Week of July 21-28, 2003

The TOE Project

The TOE Project: Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The TOE's foundation: Lakoff's Moral Conceptual Systems
3. Politics in transition: "interest group" politics becomes "worldview" politics
4. The Clash of Worldviews: Cleavages in the Modern Electorate
5. Talking the Talk: the language of worldview politics NEW!
6. The Future: adapt or fade away NEWER!
7. The TOE's Prescription for What Ails Us NEWEST!
8. Co-bloggers' contributions:
   a. Worldview politics and American Catholics (Zemek's Wellstone Cornerstone)
   b. Strict Father Christians vs. Nurturant Parent Christians in the Alabama tax reform battle (Minority of One)
   c. Bush and the "dark father:" from Lakoff to Jung (Vantage Point)
   d. Hatch and Pryor supporters play worldview politics against Catholic Democrats (Zemek's Wellstone Cornerstone)
   
9. Responses:
   a. Carville says to leave interest group politics behind
   b. Psychologists say conservatives' common psychological factors are fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, terror management
   c. Aslam Karachiwala of Mythic Flow makes some important points about "us" and "them"
   d. N. Todd Pritzky at Dohiyi Mir points us to "Injustice, Inequality and Evolutionary Psychology"
   

Introduction: why progressives need a TOE (Theory of Everything)

Nothing could be more obvious than that American progressives need a clearer view of the "big picture" of our political landscape. We're accused by the Right of wishing for Bush's foreign and domestic policies to fail because that's our only hope for victory, and when we look at much of what progressives have to say, it must be admitted that the focus is on what's wrong with Bush rather than what's right about Democrats. Even some of our best pollsters appear to have been caught off guard by what took place in the 2002 mid-term elections--a sure sign that we're operating without a good theoretical model of the electorate. I think it's one reason our leaders often look indecisive and weak (Clinton's uncanny instinctive feel for the electorate may have spared him from this perception.) One of our best writers, Frank Rich of the New York Times, is left to glumly hope for a change in the political cycle. Tucker Carlson gloats to Rich that:

"'They [the conservatives] believe in nine things. They all know the catechism.' In Mr. Carlson's view, Democrats are all over the ideological map in the post-Clinton era, and there can be no effective media without a coherent message."

I have been among those who have been writing about George Lakoff and his book Moral Politics. Lakoff, a linguist, cognitive scientist and liberal, attempted something of a TOE following the Democrats' disastrous performance in the 1994 mid-terms. He concluded that the Right was far more effective at appealing to the deep metaphors of those who hold a Strict Father morality in our country than Democrats were at communicating their message to those with the Nurturant Parent worldview who were their natural constituency. I could not be more disconnected from the gurus of the progressive movement and the Democratic party, but I must say that I can detect little impact of Lakoff's thinking upon our efforts in the seven years since his book was published. What were the differences in the Democratic message between the mid-term efforts in 1994 and 2002_ Most importantly, is it possible to detect a improvement in the coherence of our message or lack thereof that Carlson taunts us about_ I'm afraid not.

Blogging is a medium that invites response and dialogue, and that's what progressives need. Maybe there's some great brainstorming going on in the liberal think tanks that's about to bear fruit in a great new approach to communicating the Democratic message. I hope so. But in case there's not, it is well past the time for us regular progressive Democrats to do more than moan and even weep about the direction of the country and the seeming impotence of our leaders to do anything about it. What I'm about to do is to try and provoke some thinking, some writing, some talking and finally, some action. Comment here on what's being written and help improve it. Be inspired to come up with your own TOE and write about it on your blog (and link back here!).

My blogging technique will be different for the rest of this week. New entries will not appear at the top, but will follow in sequence of my thought process (be it ever so confused). I will keep a "Table of Contents" at the top that will list entry titles and indicate new posts to alert readers to new material. I am expecting some contributions from guest authors and some fellow bloggers to participate on their blogs from their own perspectives.

The TOE's foundation: Lakoff's Moral Conceptual Systems

Political scientists have long tried to describe the electorate in terms of ideology. In its most simplified form: conservatives want a government as small and de-centralized as possible that interferes as little as possible in people's lives; liberals want a large, centralized government that is very involved in people's lives. That might have been a fairly helpful description of the electorate during the New Deal political alignment that prevailed through the 1930's and 40's, but that model began to lose its descriptive accuracy and predictive power beginning with the 60's. Now those labels have lost almost all meaning. If conservatives want a government that stays out of people's lives, why do they favor restrictive abortion laws and criminal penalties for homosexual acts_ If liberals believe that government should be involved in people's lives, why do they oppose those same laws_

Lakoff's research has led him to conclude that most of us use a metaphor of our nation as a family. The government at the federal, state and local level is thought of as the "parent" and the citizens stand in the role of "children." Those who understand politics in this way do not all have the same family model, however. People that we usually think of as conservatives hold a Strict Father worldview of the nation and politics. Liberals have a Nurturant Parent worldview.

The beauty of Lakoff's conceptual systems is that they do a far better job of describing American politics than the old ideological models. "Strict Fatherites" see the world as a dangerous place filled with evil, and believe that survival is dependent on self-discipline and moral strength. Their "common sense" tells them that self-discipline is only created by strict enforcement of a system of rewards and punishments that teach everyone, especially children, that they must work hard, obey authority and keep morally pure if they are to succeed. Moral strength is threatened by non-conformists and those who are so morally weak that they give in to the temptations of "evil." It then is not surprising that Strict Fatherites would object to governmental interference with the system of rewards and punishments established by an unregulated free market system no matter how harsh its effects. Government policies that try to ameliorate the impact of the market only serve to undermine self-discipline and make citizens less able to survive this harsh world. The government's job instead is to punish those who do not conform to the moral standards of the majority because otherwise, the impurity of their behavior will spread like a disease throughout the society. The woman with an unwanted pregnancy should be forced to carry the fetus to term so that she learns from her "mistake." Homosexuals should be punished to prevent their "perversion" from spreading. When the government is doing its job properly, the natural and moral order is maintained in which God is superior to men, men to women, adults to children, rich to poor and human beings to nature.

"Nurturant Parents" see the world very differently. Their picture of the family places empathy, communication and respect above discipline, strength and purity. At the heart of the moral system is what Lakoff calls a "strong" Golden Rule:

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

This requires not only that we desire to help others but that we endeavor to understand their values and desires so that we can provide the help that they want to receive, not the help we want to give. Providing this kind of nurturance is benefical both to the recipient and the giver. Recipients who are respected, nurtured and communicated with become people who respect, nurture and communicate with others. Givers gain moral strength and happiness from giving.

Nurturant Parents think the nation as family has an obligation to help those "children" who are poorly fed or housed or educated. Both those who are helped and those who help with benefit. Women with unwanted pregnancies should receive our understanding and assistance. Homosexuals should be respected and accepted.

With so much depending on it, however, there are a few additional considerations. I would suggest that Lakoff's model misses one very important and growing worldview in the electorate. This conceptual metaphor does NOT see the nation as a family. I will call it the "Every man (and woman) is an island" worldview. The central metaphor is this worldview is that of personal boundaries and space. Simply stated:

No one is entited to intrude into my space if I do not intrude into theirs. Those who intrude into the space of others are morally bad and should be punished.

For them, the nation is not a family but not much more than the sea in which their island sits.

Many of those who operate by this metaphor call themselves libertarians. My unresearched guess is that they are on average younger, less religious and less likely to be in permanent relationships than either Strict Fatherites or Nurturant Parents. They believe in the free market, low taxes, legalized drugs and the abolition of any laws restricting behavior between consenting adults. They may, however, support restrictions on abortion (if they recognize the personhood of a fetus) and strict punishment for those convicted of violent crime. They may also be hawks on foreign policy following 9/11. Andrew Sullivan comes to mind as an archetype. Another unresearched guess is that this may be the most rapidly growing segment of the electorate, and that some Republicans recognize this and agonize about how to keep both these Islanders and the Strict Fatherites in their coalition.

Finally, progressive pollsters, if--God help us--they are not already doing so, must make the effort to describe the electorate according to this model. It would be more valuable than party identification, religious affiliation and certainly self-descriptions of ideology that mask more than they reveal.

Tomorrow, I will attempt to use a modified Lakoff model to describe the Christian Right from an organizational standpoint. Which groups fit under that heading_ Which organizations, even though they may share some of the Christian Right's positions, still should not come under its umbrella_ What can the organizational structure of the Christian Right teach us about its strategy and what the progressive strategy should be in response_

Politics in transition: "interest group" politics becomes "worldview" politics

Progressives are used to operating in a political environment defined by interest groups. The typical Democratic/progressive candidate might calculate her path to electoral victory in the following way:

Progressives have been left to fight 21st century political battles with a strategy and tools from the mid-20th century. While the first worldview organization was arguably the liberal Americans for Democratic Action formed in 1947, the Democratic party remains overwhelmingly dependent on old-fashioned interest groups for fund-raising and grass roots organizing. Progressives' ineffectiveness in using the media to communicate their message, in contrast to the Right's well-tuned "Wurlitzer," is a product of this antiquated approach as well. Many have argued that progressives must match the Right's well-organized web of think tanks, media outlets and "talking heads," but first we must recognize the shift from a politics dominated by interest groups to one characterized by battles between worldviews.

The next installment will focus on the key fissures in the modern body politic where the "clash of worldviews" offers opportunities and dangers for progressives.

The Clash of Worldviews: Cleavages in the Modern Electorate

I have argued that progressives are operating with an outdated model of the electorate. Their "interest group" approach of assembling a coalition of interest groups attracted by an unconnected collection of issue positions appears opportunitistic and incoherent in contrast to the "worldview" approach of the Right. It's not so much that the electorate has changed since the 1930's and 40's when Democrats were practicing interest group politics with great success, it's that advances in cognitive science and other fields have improved our ability to communicate with people. The Right has learned these lessons and uses them to leverage its "natural" minority into an electoral majority. Progressives' stubborn insistence on repeating the same failing approach and hoping external events or luck will bring a different outcome is bringing the movement close to the point of despair.

A party or candidate practicing "interest group" politics seeks to assemble an electoral majority using a more-or-less unconnected assemblage of issue positions crafted to appeal to the various interest groups comprising the coalition of the party or candidate. In contrast, practitioners of "worldview" politics take issue positions consistent with the worldview of their core constituency. The effect is to present an image of coherence and true commitment to the platform of the party or candidate, to give the impression that what is advocated is truly believed and "comes from the heart." Three effects are hoped for. First, because the issue positions will strongly resonate with the worldview that generated them, the core constituency that holds this worldview will be highly motivated to contribute, volunteer and vote. Second, because the message is consistent and can be repeated over and over by everyone connected with the party or candidate, it is hoped that more people will (unconsciously) adopt the party's worldview as their own. Third, if opponents are still practicing interest group politics with its hodge-podge of issue positions, it will be possible to undermine their credibility by accusing them of being opportunists, panderers or just plain incoherent. Doesn't that pretty well describe the current state of affairs between Republicans and Democrats_

There is another advantage to a "worldview" approach to politics. When new issues appear, a worldview politician integrates her position on the new issue with her worldview. While some reflection might be required, the response can come quickly and seem consistent with the rest of the issue array. An interest group politician has a more difficult problem. He must check with the interest groups in his coalition, determine how "salient" this new issue is to them and what the pro/con percentage breakdown is. A complicated calculus is required to determine which position on the new issue will tend to strengthen his coalition and which will tend to weaken it. Often, a period of delay will be necessary during which a politician will be required to avoid taking a position and appear indecisive. After this, when a position is finally reached, it will appear contrived and "political" rather than "from the heart." Compare the strong, decisive (and wrong) approach of the Republicans to Iraq to the fumbling of the Democrats (other than Dean and Byrd).

The key battles in American politics are taking place in the fault lines between worldviews. Gay rights is an excellent example. Among Republicans, the aftermath of Lawrence threatens to split the Republican party's Strict Father wing from the Islander wing. Strict Fatherites cannot tolerate "permissive" policies toward gays because they perceive a threat that this behavior will "spread" to others. Allowing gay marriage will "destroy" marriage for heterosexuals, they say. The Islanders have no problem with gay marriage. They object to the government intruding into the "space" of consenting adults. Racicot and Rove agonize over how to keep both groups in their camp while the Strict Fatherites threaten to bolt. This is a circumstance where the Republicans' more sophisticated understanding of the electorate may help them analyze the problem but it doesn't provide any easy solutions because their coalition encompasses both the Strict Fatherites (nearly all of them) and the Islanders (a significant and growing percentage).

• Fear and aggression
• Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Need for cognitive closure
• Terror management"

The material may not be as useful as Lakoff's for purposes of understanding the electorate, but if you deal with Strict Fatherites at home or work, this might help.

"Us" and "Them"
We are grateful to Aslam Karachiwala of Mythic Flow for his excellent contribution via this post. Aslam is a Muslim born in India, who has spent half his life in the U. S. His thoughts about "us" and "them" and our struggle to empathize are important reading.

Over my head
If you've read much of this site, you may have noticed there are not many topics upon which I'm reluctant to offer my opinion. I fit the old cliche, "You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much." N. Todd Pritzky of Dohiyi Mir has pointed me to something, though, that has me stumped. Here's an excerpt:

"However, there are also phylogenetically older "dominance" social instincts (status-seeking, nepotism, mutual reciprocity) deriving from pre-hominid ancestors, and these tend to create inequality under "modern" conditions of economic surplus. Therefore human instincts and gratifications are intrinsically in conflict under contemporary conditions. The radical implications of this analysis are explored. These include support for a Berlin-esque view of politics as an endemic negotiation of irreducibly plural values; a clarification of the deficiencies of right- and left-wing political theory; and a rationale for politics to concentrate primarily on the "micro-level" psychology of subjective gratification of individuals in their local context, rather than the conventional emphasis upon macro- level policies based on abstract statistical analysis of aggregated population variables."

Todd has taken pity on me and provided all of us with an excellent synopsis of the argument here. My way of getting a handle on it is to remember those apes in 2001: A Space Odyssey--especially the one with the bone who screeched a lot.

Feedback Comment Home

The Mission of the Right Christians

"The Right Christians" was founded to serve people of faith who object to the agenda of the Christian Right. Our purposes are fourfold: 1) serve as a source of information about Christianity and politics; 2) provide a voice for those whose faith leads them to different conclusions about political issues than those of the Christian Coalition, etc.; 3) create a Web community for the mutual support of like-minded Christians and those of other faiths; and 4) reach out to those in the Christian community who have begun to question the motives and agenda of the Christian Right.

There is currently no formal membership process for "The Right Christians" but we welcome your comments, encouragement and prayers and invite you to participate by offering your own contribution in the form of opinion pieces, scholarly papers or even Weblogs focused on particular topics within the more general area of Christianity and politics. We would especially appreciate points of view from outside the Christian community, e.g. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, etc.

Home

About the Founder

Allen H. Brill, founder of "The Right Christians", is a private citizen and Christian who wanted to see viewpoints of progressive Christians better represented in the public forum. He provides a Weblog on issues involving Christianity and politics that is updated five times a week.

Rev. Brill is an ordained Lutheran minister educated at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. He is also a member of the South Carolina Bar with a B.A. degree in Government from Harvard College and a J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School.

Home

About "The Right Christians"

We thank the Rev. Al Sharpton for our name. Confronted by an anti-abortion protester at NARAL's January rally to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, Rev. Sharpton responded, "Young lady, it is time for the Christian right to meet the right Christians." Our site is not otherwise connected with the Sharpton campaign and he is not responsible for its content nor we for his campaign. We do appreciate his stating so succinctly what we have been feeling for some time and wish him well.

"The Right Christians" was founded by the Rev. Allen H. Brill and is currently under his direction.

Home

Participate

You are invited to contribute to "The Right Christians" by submitting letters, articles or even a blog on a specific topic. Use the Volunteer Form to get started.

We have some ongoing opportunities to participate:

We would especially like to add the following:

Diverse Sources:

Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and other religious groups; pastors or former pastors of Evangelical or neo-Pentecostal congregations; academics in the areas of church history or systematics

Experts in the following areas:

contemporary Christian music; the business interests of the Christian Right; "Christian" publishing

Home