatives subscribe to is based on the hierarchical authority of the father who sets and enforces rules of behavior. Children are expected to learn self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority. Obedience is emphasized; questioning of authority is little tolerated. Governmental social programs are seen by conservatives as rewarding a lack of self-discipline, of failing to becoming self-reliant. However, spending for the preservation of the moral order, for protection of the "nation as family," whether it is for defense or for building more prisons, is morally required.
Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to a "Nurturant Parent" model. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for, respected, and, in turn, caring for others. Open communications is emphasized; even the questioning of authority by children is seen as positive. Desired behavior is not obtained through punishment. Empathy and a regard for fair treatment are priorities in this model. Social programs are seen by liberals as helping both individuals and the greater society. The maintenance of fairness is a priority for government.
Particularly instructive is the role that competition plays in these models. For conservatives, competition is essential to determine who is moral, that is, who is sufficiently self-disciplined to be successful. Understandably the prototypical conservatives are businessmen who have succeeded in the competitive marketplace. They are at the head of a hierarchical moral order, of a "meritocracy of the self-disciplined." Interestingly, governmental largesse for economic elites is viewed as deserved, unlike assistance for the poor.
But liberals view fierce competition as bringing out aggressive behavior that is hardly consistent with a desirable nurturant personality. Liberals would also contend that there are class and social forces that are essentially inescapable by those on the lowest rungs of society. The ubiquity of the conservative "Ladder of Opportunity" is largely a convenient myth.
The author explains the liberal and conservative position on any number of contemporary issues, from taxation and gun control to the environment and abortion. Invariably, conservatives take a Strict Father moral position and liberals use the morality of the Nurturant Parent.
The book lacks any real historical or geographical perspective on these two models. Although the Strict Father model may seem close to traditional morality, the author does not identify at what point in our history these models clearly emerged, or why. Or have there been changes in these moral models over time, either in basic tenets or in who subscribes to them? Furthermore, what are their connections with such 19th century political philosophies as republicanism or producerism, or for that matter, democracy? Are these models unique to the United States? Why is social democracy so prevalent in Western Europe? Is there little Strict Father morality there? In slightly hedging his message, the author does note that individuals can use different moral systems in different spheres of life, in addition to acting pragmatically within a moral model.
The author complains that the "issue" orientation of news organizations, as well as claims to "objectivity," can be misleading because of unconscious moral system slant. But beyond that point, the author has nothing to say about the influence of the vast oligopolistic media empire. He does note the rise of conservative think tanks and their ability to influence public debate. Have these developments impacted adherence to the Strict Father moral model?
It should be said that the author is not neutral concerning the soundness of these two moral models. He cites considerable evidence that Strict Father childrearing has unintended consequences. Moral strength is often not the outcome and violent behavior seems to be reproduced. In addition, Strict Father morality countenances little in the way of subtle interpretations of morality, which the author points out is not particularly consistent with the way we actually think.
The book is rather lengthy with considerable redundancy in describing these two moral models. The author should have provided historical and philosophical context. His models do seem to comport with political behavior despite the fact that much of that influence may act unconsciously. I think the book would be interesting for those trying to understand political behavior.
89 of 96 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
George Lakoff has done some important work in the cognitive sciences, the dominant psychological paradigm, which contends, unlike earlier behaviorist thought, that the brain does not merely respond to phenomena in a simple stimulus-response reaction, but rather processes information, adding form and context before outputting a response.
Lakoff posits first that we often think of our country as a family, secondly that conservatives think of the ideal family as one with a Strong Father (stressing authority and obedience) and that liberals think of the ideal family as having Nurturant Parents (stressing communication and self-reliance), and contends furthermore that people extend these attitudes about family and government to their political philosophy. He goes on to explain and predict liberal and conservative thinking, sometimes even contradictory thinking, on the death penalty, corporate welfare, conservation, abortion, gun control, fiscal responsibility, minority rights and other contemporary issues.
Lakoff writes clearly and makes coherent points. I thought this was an interesting and predictive way of discussing current political differences. A self-declared liberal who nevertheless maintains a reasonably objective authorial stance, Lakoff advises liberals to couch their political arguments in the same moral terms that conservatives have been using successfully for years. Liberals are neither immoral nor amoral, as often depicted by Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich and other extremist conservative; they need to make that known and enter the political discussion on those terms.
The author goes on to analyse the social utility of the two approaches to family and cites research showing that, contrary to conservative prediction, children who are raised with physical punishment in a highly authoritarian home often grow up with little external motivation or control, and consider violence an acceptable alternative to negotiation.
This is a thought-provoking book for those interested in the application of cognitive science to social thought, or rationalists interested in politics.
215 of 241 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
I found this book very enlightening, but also a bit depressing.
I now understand exactly why it is pointless (as a liberal) to argue with conservatives about issues such as the deficit or corporate welfare, or about what I perceive as other inconsistencies within their own beliefs. Lakoff argues quite convincingly that our political views (liberal and conservative) are based not on some objective evaluation of the opposing sides of various issues, but on deeply internalized feelings about the rightness of one's "worldview." Once I understood his argument, a great many things started to make sense to me that had never made sense before. I was never comfortable with characterizing all conservatives as "stupid" or "selfish," but now I understand why, while they are not necessarily stupid or selfish, I can never, ever agree with them!
His prescription for liberals to "reframe" the issues by reclaiming the language of morality from conservatives is intriguing, but his two examples at the end of the book ("The Two-Tier Economy" and "The Ecology of Energy..."), while powerful and convincing to a liberal like myself, would, I think just elicit the usual eye-rolling from conservatives - but maybe that's not the point. I just wish he had devoted even more of the book to specific recommendations like these, instead of confining them to the Afterword.
On the whole, I would highly recommend this book. It expanded my thinking in a way that I did not expect, and that I believe will prove useful in staying sane during the coming election.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
Moral Politics provides real answers
"Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think" provides an interesting examination of the two sides of the political spectrum. Read more
Published 7 months ago by Falconlady
great information that doesn't change anything
Gives well researched and thought out explanation on how and why liberals and conservatives think as they do. However, short on applied uses. Maybe there are none. Read more
Published 8 months ago by L. Eugene Pelfrey
This is a "steering" book for the Politically Naive
This book, in short, is a tool to legitimize liberal thinking while over-simplifying conservative thinking to the point of absurdity. Read more
Published 8 months ago by Walt
The book every liberal needs to read
I enjoyed Don't Think of an Elephant and expected a similar experience from Moral Politics. Instead I found the answer to why liberals and conservatives really can't hold a decent... Read more
Published 9 months ago by euonymous
Understanding is the Key
George Lakoff is one of the most important thinkers of our time. His knowledge of language and its uses is unrivaled. Read more
Published 13 months ago by mata
simplistic crap
This is basically just a book built to indoctrinate liberals. It is far out of date and fails to capture conservative thinking. Read more
Published 14 months ago by michael r parks
Moral Politics
Received this book for Christmas from my unsuspecting daughter and even though the author, George Lakoff purports to be unbiased, the opposite is true. Read more
Published 16 months ago by Heinz Naef
Liberal bias but it is still enlightening.
I admit that there is a liberal bias in this book. Lakoff even mentions that he is liberal throughout the book. Read more
Published 16 months ago by Keren
The Premise is the Problem
I found this book very shallow in its understanding of both political ideologies. While he has a good understanding of the liberal point of view, his conservative side is lacking... Read more
Published 18 months ago by CKHustler
Title should be "How a liberal thinks that liberals and conservatives...
This book is disappointing, because:
(1) The author is a self-proclaimed liberal, writing about how conservatives (allegedly) and liberals think. Read more
(1) The author is a self-proclaimed liberal, writing about how conservatives (allegedly) and liberals think. Read more
Published 21 months ago by CE
Book Extras from Other Websites
This content may contain spoilers
Introduction (From Wikipedia)
Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think is a 1996 book by cognitive linguist George Lakoff. It argues that conservatives and liberals hold two different conceptual models of morality. Conservatives have a Strict Father morality in which people are made good through self-discipline and hard work. Liberals have a Nurturant Parent morality which sees people as something to be cared for and assisted.
Attribution: The information appearing above in this tab is from Wikipedia:
Moral Politics (book). Amazon is not affiliated with, and neither endorses, nor is endorsed by Wikipedia or any of the authors who contributed to this article. The Wikipedia content may be available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, version 3.0 or any later version, available at: CC BY-SA. Additional or other terms may apply. See Wikipedia Terms of Use for details.
The book (From Wikipedia)
Moral Politics has two different purposes as a book. On one hand, Lakoff attempts to use the techniques of cognitive linguistics to better understand the mental frameworks that lie behind contemporary American politics. He strives to describe which mental concepts make up a "liberal", and which a "conservative". (What Lakoff means by these two terms is considered below.) On the other hand, in the last few chapters of the book, he also attempts to justify why "liberal" morals and politics (of which the author admits to partake) are superior to "conservative" morals and politics.
The book is an objective study of the conceptual metaphors underlying conservative and liberal politics although the closing section is devoted to the author's personal views. Lakoff makes it clear however, that there is no such thing as an Objective study of politics, as politics is based in subjective morality.
Lakoff wrote Moral Politics soon after the Republican Party's "Contract With America" takeover of Congress under the Clinton presidency, and his usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is strongly resembles how those labels might have been used in the 1994 elections, the former having much to do with the Democratic party and the latter with the Republican party; indeed, chapter 9, "Moral Categories in Politics", presents Hillary Clinton as a prototypical "liberal" and Newt Gingrich as a prototypical "conservative". (Lakoff actually puts this somewhat differently, suggesting that Clinton is the prototypical arch-nemesis of conservatives, while Gingrich is the prototypical arch-nemesis of liberals.)
The central problems
The major observations/assumptions and questions on which the book is founded include these:
- There is one cluster of beliefs that most conservatives share (including some kind of condemnation of abortion, a positive emphasis on military spending, and a fixed-percentage income tax) and another cluster that most liberals share (including some kind of support for abortion, a negative emphasis on military spending, and a progressive income tax). What is the explanation for this clustering? What "unifies each of the lists of moral priorities?" "Mix and match" views seem comparatively rare. how come?
- Liberals and conservatives usually not only disagree with one another but view the "other side" as largely incoherent. Many liberals, for example, see building more prisons a completely ineffective and illogical solution to crime, while many conservatives view it as the obvious solution. Why can't the one side even begin to understand the other?
- Why do liberals and conservatives tend to use the same words to mean different things? For example, a liberal might use the term "big government" to condemn the military, but, to a conservative, the term "big government" has nothing to do with the military, even though the military is a significant government institution.
- Why do liberals and conservatives make different issues the focus of campaigns? For example, why did the Republican leaders emphasize "family values" so much in their 1994 campaign, and why was similar emphasis not made by Democrats? Don't liberals also have families and a moral framework for reasoning about families?
The proposed solution: a metaphorical model
Lakoff tries to resolve these difficulties through a model in which liberals and conservatives are shown to have different and contradictory worldviews. These worldviews are thought to conflict in a number of ways relevant to the understanding of politics. Nonetheless, Lakoff claims that all of these differences center around the two sides' respective understandings of a single concept - the ideal nuclear family.
The family is central to Lakoff because he views the family as Americans most common model for understanding the country; that is Americans often metaphorically understand their country as a family, with the government corresponding to the parent(s) of the family and the individual citizens corresponding to the children. Thus, one's understanding of how a family is best organized will have direct implications for how the country should be governed.
Liberals' ideal conceptualization follows the model of the "nurturant parent" family, while Conservatives' follow the model of the "strict father" family. Given the importance of these concepts in Moral Politics, it is important to consider their meaning along with how each view suggests and is justified by a corresponding view of the nature of child rearing, morality, and justice.
A "nurturant parent" family is one that revolves around every family member caring for and being cared for by every other family member, with open communication between all parties, and with each family member pursuing their own vision of happiness. The nurturant parent model is also correlated with the following views:
- Morality: The basis of morality is in understanding, respecting, and helping other people, and in seeking the happiness of one's self and of others. The primary vices are selfishness and anti-social behavior.
- Child development: Children develop morality primarily through interacting with and observing good people, especially good parents. Punishment is necessary in some cases, but also has the potential to backfire, causing children to adopt more violent or more anti-social ways. Though children should, in general, obey their parents, they will develop best if allowed to question their parents' decisions, to hear justifications for their parents' rules, and so on. Moral development is a life-long process, and almost no one is so perfect as not to need improvement.
- Justice: The world is not without justice, but it is far from the ideal of justice. Many people, for example, do not seem properly rewarded for their hard work and dedication. We must work hard to improve everyone's condition.
In contrast, the "strict father" family revolves around the idea that parents teach their children how to be self-reliant and self-disciplined through "tough love". This is correlated with the following views:
- Morality: Evil is all around us, constantly tempting us. Thus, the basis of morality is strong moral character, which requires self-reliance and self-discipline. The primary vices are those that dissolve self-discipline, such as laziness, gluttony, and indulgent sexuality.
- Child development: Children develop self-discipline, self-reliance, and other virtues primarily through rewards and punishment, a system of "tough love". Since parents know the difference between right and wrong and children still do not, obedience to the parents is very important. Moral development basically lasts only as long as childhood; it's important to get it right the first time, because there is no "second chance".
- Justice: The world may be a difficult place to live, but it is basically just; people usually get what they deserve. The difficulties in one's life serve as a test to sort the deserving from the undeserving.
Lakoff uses this model to answer the central questions framed above - why is there such clear grouping on issues that separate liberals and conservatives, and, conversely, why don't we find more issue-by-issue voters? Lakoff claims that one's take on any given political issue is largely determined by which model one adopts. Thus, in Part IV, "The Hard Issues", he tries to demonstrate how the liberal and conservative worldviews outlined above lead to typical liberal and conservative positions on a wide range of issues, including taxes, the death penalty, environmental regulations, affirmative action, education, and abortion.
As to why liberals and conservatives view each other as incomprehensible on an issue-by-issue basis, Lakoff claims that this is due to each side failing to grasp the other side's worldview as well as not appreciating how different the other worldview is from its own. Failure to see or appreciate this gap results in both sides thinking the other is hopelessly irrational and immoral.
Lakoff also uses this model to show how and why liberals and conservatives use different sematics, often even using the same words in very different ways. Liberals and conservatives have different worldviews and sematics are very much influenced by the worldview of the speaker. As Lakoff puts it,
- Words don't have meanings in isolation. Words are defined relative to a conceptual system. If liberals are to understand how conservatives use their words, they will have to understand the conservative conceptual system. (From chapter 2, "The Worldview Problem")
Here, Lakoff is specifically referring to liberals' challenges in understanding conservatives. However, he obviously views the reverse situation as equally problematic.
In addressing why conservatives and liberals choose different issues as the focus of their campaigns, Lakoff claims that this too finds explanation in the context of his model. In the 1994 elections, the Republican focus on "family values", while the Democrats largely ignored this framing, is key to Lakoff. He views this discrepancy as a sign that conservatives understand the Country is a Family metaphor that lies behind people's views of politics much better than liberals do. And, by extension, this has been key to the success of the Republican Party.
Clarifications of the model
There are several things Lakoff does not intend to mean with his model. Perhaps most importantly, Lakoff does not believe that all conservatives are the same or that all liberals are the same. Chapter 17, "Varieties of Liberals and Conservatives", is entirely devoted to showing a number of dimensions along which one can slide and still be a member of either camp. Among other things, he says that one might have one way to conceptualize a real nuclear family and a separate, even opposite way of conceptualizing a metaphorical country-family. Lakoff is certainly not trying to establish necessary and sufficient conditions for being liberal or conservative. In the terminology of cognitive linguistics, Lakoff views both liberal and conservative as "radial category" labels.
Another thing Lakoff does not mean is that people consciously believe in the family concepts that he has described. As a cognitive scientist, Lakoff believes he is describing mental structures that may well be mostly below the level of conscious thought. This does not mean, however, that they have little or no effect on one's opinions and consequent actions.
Arguments against shallow stereotypes
Lakoff says he is opposed to superficial, stereotypical, and patently false characterizing of both liberals and conservatives. The book addresses common oversimplifications about both political positions.
In chapter 7, "Why We Need a New Understanding of American Politics", Lakoff tries to refute several conceptions of "Conservatism" that he views as much too simplistic to be true. First, he claims that any liberal or conservative thinking that "Conservatives just believe in less government" is incorrect. Common misconceptions that liberals hold include that "Conservatism is 'the ethos of selfishness'" and that "Conservatism is no more than a conspiracy of the ultrarich to protect their money and power and to make themselves even richer and more powerful." Common misunderstandings of conservatives by conservatives are that "Conservatism [and nothing else] is for traditional values", and that "Conservatism is just what the Bible tells us."
In chapter 18, "Pathologies, Stereotypes, and Distortions", he tries to refute certain stereotyped views of liberals, including the viewing of them "as lovers of bureaucracy", "as defenders of special interests" and "as advocating only rights and no responsibilities" (p. 317, 1996 edition).
Second edition
The subtitle of the book changed between the first edition and the current edition. Once titled Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't, it has been rechristened as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.
The original subtitle reflected Lakoff's idea that conservatives, at least 1994 conservatives, understood the nature of American politics better than liberals. In particular, conservatives were thought to better understand the importance of the connection between the family, morality, and politics, and, especially around 1994, were able to get quite a number of votes through making this important connection explicit for their constituents. In this framework, the original subtitle can be seen as a call-to-arms to liberals, for liberals to get a better understanding of politics, or never get back in office again.
The bulk of the text in the second edition is identical to the first. Other than the new sub-title, all that is added is, a preface to the second edition and a 37-page afterword relating the book's content to the 2000 US presidential election.
Attribution: The information appearing above in this tab is from Wikipedia:
Moral Politics (book). Amazon is not affiliated with, and neither endorses, nor is endorsed by Wikipedia or any of the authors who contributed to this article. The Wikipedia content may be available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, version 3.0 or any later version, available at: CC BY-SA. Additional or other terms may apply. See Wikipedia Terms of Use for details.
See a problem with this content? Let us know
Inside This Book
(learn more)
Browse Sample Pages:
Front Cover | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Back Cover | Surprise Me!
Front Cover | Table of Contents | First Pages | Index | Back Cover | Surprise Me!
Citations (learn more)
27
books
cite this book:
See all 27 books citing this book
- Soul-Sick Nation: An Astrologer's View of America by Jessica Murray on page 30, and Back Matter
- Why Liberals and Conservatives Clash: A View from Annapolis by Bruce Fleming on page 56, and Back Matter
- The Heart of Judgment: Practical Wisdom, Neuroscience, and Narrative by Leslie Paul Thiele on page 231, and Back Matter
- Taxes, Spending, and the U.S. Government's March Towards Bankruptcy by Daniel N. Shaviro in Back Matter
- Whose Freedom?: The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea by George Lakoff in Front Matter
See all 27 books citing this book
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
Listmania!
|
|
So You'd Like to...
|
|
