Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think Second Edition

The persistent failure of conservatives and liberals in our government leadership to find common ground and compromise is a vital issue of our time. Lakoff's analysis explains why neither side can understand the other, and thus, why they cannot see any virtue in the others' positions or find common ground on many policies that demand a resolution.

I am not sure I buy into Lakoff's analysis on all points, but he argues persuasively for the core ideas he proposes. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, Lakoff will explain why some positions of the other side make sense to them even though a mystery to you. Maybe these insights provides a basis for understanding and communication that are a starting point to getting something done in Washington, and a starting point for more civil discussion with your friends who are of the opposite political persuasion.

But be patient. Lakoff is irritatingly repetative, apparently in a misguided effort to be clear and precise. It will take time and effort to wade through the book.

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.

This book is SO fascinating. Really eye-opening viewpoint on liberal and conservative politics - I'm usually a very fast reader, but this has been slow because I constantly stop to think more deeply about what he's saying, comparing it to my own experiences and "trying the ideas on for size." Particularly enlightening in current times. Lakoff is also a really accessible writer; the writing is clear and easy to digest.

This is an eye-opener to not only those who disagree with our political views, but a look inside ourselves. Morals & Politics go together? It seems like common sense, but this book really allows us to re-think the origin of these two elements of our lives.

Political Morality is a thought provoking attempt to create metaphorical models of liberal and conservative mindsets. Conservatives use the Strict Father model while liberals use the Nurturing Parent model. These two models do an amazing job of explaining the beliefs of the two opposing sides in such disparate subjects as abortion, education, welfare, love of country and so on.

In one respect Moral Politics is rather bleak as there seems to be no possible détente between the two sides. Mr. Lakoff seems to see this as a zero sum battle. For instance, in education liberals prefer to teach children various views and beliefs, even including conservativism. Conservatives, however, see this as cultural and moral relativism. Conservatives push conservative values at the exclusion of all others. There is no middle ground, either conservatives win or liberals win.

Although Mr. Lakoffs' cognitive models are as good as any I could imagine, he does upon occasion seem to shoehorn beliefs into one or the other. For instance he argues that Newt Gingrich's desire to take children away from welfare mothers and place them into orphanages follows the Strict Father model because the welfare mothers are without a doubt failures at parenting. Better to let the state take over in order to instill those Strict Father values. I would argue that Gingrich's proposal has less to do with his desire to satisfy his Strict Father beliefs and more to do with the fact that he despises welfare mothers.

It almost seems that the words conservative and liberal have been entirely absconded by politicians. There was an article in American Conservative magazine, after the 2004 election, titled "Bush 2, Conservativism 0". The gist of the article was the Bush was literally killing conservativism, meanwhile Bush is seen as the standard bearer of conservative values. Pat Buchanan wrote a book claiming that liberals had infiltrated the White House in the guise of neo-conservativism. So who's correct, American Conservative, Pat Buchanan or the Bush backers? It seems that conservatives are whomever self proclaimed political conservatives declare themselves to be.

Without a doubt Moral Politics gives the reader a LOT to think about. George Lakoff is able to make coherent sense out of conservatives desire to ban abortions while they work towards cutting funding for pre and post natal care. In a age where the rate of infant mortality in the United States is one of the worst of any industrialized nation it boggles the liberal mind how conservatives can place the welfare of an unborn, unwanted child above one that is wanted. Solving that conundrum alone is worth the price of admission.