In the wake of November?s disaster for Democrats, liberals and progressives of all stripes have been seeking guidance and comfort in the work of cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff. All the rage among Democrats, his book Don?t Think of An Elephant has introduced the term ?framing? into the daily lexicon of political animals. For devastated Democrats trying to plot their return from the wilderness, Lakoff has taken on almost mythic status.
And that?s probably not a good thing.
While a helpful diagnosis of the Democrats? maladies, Dr. Lakoff?s prescription may well make the patient worse. Lakoff casually dismisses fundamental differences among liberal constituencies that cannot ? and should not - be so easily bridged. He does not address the 21st century media environment, which by blurring politics, entertainment, news and opinion, naturally offers the conservatives? ?strict father? morality play a built-in advantage. Worst, Lakoff?s model for a progressive public philosophy and values messages leads to a misdirected liberalism and electoral defeat.[MORE]
Read the entire post.

It?s the Mental Model, Stupid
It?s easy to understand Lakoff?s appeal. First, his use of the concepts of ?cognitive unconscious? and ?framing? help incredulous Democrats understand why an electorate that consistently prefers their policy prescriptions continues to vote for the GOP. Conservatives, Lakoff writes, consistently speak about values and principles that reinforce most Americans? ?strict father? model of understanding the world. Liberals, in contrast, offer policies, programs and particulars, and cede the framing of debates by not using the language of their own ?nurturant parent? model.
Lakoff notes that when it comes to political communication, it is a myth that ?the truth will set us free. If we just tell the people the facts, since people are basically rational, they?ll reach the right conclusions.? To Lakoff, this explains Republican success in dominating the debate even among potential Democratic voters,

?To be accepted, the truth must fit people?s frames. If the facts do not fit a frame, the frame stays and the facts bounce off?People do not necessarily vote their self-interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values. They vote for who they identify with?It is a serious mistake to assume that people are simply always voting in their self-interest.?

For Lakoff, the solution to liberals? woes is first to understand the different ?family model? frames being used by conservatives and progressives:

?The strict father is moral authority and master of the household, dominating mother and children and imposing needed discipline. Contemporary conservative politics turns these family values into political values: hierarchical authority, individual discipline, military might?The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world.?

?The nurturant parent model has two equal parents, whose role is to nurture their children and their children to nurture others. Nurturance has two dimensions: empathy and responsibility, for one?s self and others. Responsibility requires strength and competence. The strong nurturing parent is protective and caring, builds trust and connection, promotes family happiness and fulfillment, fairness, freedom, openness, cooperation, community development. These are the values of strong progressive politics."

Armed with an understanding of their own empathetic parent model and the values and principles it implies, disciplined progressives can win the battle of hearts ? and minds ? by framing the debate and controlling the language of politics. (The latter is a point Perrspectives has long emphasized. See ?Branding the Opt Out Society? for details.)
Father Knows Best: The Medium is the Message
Lakoff?s diagnosis provides helpful insights into the causes of Democratic electoral disasters past and needed tools for thinking about defining a future return to the majority. But as a practical guide to core Democratic values and the policies flowing from them, Lakoff?s prescription would take liberals far off course.
A critical (and surprising) shortcoming of Lakoff?s ?nurturant parent? model for progressives is its stunning media tone deafness. Over the past decade, the American media infrastructure has been transformed. The explosion of 24/7 cable news outlets and the rise of the Internet has produced an over-supply of news and political messages, instantaneous news cycles, and veiled agendas. In addition, Internet direct marketing techniques and blogs allow Americans to bypass the parties and mainstream media for news, messages and platforms. More onerous, rapid consolidation across print, radio, web and television media gives corporate owners like News Corp ? and their agendas ? a stranglehold over the creation, distribution and access to content.
These have combined to transform American politics into just another part of the ?infotainment? complex where entertainment, news, and opinion meet. Politics is now entertainment, part drama and part competition in a passion play where confrontation, conflict, and good versus evil rule the day. In a time of great uncertainty at home and abroad, for overworked Americans awash in sea of information, visceral appeals and gut-level emotions, not data, facts and analysis, cut through the noise.
And that gives the conservative message machine a significant, built-in advantage over liberals. Lakoff?s ?strict father? model for conservatives is tailor-made for the infotainment media of the 21st century. In this environment, confrontation, indignation, morality plays, good guys and axes of evil naturally dominate political debate, just as they do in Hollywood blockbusters. The initial progress of the liberal Air America Radio notwithstanding, the fury and self-righteousness of Fox News, Limbaugh, O?Reilly, Hannity and Coulter makes much better theater than ?nurturers? like Bill Moyers. Conservatives rage, liberals whine. And rage is much more entertaining.
A House United Cannot Stand
Lakoff is also much too quick to proclaim the unity of disparate progressive viewpoints, overlooking fundamental disagreements that will impact both the framing of Democratic messages and its policy program. Lakoff identifies six discrete types of progressives, including socioeconomic progressives, identity politics progressives, environmentalists, civil liberties progressives, and anti-authoritarians. Later, he dedicates an entire chapter to uniting them through a restatement of common values, principles and policy directions that he confidently claims ?are exactly the things that can unite progressives, if they are crafted properly.? Importantly, he notes that:

The problem is that many of these people [?] do not recognize that theirs is just one special case of something more general, and do not see the unity in all types of progressives. [?] We have to get past that harmful idea. The other side did.

Lakoff is right that Bush and his GOP have managed to bridge the often-tense schism between social and economic conservatives, at least for now. But Lakoff brushes off the very real differences in values and principles that separate the range of views and interests across the Democratic spectrum. Unity in opposition to the reigning GOP is clearly not enough, as the 2004 electoral drubbing showed.
Democrats among themselves must hammer out a consensus public philosophy before framing the debate and offering a genuine program for reform. For example, do progressives believe in a single American national identity or recognize a multicultural panoply of group identities determined by race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation? Do progressives see globalization as a difficult but generally positive process that can be managed for American prosperity or a dangerous trend that should be blocked wherever possible? What is the role of markets in Democratic policy, and are there any areas where progressives believe in market limitations or failure (i.e. health care, education, retirement security) call for government solutions? What is the nature of the security threats facing the United States and what resources must be marshaled and steps taken (national service? tax increases?) in order to assure national safety? Are the Democrats a coalition party or one spanning races, regions and economic classes?
Answers to questions like these will determine whether the 21st century Democratic Party is a free trade, pro-growth, party of national unity or a protectionist party of identity politics. While the New Republic?s Peter Beinart (?A Fighting Faith?) would go too far in purging the Democrats of ?softs?, these fundamental differences in viewpoint and priority must be addressed to renew the Democratic vision. As we?ve written before (?Less Than the Sum of Our Parts? and ?Five Lessons for Democrats?), they simply cannot not papered over.
Wrong Frame, Crooked Picture
The bottom line is that Lakoff?s formula produces the wrong liberalism for a resurgent Democratic Party and the wrong direction for the United States in the early 21st century. Bypassing real differences among Democrats, Lakoff?s is the path of oppositionl, not reform. There is no accounting for the rapidly changing domestic and international context (globalization, economic insecurity, health care and savings crises, the war with Al Qaeda, the rise of Chinese, Indian and European power, global climate change, etc.) that must inform the Democratic worldview. The result is likely more of the same ? a coalition party of identity politics that cannot speak in universal terms to Americans? hopes and not just fears.
That requires a progressivism that the cognitive scientist Lakoff does not seem able to conceive: call it ?National Greatness Liberalism.? Such a liberalism sees an America that is constantly ?becoming?, moving ever closer to its own ideals of prosperity and justice. Consider a 21st century Democratic mission statement such as:

Empower Americans of all backgrounds, races, classes and faiths to enjoy growing prosperity, increased safety, personal autonomy and shared responsibility at home, while helping to ensure our security abroad through wise stewardship of a changing global community.

What?s needed to articulate that is a different frame. One that projects confidence, unity, aspiration ? all the while working with, not running counter, to the trajectory of 21st century media. Rewarding success, respecting personal autonomy, requiring shared responsibility, empowering each citizen to achieve their utmost and setting and achieving common national goals (a concept of ?winning?, if you will), those are the values needed in a new Democratic ?frame.? And the model for that is not a family, but a team.
More on that to come.