Centerfield

I was planning on blogging about Lakoff. I found his article in The American Prospect

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V14/8/lakoff-g.html

to be strongly biased to the left. I'll be interested in taking a look at that book. However, I think his vision of an authoritarian right is really the paleocon right, not the modern neocon vision.

But if one takes the competing models as both having validity, then I think you're right that Clark has a bit of both. There are bad people in the world that must be feared, so there is a need for security. But there is an opportunity cost if one fears too much and screen out people who might help you.

I've been very interested, very curious, about Clark as a candidate since he declared. On the whole, I haven't been tempted to Clark's camp, and I see a number of signs that aren't promising.

On the other hand, I saw him on Buchanan and Press a couple nights ago, and he was really sharp and on-message.

I think Clark would've been almost the perfect candidate for the Democrats *if* he found a solid, clear message and stuck with it throughout his campaign. Americans would respond to a solid, steady leader right now ... and people tend to associate those qualities with military leaders.

The problem, as I see it, is the triumph of intelligence over message. It's tempting for someone smart and articulate to talk his way around the complexity of issues and not really to give a firm answer about things ... and, sometimes, to give an answer that isn't quite the same as the answer they gave last week.

Clark has needed a really good, solid advisor -- someone who helps him formulate basic views on the issues, and someone who emphasizes the need to pick a message and stick with it.

With that simple formula, I'd be very tempted to see Clark as our next president. But I don't think that's how his candidacy has evolved thus far.

My problem with Lakoff is that he embraces a tired PoMo mantra that language is used (usually dishonestly) by those on the right to reinforce a power relationship, while denying the use of "framing" by those on the left to drive their own power-motivated agenda. Moreover, I don't find the "Mommy/Daddy" dichotomy between the left and the right to be convincing. In the final analysis, the progressive policies to which the left would give the force of law will be enforced at the point of a gun. Not very nurturing, IMO.

With respect to Clark, I have not been impressed with his muddy responses to questions on policy. Dean seems to be a much more credible candidate from the standpoint of being Presidential. Has Clark even staked out much ground with regard to policy?

Well, the way the cable news shows virtually ignore Clark, I can see why people don't know what his stance on the issues are. He has spoken out on the issues and has developed clear plans for policy. But, the message is not seeing the light of day.

I blame this on his campaign. They need to do something to force these political pundits to at least mention Clark's name. It's very frustrating.

William:

I agree that aspects of the public message need work. And your comment about 'triumph of intelligence over message' rings true. It's the battle for the nomination that is the greater challenge. If he wins that, I think it will present a hill to climb for the Bush camp.

RonC:

From your comment I have to assume that you have not actually read 'Moral Politics', because your statements simply don't reflect his research. He certainly does not present his analysis as 'the final answer', but one that does seem to fit.

If you HAVE read the book, then I believe you've chosen either to view his work through a partisan lens or you do not accept the relevance of his discipline to politics.

Also...I'm not claiming to be a great presenter of the information, but I do what I can.

I think it would be useful to read comments from his academic peers. Yes, that would be useful.

Best wishes...Erasmus

This is what I read from Lakoff: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml Sorry, probably should have posted that to begin with. :)

I don't have a partisan lens, so I guess that you could say that I question the relevance of his research to politics. As I stated, in the final analysis, the "nurturing" left would see itself as the "moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong" (quoted from the article linked above to describe the "father model" that he identifies with the political right). Simply because they identify with the "nurturing" mother archetype does not mean that they will not enforce their ideas of morality on the American individual with all of the discipline of the "strict father" archetype.

Also, I think that both sides do an equal share of "framing" (a term used in the same article).

This is quite apart from your point about Clark, which makes sense to me if you accept Lakoff's psychological/moral framework apart from his rigid application of it to the right and left of the political spectrum.

Ron: Ah! Makes more sense. The article you read gives a short overview that has left you with the skewed impression.

His book deals with issues of variations that exist among real people as opposed to the general case discussed in the article. Seeing how variations occur links the framework to real life. He also recognizes that people may understand both moralities, but uses each in different life activities, e.g. strict at home, nurturant at work.

Also, the models share many identical values, but prioritize them differently.

I'll be attempting to illustrate some of these in future posts to civicdialogues.org, but it's a huge topic. Please feed me questions -- that's how I know if my writing is effective.

Thanks...Erasmus

I don't think that Clark will actually be the Democratic candidate for President, though he might make it as a Vice Presidential nominee. The thing that concerns me about Clark is that he was relieved as NATO commander before the end of his tour, and just after defeating the Serbs in Kosovo, for what have been termed "character and integrity issues" by his superior, the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This was a highly unusual action, and shortly thereafter Gen. Clark retired. To my knowledge, he has never publicly explained what these issues were, and I think he owes us an explanation.

The other thing that bothers me is that this is the first public office for which he has run. I realize that other general officers have done so in our history, the last being Eisenhower, but it is highly unusual, to say the least. The military culture in which Gen. Clark spent his life does not prepare one for the chaotic and contradictory pressures that a normal politician learns through experience how to deal with. I've seen little of Gen. Clark to make me think that he has mastered this necessary political skill.

I don't really have a problem with the issues you raise, Paul. I've heard some of the details regarding Clark's disagreement with his superiors on Kosovo ... and I've heard he does discuss it in his book. It isn't that unusual for one official to clash with others in the top bureaucracy and ultimately to be pushed out.

It is unusual for someone to mention "character and integrity issues", and to do so publicly, but not to be willing to indicate what any of them are. There are some "character issues" involved in that cryptic statement, if you ask me.

The question I have about Clark has to do with steadiness and message. If he has a coherent agenda and sticks with it, in my view he's likely to be a pretty strong candidate. I get some of the opposite vibe, though, both in terms of his campaign staff and in his own tendency to "hedge" and leave himself wiggle room when asked about specific issues. Sometimes he sounds surprisingly "political" -- like he's trying to answer a question without taking a solid position.

I read the UC Berkley article. It is hard not to view Dr. Lakoff as anything but a committed leftist.

The basic idea that Liberals have a more positive view of people and their perfectability while conservatives view the world as a more dangerous place needing protection is not new.

I find it interesting that he feels the Republicans understand framing much better than Dems.

Without saying conspiracy, he is implying one by conservatives. I will be interested to see how you develop this theme.