Don't Think of an Elephant: Lakoff on CSPAN2 Now

[Viva_La_Revolution]

The book is a few years old, but we can still learn from it.
The show is recent. Taped 1-12-06 :)


Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate -- The Essential Guide for Progressives
George Lakoff

George Lakoff, author of “Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know n:Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives”, speaks at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco about the elemental differences between conservatives and progressives. Mr. Lakoff traces the differences in political ideology between the parties to differences in the idealized family model. He states that conservatives follow a “strict father” model while progressives follow a “nurturing parent” model. Mr. Lakoff bases his findings on research he has conducted as a linguistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The author uses the differences in these two models to “re-frame” reactions to many current issues, such as Hurricane Katrina, Terri Schiavo, abortion, gay marriage, and the recent Supreme Court nominations.

George Lakoff's books include "Metaphors We Live By" and "Moral Politics." Mr. Lakoff is a linguistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has conducted lengthy research regarding the concept of the embodied mind as it relates to mathematics. For more information, visit the George Lakoff's website at www.georgelakoff.com .

Publisher: Chelsea Green PO box 428, North Main Street, Ste. 120 White River Junction, VT 05001



Book TV Schedule January 21-23
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x199787#200041
Great programs this weekend! Peter Bergen, John Perkins, George Lakoff and more.

[Kolesar]

1. Watchin' here

thanx:popcorn:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. 80% of the talking heads on TV are Conservative

They have booking agencies that concentrate on this.

During the Shrivo case they had 15 full-time bookers. :wow:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. Lobbying reform... they are framing the issue

like the lobbyists are the problem, but it's not. The problem is the legislators that take the money.

[Zenlitened]

8. I agree. And I'm worried that Dem leaders are going to make...

... "lobbying reform" the centerpiece of the 2006 campaign. When there's so damned much else to choose from!

All voters, everywhere, will tell you they think politicians are on the take. And they'll react with a mere shrug of the shoulders when a pol comes along with bright talk of cleaning things up.

Heard it all before.

And it's just kind of abstract. "Lobbying reform." Blah blah blah. How about we "toss out the criminals," the pols who broke the law? Then let's go after the "constitution-shredders" -- they're criminals, too. And let's hammer away at their incompetence -- which has risen (or descended) to criminal levels itself.

But "Hey everybody, let's reform the way interest groups try to influence how laws are made!"... Meh. Eyesglazeover.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

9. I'm going to have to watch this a few more times.

He had so many good points, I know I didn't catch them all.

[Kolesar]

12. I think voters can comprehend gop incompetence, or cronyism

if you will let me restate your idea. Did I get it right?

[Zenlitened]

13. Yep. And as Viva_La_Rev said... focus on the people...

... who actually broke the law. What they did wrong and why they must get the heave-ho.

Let's talk about about actual stupid/criminal shit the repukes do, and what we'll do differently, rather than "Y'know, Washington would be a lovely fragrant garden if only everybody would be, like, nice and stuff, and we had some new rules about lobbying and..."

:boring: :boring: :boring:

[Kolesar]

14. Nothing says their "lobbying reform" ruse will necessarily work

Time for a LTTE to wake up those bored, incurious newspaper writers.

[Imalittleteapot]

4. Recording. Thanks.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

5. Dobson has his own ZIP CODE??!!

:puke:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. He's laying out the Fundie logic

You have to punish children so they will do right (because apparently they are born bad :eyes: )

If you learn the right 'morals' you will be prosperous.

therefore, if you are not prosperous, it means you have no morals. If you are poor, it's because you are bad. That lets them tear down the social systems.

See how logical it all is? Oh god, I have to go puke now. scuse me.

[Kolesar]

11. I find that hard to get my mind around--it could just be God's grace

Were you not immoral, you would have prosperity.
***
I am still trying to figure out how RW Christian preaching often comes around to exhorting "freedom". To them, it means something a lot different than it means to me (which would be liberty).

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. Q & A now

[TahitiNut]

10. I don't think the problem is as much in the model as in Parentalism itself

At some point, people have to think for themselves and not succumb to the parentalism of government. My uncle, a New Deal Democrat, is the "strict father" model in spades. His children, my cousins, grew up trying to second guess his opinion rather than make their own more wisely. It's not an uncommon problem in parentalism. Indeed, it's one of the rants on the right, as well. "Who're they to tell us we can't have guns?!?" (You'll shoot your eye out.) "Who're they to tell us we can't smoke?!?"

The best parent is one who helps the child become an emotionally independent/interdependent adult, making their own choices. Creating emotionally dependent/codependent adults isn't good on either the 'left' or the 'right' - matriarchal or patriarchal - both deeply flawed.

[JitterbugPerfume]

15. he was great

very informative


I hope get a chance to see this again there is a lot to digest