Customer Reviews

Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think

5 star:		(47)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

Liberals and Conservatives seem to agree on little. Even the strongest arguments on each side are brushed off as irrelevant by the other. Lakoff has contributed a significant work into the question of why and has begun to build a bridge across that chasm.

First off, it must be said that Lakoff is liberal, notes that it introduces bias into his research, and works hard to keep that bias out of his book (until the end and he warns you it's coming). At its core, he seems to have succeeded in building two frameworks that are largely accurate, the Strict Father (conservative) and Nurturing Mother (liberal) moral foundations. Since I fall closer to the conservative framework, I can only say that I find his explanation of the liberal approach insightful and interesting. Since our national debate so rarely addresses these fundamental beliefs, it has always been difficult to understand the differing perspectives among groups of Americans. Lakoff has helped bring light to this side of the debate.

Unfortunately, Lakoff could not completely overcome his bias. He goes so far as to assert that the conservative moral system necessarily requires stern corporal punishment (using brutally violent allusions) and is, by definition, sexist and racist. I find this characterization insulting and more importantly inaccurate. Despite this inaccuracy, I have to give the book an excellent rating (4) because it is so groundbreaking in its attempt to communicate these very different frameworks.

If you decide to read the book, let me offer a slight refinement of his view which may help a liberal reader better understand the broader conservative perspective and a conservative reader get past his bias. This is especially important to remember when he characterizes the "Strict Father" attitude under the assumption that certain factors are, by definition, included.

I believe Lakoff is right that conservatives believe in a "Natural Order," and perhaps more specifically that there is an absolute truth or an absolute right, in contrast to the "to each his own" or relativist approach he applies to the liberal moral system. Many conservative policies attempt to enforce a particular truth on society as he rightly notes. I believe that this absolute truth for *some* conservatives is held in ancient scriptures and is at minimum largely unchanging, a source of many of his characterizations including a hostility to change. I believe this should be considered a subset (special case) of a broader conservative moral framework; the same being said for the racism and sexism he includes as central or prerequisite in his fundamental "Moral Order." Indeed the whole idea of a moral order is probably a special case of the core philosophy of a natural truth, historically misguided by self-centered bias and supposedly "scientific" proofs (of racial or sexual superiority as an example).

I do not believe that someone in this framework necessarily holds any of these specific subsets of unchanging beliefs and I feel this is where Lakoff misses the mark. It is possible to believe that there is some absolute truth or right (a core feature of conservative mentality) and at the same time be continuously refining your worldview in hopes of achieving this truth. You can recognize that former "truths" were clearly wrong (racism, sexism, and corporal punishment among them) but still believe that your evolving framework is closer and closer to right and thus worth broadly enforcing.

If someone's behavior is clearly improper or in appropriate, your moral obligation is to create a system which encourages them to be "right." You can still be free to question and review your beliefs, but you're not going to sit around doing nothing just because you're not certain that you've got it 100% correct. But a willingness to assert authority at a particular moment does not necessarily make it unchanging, as the stereotype might suggest. Beyond this, the characterizations and attitudes Lakoff notes are, for the most part, accurate.

With that material refinement for the liberal reader and assuming he has accurately reflected the liberal viewpoint, I believe that this book should be required reading for anyone engaged actively in American political debate. Even if someone could offer a better look into the conservative framework, Lakoff would remain an insightful and valuable read on the liberal perspective. Until that time, Lakoff will have to suffice for both.

If you have not read this book, I will provide you reasons to want to do so shortly. If you have read this book and liked it, don't try to explain it in general terms to people who have not read it because to do so, I've found, seems to make people think, "Well, of course political ideas are based on personal values, what's so groundbreaking about that?" But that is exactly the point of this book.

What George Lakoff is trying to do is put into words how and what people just instictivly feel, but cannot describe. Hence, the essence of cognitive science, the study of the cognitive, not exactly conscious. His questions are not so much WHAT people value and feel, but WHY they do so, consciously or not.

Quick warning. George Lakoff is a liberal and so one would naturally think that this book is just a ruse for him to preach. But he does not, he maintains a competely scientific and unbiased approach until the conclusion of the book, where his "epilouge" of sorts offers his nonideological reasons for being a liberal. His accuracy is not tainted by bias and is dead on for 99% of the book, complete with massive amounts of endnotes, citations and nonpartisan analysis of studies and facts, thoroughly emcompassing every side of nearly forty years of linguistics and psychology.

In this book, Lakoff lays out the entire structure of the conservative and the liberal ideologies and explores the threads and values that connect those ideologies. He takes on questions like "Why do conservatives link gun control and taxes," or "Why do liberals link universal health care and the environment?" His ultimate answer is that they are connected by a set of values and metaphors that are part of the mental makeup of that person. He believes that the differences in opinion between conservatives and liberals stem from the fact that they hold different metaphorical concepts about the relationship between the state and its citizens and what makes a good person. Conservatives have a "strict father" approach where discipline is learned through respecting authority and enforced through strong emotional reaction or corporal punishment and therefore learn to be self-reliant and disciplined, strict citizens. Liberals have a "nurturant mother" approach, where the key to disciplining and raising a child (or a nation) effectively is to foster a sense of mutual respect through open-mindedness and active engagement that rewards independent thinking, and therefore learn to have empathy for others and not think about only themselves or what impacts them directly. So for Lakoff, the differences in how conservatives and liberals think is not just limited to interpretation of facts or policy results, but is much deeper than that.

This book truly shines in shedding light onto the larger issues of human thought. His point that he emphasizes repeatedly is that contrary to popular belief, people do not just vote for candidates or hold political beliefs based only on their best tangible interest. Both liberals and conservative vote their identity, not their quantifiable interests in all cases. This is why many low-income conservatives who are directly hurt by the Republican tax cuts vote Republican. It is because the party represents (or says they represent) their values and identity, so they overlook their own tangible self-interest. Another emphasized point is that every word invokes a reaction in people's minds, a frame as he calls it. He points out that people have different frames that frame their thoughts and ideas
within a context they have come to understand. This is why contrary to popular liberal thought, the facts alone will not set you free. Facts that support liberal ideology that don't fit into a conservative frame will simply bounce off because they are not put in ways that a conservative will respond to, and the facts lose their impact, regardless of their truth.

The book is an outstanding example of scholarly work and how a talented scientist can apply one discipline to benefit another, or more accurately, demonstrate how ALL disciplines can be connected by a set of values. The overall idea of the book sounds simple and obvious but as Lakoff shows, by the ways people respond to and articulate their values, it truly is anything but simple and present consciously in people's minds. Highest recommendation.

It's refreshing to see a resurgence of interest in George Lakoff's principles of cognitive linguistics as they apply to the current political landscape. After just finishing his recently published "Don't Think of an Elephant", I was more than intrigued to go back to his original treatise on this topic first published in 1996. An esteemed professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley, Lakoff is a senior fellow of the Rockridge Institute, the renowned liberal think tank that concentrates in part on helping Democratic candidates and politicians with re-framing political metaphors. He completely understands the power of words, and this book explains how those words feed his model, which render images we retain vividly within our minds regardless of what facts are presented to us.

In this revealing book, Lakoff's model suggests that the apparently contradictory positions between conservatives and liberals lie in the moral underpinnings of their respective mindsets. His treatise explains that conservatives tend to a view that favors what he calls the "Strict Father Morality" model of the family. Liberals, on the other hand, prefer the "Nurturant Parent Morality" model. Each implies a system of beliefs that determine how conservatives or liberals judge the morality of a situation. When the models are applied to the nation, the political clash ensues. He concedes that while the model's ability to predict various aspects of political decisions may not be sufficient proof of its validity, it would certainly be a strong indicator as to predict behavior based on the consistency of the model. As a good academic, Lakoff spends the bulk of the book explaining the model and presenting empirical evidence of its existence in the current political environment. Yet the most intriguing part of the book is when he explains why US politics cannot get away from these morality-based models, and of course, as a self-professed liberal, why liberals have the better moral model. The message is that conservatives, with their push for "family values," understand very well where the basis for their politics originates. Liberals will have to come to a similar understanding if they want to come to the table for political dialogue. Fortunately, Lakoff's treatise is very well written (after all, he is a linguistics professor) and does not come across as a self-absorbed polemic like works by either Ann Coulter or Maureen Dowd.

This is strong, thought-provoking work. Lakoff paints liberals and conservatives as sitting on the opposite ends of a spectrum since the moral models are radial categories. He makes a compelling case for why the models cannot intersect, which he makes clear during his discussion of conservative vigilantism, where he dissects the motivation behind the Oklahoma City bombing. If you are undecided and have a commitment to the democratic process, this is essential reading before the election. If you want a briefer treatment, I suggest you read the aforementioned book by Lakoff, a slim volume entitled "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives". You cannot afford to be without an understanding of his models.

Here's why "Moral Politics" first interested me personally. As Bush and his neo-cons were telling their lies about WMD in Iraq to propagandize the nation and lead it toward an unnecessary and even detrimental war against a country that neither attacked us nor was a threat to us, I tried an experiment. I was on a list of highschool classmates and had started receiving rightwing email broadcasted by several of them. It seemed that one of them had become neo-con but most had gone over to the religious right (I grew up in eastern Kentucky, part of the Bible Belt). My experiment was to concentrate on three of my former classmates and try to shake their confidence in their illusions via reason. The experiment failed. I tried the same experiment on a close friend, a very Catholic and very intelligent mathematician married to a very Catholic philosopher. Over the years, this friend had used the word 'liberal' disparagingly in our presence several times. Again, the experiment failed. Lakoff's book discusses why my uncontrolled experiments, performed on two entirely different socio-intellectual classes, failed miserably.

"Conservatives have understood very well that their goals are not just political and economic. Conservatives want to change American culture itself. They want to change the idea of what counts as a good person and what the world should be like .... ."

"Moral Politics", pg. 222

In negative reaction to civil rights gains by Blacks and women, and also in reaction to the Vietnam War protests, conservatives over the last forty years have organized themselves extremely well (starting with the creation of 'Christian schools' in the south) and have managed systematically and successfully to define what's important in American politics. According to Lakoff's book, this organization begins in the homes, symbolized by the nurturing methods Dr. Spock vs. the striving for obedience by James Dobson in child rearing.

The battle between liberal and conservative sides is portrayed by Lakoff as belief in 'innocence of young children' (leading to nurturing) vs. belief in 'original sin' (leading to corporal punishment).Lakoff's main point is that rightwing conservatives believe implicity in the notion of a strict patriarchy held in place by threats and punishment. E.g., rightwing ideologues like Dobson teach adherence to a strict patriarchial hierarchy, so that feedback and error correction (certainly necessary for biological survival at the DNA and cellular leval) are completely eliminated. The hierarchy with lack of error correction explains why Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were able lead the nation into war by lying about 'WMD' in 2003. Lakoff emphassizes that self-righteous people listen only to themselves and judge themselves by their own set of 'moral standards'. This is why Europe was and still is impotent in trying to chllenge the words about (nonexistent!) WMD coming out of Washington.


Lakoff points out that the strict patriarch punishes his kids for disobedience, just as Bush the Partiarch punished Sadam Hussein for disobedience. For neo-conservatives, also discussed in the book, the rest of the world consists of disobedient children who must be taught a lesson by their Father in Washington. As a link, the very popular 1987 book "The Closing of the American Mind" was written by an neo-conservative, Alan Bloom. Bloom was a particularly successful with his readership because he hid his ideology so successfully, he never made clear exactly what was his proposed program (I read and reread the book seven times trying to find out). His program, the neo-con program for America and the world, was put into effect by other neo-cons like Wolfowitz, who was Bloom's student. Bloom's connection with the notion of strict patriarchy is illustrated implicitly in his advice from Plato: censor books and music for the young so that they'll grow up to be obedient, not rebellious. Only an obedient child will willingly die for an arbitrary leader in an arbitrary war like the war in Iraq.

Lakoff discusses why the strict patriarchial hierarchy leads easily into free market extremism (eliminate all government programs, deregulate everything, including schools) and helps explain to liberals why, since Reagan, American conservatives have systematically adopted the policy of trying to bankrupt the U.S. government. Lakoff emphasizes the Calvinistic fear (now propagated by conservative Southern Baptist leaders) that financial success on earth signals approval by God, so that the wealthy, not the poor, are the favored ones, the 'elect' who are headed for heavenly reward.

On page 94, 'moral self interest' and Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' are connected, showing why conservatives in the U.S. have opted for free market extremism: deregulation and the abandonment of all government programs (excepting military ones). From the standpoint of the moral absolutism of the strict patriarchy, anything that smacks even slightly of socialism is seen by patriarchial conservatives as 'immoral'. That position is not empirically justified. In my new book "Dynamics of Markets" the myth of 'The Invisible Hand' (stability and equilibrium of free markets) is exploded empirically (financial markets are shown to be unstable and far from equilbrium, there is no 'Invisible Hand' in financial markets).

On page 113 Lakoff answers the question posed by Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine": why is American Society so violent? Lakoff traces the problem back to the peculiarity of the strict patriarchial model adopted by American conservatives, bringing in the element of Calvinism vs error correcting feedback. This explains why Canadians, who are also 'gun nuts', don't kill each other. Canada is a relatively socialistic country, more like the U.S. was BRTF (before Reagan-Thatcher-Friedman). Norwegians and Swiss also have guns at home, but don't kill each other.

Chapter 21, one of most interesting chapters, discusses the ideas of leading advocates of different methods of child rearing. The teachings of the very influential rightwinger James Dobson and other more extreme Fundamentalist Christians are presented. Their message: punish kids into obedience, by beating, if necessary. But consider Scandinavia as a counterexample. Scandinavia is a relatively crime free society, with little murder of Scandinavians by Scandinavians. Women are typically brought up as feminists (anathama to Dobson). In Scandinavia, a parent can go to jail for hitting a child, 'unwed mothers' are treated no differently than are other mothers, and I can tell you from years of personal experience that one can walk anywhere in Oslo at midnight or any other time without fear of attack. The spirit of freedom and democracy seems highest in Scandinavia, where people are active and healthy, and where there is universal health coverage and (because of governmental redistribution of money) no poverty.

The strict patriarchial hierarchy is misidentified (with no empirical evidence whatsover from biology) by conservatives as 'the natural order'. Extremist interpretations of the Bible and Koran are advocated by conservatives of different stripes worldwide, in spite of massive nonuniqueness in the face of infinitely many different possible interpretations. This is, in fact, why strict patriarchy is demanded by Fundamentalists in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity: educated and informed people who think for themselves will not obey any self-declared authority, especially not one who claims that he has a direct pipeline to God.

Now for some negative comments about the book. Lakoff repeats his main ideas far too often, maybe with the notion that the reader has to see hear the idea more than once in order to grasp it. I make the same mistake in my own writing, according to my wife, but this repetition makes the book less interesting that it would have been had it been properly edited. Second, there is absolutely is no evidence presented in the text that 'methods of cognitive psychology' (whatever they are) or any empirical method at all were used to arrive at the ideas presented in the text. I want to emphasize that, with any kind of mathematical or nonmathematical modelling, there is a terrible problem of nonuniqueness: empirical data can never pick out a single model, at best only some class of models.

Finally, I'm very grateful to Dr. Angelica Frias for giving me Lakoff's book, which should be read be every liberal in the U.S. and by every social democrat in Europe and beyond.

This thought provoking book is a Must Read for Americans of all political persuasions who want to understand the basis of America's Culture War. The author systematically and persuasively describes the radically different family structures and moral values of Liberals and Conservatives and how they result in opposing worldviews. Powerful stuff.

This book also hits home for me personally. I have lived in both liberal (Midwest) and conservative (Southern) cultures for many years, and I found the author's analysis to be both fascinating and extraordinarily accurate. I sincerely wish I had read and understood it before I moved to Texas twenty years ago. I had no idea that I was entering an alien environment, i.e. a vastly different culture based on conservative "strict father" authoritarian values. It took many years of observation, on-the-job experience, and exposure to the beliefs and backgrounds of radically conservative friends before I began to comprehend the depth of our differences. Even then, I did not fully understand WHY until I read this book. Its liberal and conservative models exactly fit my personal experiences and observations, as well as the political behavior of both parties. The author has made a powerfully persuasive case. For the first time, I am able to see the "big picture."

According to 2004 election polls, the major issue of concern to voters was morality. For the many liberals who find this fact incomprehensible, READ THIS BOOK to discover the answer. For conservatives who think liberals are hopelessly stupid, naive, unpatriotic, etc., READ THIS BOOK to better understand. For those who are mystified that intelligent people can look at the same set of facts and arrive at opposite conclusions, READ THIS BOOK.

Thank You, George Lakoff, for illuminating this critically important topic.

and making sense out of all this mess. I suggest you read "Don't Think of an Elephant" first and then read this book to get an even better understanding of the psychology of the two ideologies. Progressives and even fair minded conservatives can learn a lot about one another and what can be done to change the current political system for the better of everyone and not just a few elitists by giving this book a read. I also strongly recommend this book to all who are sick and tired of the political mess that's getting worse year after year and producing a greater percentage of non-voters than voters election after election. Lakoff knows that politics doesn't have to stink even as it affects our lives for better or for worse.

I recently heard on NPR that since 1964, sixty-three Democrats have run for President and only two have actually sat in office (Carter and Clinton). The ideas contained within this book are probably a key to understanding why.

Lakoff is a well-respected cognitive scientist who has written several books about the power of metaphors in our everyday lives (Metaphors We Live By, being one). In this book, Lakoff explains in extremely easy-to-understand language how liberals and conservatives cognitively associate their ideas for how the country should be run metaphorically with how families should function.

Conservative politicians have claimed their "family" metaphor and family discourse (e.g. family values rhetoric), according to Lakoff, but liberals have not (he claims that liberals also have family values ideals, but in a different way than conservatives do). This has allowed conservatives to completely dominate the political discourse over the past few decades, letting them define the terms on which debates will take place. Democrats have had to play defensive to these attacks, never actually setting any of the conditions themselves. He gives an example of how conservatives have been able to so deliberately and efficiently make "taxes" a negative thing just recently in our political history, even though taxes can be a positive thing because they go to pay for things that everyone needs. Yet the cognitive association with taxes in many Americans' minds has fallen in line with the conservative position when it could just as easily have gone the other way if liberals (Democrats) had been able control the debate or even to get their message across better.

You don't have to agree with Lakoff. Certainly, he does begin to take a position towards the end of the book. Yet if you want to begin to understand what's taking place politically in America, or are even just fascinated with how people think, this is a good place to start.