Don’t Think Like a Donkey: A Critical Analysis of the

Ideas of Dr. George Lakoff

Chapter 1: The Ramifications of Nurturant Morality

In his various works, Dr. George Lakoff describes a concerted effort by the right to
impose a Conservative worldview by coining and repeating certain phrases that carry
with them a part of the Conservative Worldview or “Frame.” He describes the differences
between Nurturant and Strict Father Morality and how these two world views can be
reflected in different Frames.

In a chapter on arguing with conservatives he advises: “Never Answer a Question

Framed from your opponent’s point of view. Always reframe a question to fit your values
and your frames.” This is important because Dr. Lakoff believes it is the prevalence of
certain Frames that win elections, not thinking about Facts.

Dr. Lakoff says there is “a set of Myths believed by Liberals and Progressives… The
First one goes like this: The Truth will set us free. If we just tell people the facts, since
people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusion.”
“Neuroscience’s tells us that each of the concepts we have—the long term concepts that
structure how we think—is instantiated in the synapses our brains. Concepts are not
things that can be changed just by telling us a fact. We may be presented with facts, but
for us to make sense of them they have to fit what is already in the synapses of the brain.
Otherwise the facts go in and then they go right back out. They are not heard, or they are
not accepted as facts, or they mystify us: why would anyone have said that? Then we
label the fact as irrational crazy or stupid. That is what happens when progressives just
“confront conservatives with the facts.” It has little or no effect, unless the conservatives
have a frame that makes sense of the facts. Similarly, a lot of progressives hear
conservatives talk and do not understand them because they do not have the
conservatives’ frames. They assume that conservatives are stupid.” Or more simply put,
“Just speaking truth to power doesn’t work. You need to Frame the truths effectively
from your perspective ” because certain frames “force a certain logic” In other words, Dr.
Lakoff believes Truth is never objective, but is relative to the observer’s Worldview.

Dr. Lakoff says that articulation of these frames (or worldviews) “Need to be repeated
over and over again and refined until they take their rightful place in our synapses.” It is
as if Dr. Lakoff is saying “If you say something enough times, it becomes true”

The Scientific Method, however, relies upon the assumption that reality behaves the same
regardless of which observer is put in place. One Frame is going to more accurately
mirror the objective conditions in the real world no matter how many times a false frame
is repeated .

1
The Second Myth Lakoff warns Progressives against is the belief that “It is irrational to
go against your self interest, and therefore a normal person, who is rational, reasons on
the basis of self-interest. Modern economic policy and foreign policy are based on that
assumption ”

Dr. Lakoff feels this belief is wrong, because people don’t always vote for their
Economic Self-interest and a Nobel Prize winner implied that the rational actor theory
was wrong. An investigation of the work cited, however, reveals that the basis of a
rational actor theory is not in question, only the ability of that actor to assign a proper
weight to information he receives. Rather than discuss the problem of appropriate
weighting, Dr. Lakoff asserts that “People Vote their identity. They Vote their values.
They Vote for who they identify with. They may identify with their self-interest. That can
happen. It is not that people never care about their self-interest, but they vote their
identity. And if their identity fits their self interest, they will vote for that. It is important
to understand this point. It is a serious mistake to assume that people are simply always
voting their self-interest”

Dr. Lakoff’s insistence on Rational Self-interest as a different concept than Identity in

order to explain why Voters do not vote for Democrats, tells us that progressives believe
a person’s best self-interest is whatever a Progressive believes it to be. Dr. Lakoff of
course, fails to see that Values are called that because people think of them as
valuable. Individuals are assigning a different weight to the importance of a value than
what Dr. Lakoff would assign himself, and therefore they act “against their self interest”
People allowed to assign their own weights may decide that protection of valuable things
that are held jointly (for instance the morals of a society) is part of their self interest.
Lakoff seems oblivious to the fact that what one determines to be in one’s self interest
may be based on a number of factors, and on the perceived effects of different actions in
the future.

This is further illustrated by Dr. Lakoff ‘s explanation of the Third Progressive myth; that
“political campaigns are marketing campaigns where the Candidate is the product and the
candidates positions on issues are the features and qualities of the product. This leads to
the conclusion that polling should determine which issues a Candidate should run on”
Such an approach neglects the obvious fact that some agendas might logically conflict
with others in terms of their goals or outcomes. While Lakoff denounces this approach,
he implies it only fails because Progressives fail to “say what they idealistically believe”
and “talk to their base using the frames of their base,” which he asserts Conservative s do
much better. What this really demonstrates is that Progressives are oblivious to the real
world constraints that force a need to make trade-offs.

Dr. Lakoff asserts that Conservative and Progressive world views, and therefore the
things they “idealistically believe”, are based on a difference between those who support
a “Strict Father” Frame vs. a “Nurturing Parent” Frame of Government. He likens our
Nation to a family using phrases such as “Our Founding Fathers” and “Sending Our sons
to War” as proof that people conceive of a nation and a government as some sort of
family. Of course, following that logic, because Edison was Father of the Electric Light,

2
and the Wright Brothers were the Fathers of Aviation, most people must consider Lamps
and Planes as part of a family structure as well. In short, the whole idea of the
“Government as a Family” is an attempt to Frame the Debate. Lakoff asserts that
EVERYONE sees the Government as a sort of Family Unit, in which our leaders are the
parents, and that everyone is just applying the type of family control they would like in
that situation. This is obviously false.

He says, “The Nuturant Parent worldview is gender neutral. Both parents are equally
responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good and
can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that.
The parent’s job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of
others. What does nurturance mean? It means two things: empathy and responsibility… .”

Applied politically, this means that Progressives see themselves as Self-assigned Parents
of others and therefore think Citizens are Children they are responsible for. (which goes
along with the idea that hey are the ones who determine what is in someone’s best self
interest) Hence their obsession with protecting everyone from Crime, Drugs, seatbelt less
cars or passengers, smoking (except for Marijuana), food additives, environmental
destruction (except for Cultural), work hazards, consumer hazards, and diseases (unless
its AIDS because tracking the spread of THAT disease is homophobic) Dr. Lakoff often
uses the same word, “Discipline”, in describing both the idea of conservative Child
Discipline (exemplified by painful punishment with “sticks, belts and wooden paddles on
the bare bottom”) and the idea of Adult Self-Discipline. The lack of delineation between
the two ideas may either be deliberate framing in order to confuse the two and give the
latter a bad connotation, or simply derives from a difficulty of thinking of other citizens
as adults.

Dr. Lakoff says that “Empathy” and “Responsibility” are the core Progressive values
from which the other Progressive values are derived: "Responsibilit y implies protection,
competence, education, hard work and social connectedness; empathy requires freedom,
fairness and honesty, two-way communication, a fulfilled life (unhappy, unfulfilled
people are less likely to want others to be happy) and restitution rather than retribution to
balance the moral books. Social responsibility requires cooperation and community
building over competition. In the place of specific strict rules, there is a general “ethics of
care” that says, “Help, don’t harm.” To be of good character is to be empathetic and
responsible, in all of the above ways."

“If you empathize with someone and want them to be fulfilled in life and be treated
fairly, then you will respect their individuality, accord them maximal freedom (consistent
with the freedom of others), and you will appreciate diversity as a value.”

This means that Progressives believe individual rights end where the rights of others
begin but also implies that Progressives should accept any behavior that doesn’t intrude
on their personal freedom. Dr. Lakoff doesn’t present any system by which conflicts in
values might be resolved, implying Progressives implicitly believe that everyone will
independently define the boundaries of their personal freedom at the same points. This

3
further bolsters the idea that Progressives do not recognize the real world constraints that
result in tradeoffs and belies the fact that Dr. Lakoff still believes what he asserts to be a
myth: “since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusions”
“If you want your child to be fulfilled in life, the child has to be free enough to do that.
Therefore Freedom is a Value….You do not have very much freedom is there is no
opportunity or prosperity. Therefore Opportunity and Prosperity are progressive values”

According to Dr. Lakoff, Progressives believe that everyone must be given freedom,
enabled by wealth and opportunities, to execute their moral obligation to be happy and
fulfilled. Of course, the wealth and opportunity that give people freedom comes from
somewhere, so someone must be "freed" of their wealth and opportunity so it can be
given to someone else. Unfortunately, as will be shown repeatedly, Progressives only
seem to be fulfilled when they are making decisions for others. The progressive principle
of freedom is really a license override the decisions of others.

"If you really care about your child, you want your child to be treated fairly by you and
others. Therefore Fairness is a value." Dr. Lakoff asserts "Fairness is understood
metaphorically in terms of the distribution of material objects. There are three basic
liberal models of fair distribution: (1) equal distribution; (2) impartial rule-based
distribution; and (3) rights-based distribution. Metaphorical fairness concerns actions
conceived of as objects given to individuals. One can act to the benefit of others equally,
impartially and by rule, or according to some notion of rights. According to this
metaphor, moral action is fair action in one of these ways."

Thus it becomes evident that Progressives believe that “Fairness” is using the government
to redistribute wealth, opportunities and “rights” more evenly over the population by
taking wealth, opportunities and rights from some and giving them to others.

Dr. Lakoff, lists other values in “Don’t think of an Elephant”, but the Rockridge
Institute’s list is more concise:
 "Community: Healthy communities are based on cooperation, honesty,
trust, and open communication.
 Cooperation: Responsibility to others requires cooperation and empathy.
Cooperation is the basis for community, and requires open communication,
honesty and trust.
 Trust: Trust is needed for open communication and cooperation. We are
trustworthy when we treat others fairly and responsibly.
 Honesty: Honesty is the hallmark of open communication, and is
necessary for trust and cooperation.
 Open Communication: Open communication is at the heart of empathy
and responsibility. To know how to care for others, we must communicate with
them to understand their needs. Cooperation relies on two-way
communication."

Of course this can be even more concisely stated as “Progressives believe in Community
Building via co-operation enabled by open communication, trust and honesty. “

4
In the Nurturant Model a “Community is a Family”; when expanded to society this
implies Community building involves the imposition of Nurturant morality on the society
Dr. Lakoff says, "The Nurturant Parent worldview is gender neutral. Both parents are
equally responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good
and can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on
that."

"It is assumed that the world should be a nurturant place."

These statements imply the following about the "progressive world view"
Men and Women are the same and interchangeable when it comes to child care
Parents are both responsible for raising their own children
Children naturally know how to get along with others and live in a community, but
parents make them better at it.
The World is largely controllable, and the job of a Progressive is to impose their ideas on
the world, and the others who live in it, in order to change the world for the "better" (in
their judgment)

In a "Nurturant parent model", "The parent's job is to nurture their children and to raise
their children to be nurturers of others. What does nurturance mean? It means two things:
empathy and responsibility. If you have a child, you have to know what every cry means.
You have to know when the child is hungry, when he needs a diaper change, when he is
having nightmares. And you have a responsibility - you have to take care of this child."

Which means, Progressives have a moral responsibility to feel for and take responsibility
of their children, and teach their children to do the same to others
"Since you cannot take care of someone else if you are not taking care of yourself, you
have to take care of yourself enough to be able to take care of a child"

Therefore, Progressives believe Individuals have a responsibility to take care of

themselves before they can be allowed to help others.
"Further, it is your moral responsibility to teach your child to be a happy, fulfilled person
who wants others to be happy and fulfilled. That is part of what a nurturing family life is
about. It is a common precondition for caring about others"

Therefore, Progressives believe it is a moral duty to teach children to do whatever makes

them happy and fulfilled and encourage them to accept others who are doing the same
and that if someone is unhappy or unfulfilled, or doesn't accept others who are, then that
person is incapable of caring about others.
"And if you are an unhappy, unfulfilled person yourself, you are not going to want other
people to be happier than you are. The Dali Lama teaches us that. Therefore it is your
moral responsibility to be a happy, fulfilled person. Your Moral Responsibility."

Progressives believe that if you are unhappy, you will automatically wish others to be
unhappy. This is in direct conflict with Dr. Lakoff’s assertion that “children are born

5
good and can be made better.” It is immoral to be unhappy or unfulfilled, therefore moral
behavior is doing what it takes to be happy or fulfilled. However, Lakoff asserts that this
DOES NOT translate to "if it feels good, do it":

"Conservatives seem not to understand what nurturant morality is about, both in the
family and the nation. They find any view that is not strict to be "permissive""

permissive (adjective) Definition: lenient Synonyms: acquiescent, agreeable, allowing, approving, easy-going, forbearing, free,
indulgent, latitudinarian, lax, liberal, open-minded, permitting, susceptible, tolerant Antonyms: intolerant, strict Source: Roget's New
Millennium Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved

"Nurturant parenting is, of course, anything but permissive, with its stress on teaching
children to be responsible for themselves and empathetic and responsible toward others,
and raising them to be strong and well-educated enough to carry out their responsibilities.
The conservatives parody liberals as permissive, as supporting a feel-good morality-
doing whatever feels good. The conservatives just don't get it. They seem ignorant of the
vast difference between responsibility and permissiveness"

Accordingly, the only morally acceptable way to be "happy and fulfilled" is by being
responsible and empathetic towards others. Moral Behavior is Responsible behavior.
Parents have the ability to discipline their children through "promotion of responsible
behavior via empathetic connection, the example of responsible behavior set by the
parents, the open discussion of what the parents expect (and why), and, in the case of
non-cooperation, the removal of privileges that go with cooperation"

However, Dr. Lakoff asserts Moral Authority is a metaphor in the Strict Father model,
and " is patterned metaphorically on parental authority, where parents have a young
child's best interests at heart and know what is best for the child. Morality is obedience.
Just as the good child obeys his parents, a moral person obeys a moral authority, which
can be a text (like the Bible or the Koran), an institution, or a leader. "

Since Nuturant Parents have no Moral Authority, only Parental Authority, it is hard to see
how they can morally remove privileges from their children or determine that certain
behaviors are right or wrong. Instead, Dr. Lakoff asserts that Progressives believe that
children become responsible by caring about and watching parents who do whatever it
takes to make themselves happy and fulfilled. Therefore, progressives believe that
parents have the authority to morally remove privileges that allow their children to be
Happy and fulfilled, in order to discourage children from behavior deemed by the parents
to be irresponsible.

"Nurturant parent morality contains a structural feature that guarantees that experiential
morality is not overridden, namely, that moral empathy has the highest priority in that
moral system. The idea that Morality is Empathy entails that if you feel what others feel,
you will abide by experiential morality since, by empathy, you yourself will experience
any harmful effects of what you do to others."

In conclusion it appears that the Progressive moral code can be reduced to caveat on a
feel-good philosophy: "If it feels good and you "empathize" with the person, do it " If you

6
don't experience (empathetic) pain when you do something, then it is morally right to do
it.

Dr. Lakoff says "Empathy includes empathy with nature.... liberals have empathy even
for criminals (and thus defend their rights and are against the death penalty) "
Dr. Lakoff fails to explain how Progressive s have evolved to have perfect and reliable
empathy with others, including an ability that includes completely different lifeforms like
animals and plants (Gaia) or even inanimate objects. Progressives believe they
understand what motivates a burglar, a murderer, or a pedophile, and can feel those
things along with them. It is more likely that Progressive merely assume their empathy is
accurate, since it is a huge investment of time and energy to get to know people, and even
then there are limits to the knowledge. In conclusion, Dr. Lakoff appears to assert that
Progressives can accurately read other peoples minds.

A conclusions that is bolstered by Dr. Lakoff’s own words: "Empathy itself is

understood metaphorically as feeling what another person feels. We can see this in the
language of empathy: I know what it's like to be in your shoes. I know how you feel. I
feel for you. To conceptualize moral action as empathic action is more than just abiding
by the Golden Rule, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden
Rule does not take into account that others may have different values than you do. Taking
morality as empathy requires basing your actions on their values, not yours. This requires
a reformulation of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto
them. "

Apparently a Progressive "Feels For Others" in the literal sense, ignoring any feelings
that the individual might have on their own. Dr. Lakoff's version of the golden rule
dictates you must accept another person’s values if you are to act responsibly, morally,
and according to empathy (and hence this will lead you to be happy and fulfilled).
Progressives believe that no one has the right to judge anyone else, except by their own
value system. This leads to a Progressive expectat ion that they will be judged based on
their intentions, not on what actually follows from their actions. In a Progressive view,
what it takes be moral, responsible, happy and fulfilled varies from person to person,
demands respect and acceptance of other peoples moral systems and ultimately results in
a system that lacks an ultimate moral authority that defines right and wrong within a
society. This conclusion seems especially odd because many of Dr. Lakoff’s ideas are
judgments on the relative merits of conservative morality. One must assume that such
judgments cause Dr. Lakoff no empathetic pain, and therefore must be morally correct.

"Strict Father morality allows one to impose experiential harm on others in the name of
the abstract metaphorical principle that Morality is Strength. In short, strict father
morality allows you to hurt people in the name of morality. That violates experiential
morality, which is the foundation of every abstract moral system. "
”In the place of specific strict rules, there is a general "ethics of care" that says, "Help,
don't harm." Dr. Lakoff asserts that, from the perspective of Strict Father Morality,
"multiculturalism is immoral, since it permits alternative views of what counts as moral

7
behavior. Multiculturalism thus violates the binary good-evil distinction made by Moral
Strength... "

Dr. Lakoff has the following to say about "moral strength": "A major part of the Moral
Strength metaphor has to do with the conception of immorality, or evil...Moral strength ...
is required if one is to stand up to some externally defined evil. The metaphor of Moral
Strength sees the world in terms of a war of good against the forces of evil, which must
be fought ruthlessly. Ruthless behavior in the name of the good fight is thus seen as
justified. Moreover, the metaphor entails that one cannot respect the views of one's
adversary: evil does not deserve respect; it deserves to be attacked! The metaphor of
Moral Strength imposes a strict us-them moral dichotomy. The metaphor that moralit y is
strength induces a view of evil as the force that moral strength is needed to counter. Evil
must be fought. You do not empathize with evil, nor do you accord evil some truth of its
own. You just fight it....The metaphor of moral strength does not occur in isolation. It
defines a cluster of other common metaphors for moralit y” which include the metaphors
of Moral Authority (defined above) and Moral Bounds: "moral action is seen as motion
within prescribed bounds or on a prescribed path. Immoral people are those who
transgress the bounds or deviate from the path. The logic of this metaphor is that
transgressors and deviants are dangerous to society not only because they can lead others
astray, but because they create new paths to traverse, thus blurring the clear, prescribed,
socially accepted boundaries between right and wrong."

Therefore, a person with a "Nurturant Parent" Morality confronting a person with "Strict
Father" morality must either submit to the moral judgment (moral strength) of the "Strict
Father" system or they must adopt a Nuturant principle of "Moral Strength" that allows
the Nurturant system to (immorally) ignore the values of the other.

"liberals too have the metaphor of Moral Strength, but it is in the service of empathy and
nurturance. The point of moral strength for liberals is to fight intolerance and inhumanity
to others and to stand up for social responsibility. "

Hence, Progressives do have a belief in evil, moral authority, and moral bounds after all;
however since their Moral Strength serves Nurturance and Empathy, anyone NOT
exhibiting those values becomes evil. Since a "strict Father" system, implicitly does not
exhibit those values, to Progressives any Strict Father Morality system is Evil. This may
explain why many Progressives are so hostile to Religions in general, and Christianity in
particular. Nurturant Morality is in truth only tolerant of others with "Nurturant
morality", since people with "Strict Father" moral systems will put "moral strength"
(right and wrong) before "experiential morality" (empathy).

Through the Concept of Progressive Moral Strength, one can surmise how a conflict
between individuals with different moral values would be resolved in the Progressive
view (like deciding between nurturing your child or nurturing a pedophile that wants to
have sex with your child.) If a progressive has an empathetic feeling that someone is
unhappy, or have reason to believe that they don't care about others, then that person
MUST be immoral and irresponsible (because they are not happy), and therefore evil. A

8
progressive may then assume a moral authority over the "evil" that justifies all further
actions. Since there are no "specific strict rules" each Progressive Individual is an
independent and autonomous Moral Authority. In effect, progressives believe they can
proclaim moral authority over anyone at will based only on their own individual opinion
of another’s motives or actions.

Remembering that Moral authority is "patterned metaphorically on parental authority",

we can now surmise as to how a Progressive Parent claims moral authority over their
"child". Anyone who (in a progressive's opinion) does not practice "experiential
morality" (Responsibility and Empathy), or who is “unhappy and unfulfilled" must be a
metaphorical child. Dr Lakoff confirms this with the following: "The metaphor of
morality as nurturance can be stated as follows: -The Community is a Family - Moral
agents are Nurturing parents - People needing help are Children needing care - Moral
action is Nurturance This metaphor entails that moral action requires empathy, involves
sacrifices, and that helping people who need help is a moral responsibility. "

Therefore, An adult to a progressive is any self-reliant person who is happy and fulfilled
that assumes responsibility for others (a nurturing parent.) A Child to a progressive is
anyone who needs care (in their opinion and via their highly accurate powers of empathy)
Dr. Lakoff states that Progressive Principle of Equity mandates : "If you work hard; play
by the rules; and serve your family, community, and nation, then the nation should
provide a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security and opportunity"
"morality is conceptualized as uprightness, it is natural to conceptualize one's degree of
morality as physical height, to understand norms for the degree of moral action as height
norms, and to therefore see the possibility for "moral growth" as akin to physical growth.
Where moral growth differs from physical growth is that moral growth is seen as being
possible throughout one's lifetime."

Growing is, of course, what children do until adult hood. What "Moral Growth" in effect
means, is that any individual who does not follow Nurturant Morality; who doesn't work
hard or follow the rules; who doesn't serve family, nation or country, is, in effect "still
growing". Therefore, Progressives believe that individuals should be given a lifetime of
dependency and nurturance , if that is what they need to "grow", even if they are recidivist
criminals, or just engage in detrimental and irresponsible behaviors (laziness, drug use
etc). To make such things possible, Progressives believe that no one should suffer any
adverse consequences as a result of making poor personal choices.
"The world is filled with evils that can harm a child, and it is the nurturant parent’s duty
to be ward them off. Crime and drugs are, of course, significant, but so are less obvious
dangers: cigarettes, cars without seat belts, dangerous toys, inflammable clothing,
pollution, asbestos, lead paint, pesticides in food, diseases, unscrupulous businessmen,
and so on. "(Dr. Lakoff does leave some conspicuous omissions such as of Islamic
Jihadists, Pedophiles, and other criminals, presumably because Progressives Empathize
with them)

"if you empathize with your child, you will provide protection. This comes into politics
in many ways. What do you protect your child from? Crime and Drugs certainly. You

9
also protect you child from cars without seat belts, from smoking, from poisonous
additives in food. So progressive politics focuses on environmental protection, worker
protection, consumer protection, and protection from disease. These are the things that
Progressives want the government to protect citizens from."

Therefore, Progressives believe they have the (moral) right to make decisions for other
people (who are metaphorical children) as to how much risk they are allowed to take, as
well as how much they will give to charity, what kind of house you can build and where,
what school you your kids attend and its curriculum, etc. It is the operation of this belief
that leads many to label Progressives as elitist and undemocratic.

10
 Chapter 2: Misunderstanding the Conservative Viewpoint

Dr. Lakoff describes "Strict Father Morality" as the Belief that "The World is a
Dangerous Place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The
World is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers.
There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that
they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore they must be made
good."

This description of the Conservative mindset (or Frame) is fairly accurate. It also closely
resembles the real world conditions observed: It can be empirically shown that people are
killed or injured by natural calamities, disease, wars, criminals, accidents and
irresponsible behavior. Thus the world is, in fact, dangerous, and has been for centuries
and is likely to remain so. Likewise it can be empirically demonstrated that People must
compete for natural resources, be it by warfare, barter or by the more civilized method of
a monetary system. In addition there are obvious differences in the talents and abilities of
all individuals, which will enable them to excel in some areas and lead them to fail in
others. In order to establish a civilized society, some rules of conduct (right and wrong)
must be established to enable individuals to predict the societal response to a given
behavior. There is no civilized nation that has endured that lacked these rules, and the fall
of the Roman Empire gives testament to how important they are to the continuation of a
society. Finally, anyone who has cared for a 2 year child knows that they lack knowledge
of right and wrong, and teaching them such knowledge is as vital for their survival in
society as it is for the survival of the society. Hence, as Dr. Lakoff says: “Preserving and
extending the conservative moral system (Strict Father Morality) is the highest
priority”In short, the conservative world view is in tune with empirically collected facts
about the common reality we inhabit.

Dr. Lakoff errs in interpreting “Strict Father Morality” because he attempts to understand
the motives and actions of conservatives in terms of (moral) absolutes, instead of
considering them to be the result of living in an environment of trade-offs such as the one
presented by the real world. Lakoff arrives at these conclusions because he assumes
anything considered to be beneficial or “good” by a conservative value system, is also
automatically considered “morally right” by conservatives as well. This is, in fact, more
axiomatic of Progressive thinking and the Progressive Frame. Conservatives believe that
trade-offs are integral in life, and as such, may accept an “immoral system” if it produces
beneficial results that outweigh (in the conservatives opinion) the perceived detriments of
the system. Conversely, a Conservative may condemn a “moral” system, if it achieves
results that they find to be detrimental or immoral. In the end, Conservatives concede,
they cannot have their cake and eat it too, and sometimes unpleasant decisions are
required. Conservatives also believe that there are degrees to any process, and degrees to
any outcome, so they may find one degree of a process acceptable and a different degree
unacceptable . Dr. Lakoff’s descriptions of Conservative Beliefs deny the existence of
moral and physical trade-offs, and assume an absolute moral principle is in operation .

11
Dr. Lakoff asserts that The Strict father model assumes “ that the only way to teach kids
obedience – that is, right from wrong—is through punishment, painful punishment, when
they do wrong” Lakoff misses the fact that this is a trade-off, where the conservative will
weigh the system against the result. Few conservatives believe that painful punishment
should be administered in anger and few believe there is no such thing as child abuse.
Most Conservatives believe in using both a system of rewards as well as a system of
punishments (including physical punishments) to teach obedience to children, based on a
given systems effectiveness with a given child.

Conservatives believe that “it is moral to pursue your self-interest” because “if everyone
pursues their own profit, then the profit of all will be maximized by an invisible hand—
that is, by nature – just naturally” Lakoff applies this reasoning ad-nauseam when
contemplating the poor. Consequently he says conservatives believe “The Poor,
therefore, deserve to be poor and serve the wealthy. The wealthy need and deserve poor
people to serve them.” and “The Wealthy have earned their wealth, that they are good
people who deserve it”

Conservatives believe that Free Market Capitalism naturally results in a more efficient
distribution of resources, resulting in more wealth produced at lower costs, than what
might be obtained via other systems. Empirical examination of modern economies and
the spectacular failures of communist systems demonstrate this belief to be in line with
the real world. However, it does not follow that pursuit of self-interest (economic or
otherwise) is considered by conservatives as a moral good or absolutely beneficial under
all circumstances. As Lakoff himself suggests, conservatives believe the operation of
Free Markets is a natural phenomenon, without a moral significance. Most would
consider sunlight to be beneficial and therefore good, but it doesn’t follow that sunlight is
morally good. In general, conservatives are opposed to “if it feels good, do it” and other
such self-interest first philosophies. Conservatives who are Strict-Father Christians will
deny that the pursuit of self-interest is moral in any sense. Free-Market Capitalism is
supported by Conservatives, not because of its moral implications, but because it
provides a wider prosperity while maintaining an individuals freedom to make choices.
The perceived benefits outweigh the (immoral) incentive that is provided to act selfishly.
Social Darwinism is not a mainstream conservative philosophy and most conservatives
recognize graft and crime present in the system (which they do feel is immoral and
against the law) but accept that as a tradeoff for the other benefits.

“A do-gooder is someone who is trying to help someone else rather than herself and is
getting in the way of those who are pursuing their self-interest. Do-gooders screw up the
system”

Conservatives believe that individuals know what is in their self-interest better than 3rd
parties, and that unless those 3rd parties take the time and expend the effort to find out
what the other people want, there is a good chance their “help” will be a hindrance,
though this may not always be the case. Conservatives do not consider helping to be
immoral, any more than they consider self interest to be moral. They merely recognize
that there is a cost of knowledge attached to helping and the term “do-gooder”, when

12
used with a negative connotation, implies the person doing the “helping” is doing so in a
way that defeats the purpose. In other words, Conservatives do not believe progressives
have perfect empathy. This is yet another conservative belief that can be bolstered by
facts from history.

Conservatives have a moral code that puts “Western Culture above non-Western Culture,
America above other nations.”

Conservatives believe that American Culture has produced “better” results than other
cultures based on factors of human freedom, prosperity, and security. Conservatives do
put America First, but not for moral reasons. Instead conservatives believe that they are
citizens of a Sovereign Nation and value the freedom, prosperity, and security it provides,
and do not feel making unbeneficial compromises that endanger that freedom, prosperity
or security is wise. In other words, conservatives make a tradeoff between wanting their
nation to act “morally”, and ensuring they continue to have a nation.

Dr. Lakoff says Conservatives believe “Nature is a resource for prosperity. It is there to
be used for human profit” In yet another Tradeoff, Conservatives acknowledge that
survival is a matter of using the environment to create goods and satisfy wants and needs,
and that there is not alternative to doing this. However, how much it is done is a matter of
degree. Conservatives want the environment to be used enough that there is prosperity,
but recognize that complete and wanton destruction of the environment will not be
sustainable. It is a tradeoff, which Dr. Lakoff again states as an absolute moral rule.

“The moral order is all too often extended to men above women, whites above non-
whites, Christians above non-Christians, Straights above Gays”

All of this is in conflict with the teachings of Christianity believed by most conservatives.
Western Cultures were among the first non-tribal cultures to open doors to equality to
women (Suffrage), other races (ending Slavery in the United States AND the British
ending it around the world), and other religions (Religious Freedom), and these actions
were all undertaken for moral reasons derived from “Strict Father Morality.” For
instance, the Founding Father’s “Strict father morality” dictated the freeing of the slaves,
but they made a tradeoff between ending slavery and creating an enduring nation. They
understood they could not have both. When conservatives put “Western Culture” first it is
because of the perceived benefits of that culture vs. what other cultures have to offer. If
all cultures were equal, it would not matter if your daughter was raised under Islamic
Law and Customs or American Law and Customs. However, if presented a choice, many
would be very clear on which one they preferred and why.

Christianity teaches its followers to love all people regardless of religion (for instance the
parable of the Good Samaritan) or race, and promotes a partnership between men and
women using complementary roles that take into account the differences between the
sexes. No one is presumed morally superior to anyone else; Christianity teaches that
everyone is a sinner in the eyes of God. It should also be noted even in the case of
Straight vs. Gay, the homosexual act is believed to be a sin, not the homosexual him or

13
herself. And many conservatives consider the tradeoff of considering homosexuality as a
sin with the value of individual freedom, and are willing to support Civil Unions and
tolerate the behavior.

As can be seen by the above, Lakoff entirely misses the Conservative tendency to weigh
options against their moral and practical ramifications. This implies that progressives
make no such distinctions. This results in a progressive black and white categorization of
behavior, where the only acceptable solutions are those that have both a moral means and
a moral end as judged by a progressive value system. The idea of a compromise is an
anathema to them, and further supports the idea that they see no need to make tradeoffs.

14
Chapter 3: The Culture War – Nurturant vs. Strict Father Morality
Dr. Lakoff asserts: “On the whole, the right wing is attempting to impose a strict Father
ideology on America and, ultimately the rest of the world. Many progressives
underestimate just how radical an ideology this is…. ”

Dr. Lakoff says Conservatives believe that

 “God makes laws—commandments —defining right and wrong”
 “one must have discipline to Follow God’s Commandments” ,
 The moral order is “God above man, man above nature, adults above children,
Western Culture above non-Western Culture, America above other nations. The
moral order is all too often extended to men above women, whites above non-
whites, Christians above non-Christians, Straights above Gays”
 “morality can only be maintained through a system of rewards and punishments”
 Free markets are “a mechanism for the disciplined (stereotypically good) people
to use their discipline to accumulate wealth.”
 “Competition is good; it produces optimal use of resources and disciplined
people”
 “By giving people things they haven’t earned, social programs remove the
incentive to be disciplined, which is necessary for both Morality and prosperity”
 “Education should promote discipline, and undisciplined students should face
punishment (for instance paddling), and intellectually undisciplined students
should not be coddled, but should be shamed and punished by not being
promoted."
 “There are right and wrong answers, and they should be tested for.”
 “Testing defines fairness: those who pass are rewarded; those not disciplined
enough to pass are punished”
 “Because immoral, undisciplined children can lead moral, disciplined children
astray, parents should be able to choose which schools they send their children”
 “it is the responsibility of parents to take care of their children. To the extent that
they cannot, they are not living up to their individual responsibility. No one has
the responsibility of doing other people’s jobs for them”
 “Nature is a resource for prosperity. It is there to be used for human profit”
 “Corporations exist to provide people with goods and services, and to make
profits for investors”

“Those are the basics. Those are the ideas and values the right wing wants to establish,
nothing less than a radical revolution in how America and the rest of the world
functions ”

One might notice that most of these “radical“ ideas are the same ones held by the
Founding Fathers, and most of Western Civilization for the last 5000 years. These ideas
certainly do not represent a change in thinking, and have persevered through the centuries
because different people, in different cultures, have found them to be empirically true and
useful in conducting their lives. These principles represent the “tried and true’ beliefs of

15
many cultures. This is not to say that they are the best system that be devised, nor that the
effects that proceed from them are the most efficacious for a human society. However,
these ideas set the benchmark by which other, newer ideas can be measured.

“I believe that progressive values are traditional American Values, that progressive
principles are fundamental American principles, and that progressive policy directions
point the way to where most Americans really want our country to go. The job of
unifying progressives is really the job of bringing our country together around its finest
traditional values”

To prove that Nurturant Morality was part of Early America, Lakoff asserts that Early
settlers consisted of “Groups like the Quakers, who had a nurturant view of God, and
Groups like the Puritans who had a strict father view of God. The New England Colonies
were mainly Puritan, though John Winthrop had a nurturant view of the colony he was
establishing, and the nurturant view of god has existed side by side with the strict one in
this country ever since”

John Winthrop led the Massachusetts Bay Colony across the Atlantic and served many
terms as its Governor. He participated in the ousting of Roger Williams for advocating
the separation of Church and State, and denying the Puritan belief that they were God’s
chosen to fulfill a Manifest Destiny that included stealing land from the Native
Americans. Roger Williams left and founded Rhode Island. This incident was followed
shortly by the exile of Anne Hutchinson in which Winthrop was a major participant . In
his famous “City on a Hill” sermon , John Winthrop called for brotherhood but also
recognized man’s fallen state (essentially evil) and man’s inherent differences (rich vs.
Poor etc.) In short, John Winthrop was a strict-father morality based Puritan, who held a
belief in certain liberties, which included a right to keep his property and laws that
applied equally to everyone, and also asserted the right of a religious theocracy to govern.
Perhaps Dr. Lakoff gets the idea that Winthrop was “nurturant” because he wanted to use
the State as a Totalitarian power to enforce a certain brand of morality.

Dr. Lakoff’s statement that progressives mirror “the values the country was founded on –
the idea of a community where people pull together to help each other. From John
Winthrop on, that is what our Nation has stood for.” is simply absurd. John Winthrop
himself said

“it is without question, that he is worse than an infidel who through his own sloth and
voluptuousness shall neglect to provide for his family”

John Winthrop called for voluntary charity in times of dire need. The Massachusetts Bay
colony’s circumstances were indeed dire when they arrived in America, but there is no
basis of comparison between this and the Progressive idea of Charity by force of
Government espoused in modern times. The idea of forced contributions has no similarity
to a man who simply started to work building the houses of others in hopes others would
join him.

16
Dr. Lakoff asserts that “Progressive values are the best of Traditional American Values.
Stand up for your values with dignity and strength. You are a true Patriot because of your
values” “Remember that right wing ideologues have convinced half of the country that
the strict father family model, which is bad enough for raising children, should govern
our national morality and politics. This is the model that the best in American values has
defeated over and over again in the course of our history- from the emancipation of the
slaves to women’s suffrage, Social security and Medicare, civil rights and voting rights
acts, and Brown Vs. the board of education and Roe vs. Wade. Each time we have united
our country behind our finest traditional values”

Dr. Lakoff is apparently unaware that the Strict Father Morality of our Founding Father’s
ALWAYS dictated slavery was a blight on the nation’s character . Women’s Suffrage was
fought for by women who held viewpoints that today would be considered
"conservative". In fact, the suffragettes were so conservative that they ousted Elizabeth
Cady Stanton from the movement when she wrote the Woman’s Bible. Social Security is
a pyramid scheme with mandatory participation that would be illegal if any other
organization tried it, and more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act than did
Democrats. The final two court decisions are examples of Judicial Activism where the
Supreme Court legislated their own decisions upon the American people, in violation of
the principles of Representative Government. For Dr. Lakoffs approbation of these
events, it can be surmised that Progressives believe that Historical Revisionism and
Elitist Rule are patriotic values.
Ironically, Dr. Lakoff says “Conservatives have parodied liberals as weak, angry (hence
not in control of their emotions), weak-minded, softhearted, unpatriotic, uninformed, and
elitist. Don’t give them opportunities to stereotype you in any of these ways”
“What they [conservatives] have done is to create, via framing and language, a link
between strict father morality in the family and religion on the one hand and conservative
politics on the other. This conceptual link must be so strong that it can overcome
economic self-interest. The method for achieving this has been the cultural civil war—
pitting American with Strict Father Morality (called conservatives) against Americans
with nurturant parent morality (the liberals) who are portrayed as threatening the way of
life and the cultural, religious, and personal identities of conservatives”

Dr. Lakoff says that “without a Civil culture war, the conservatives cannot win” and to
“Remember once more that our [Progressives] goal is to unite our country behind our
values, the best of traditional American Values. Right wing ideologues need to divide our
country via a nasty cultural civil war. They need discord and shouting and name calling
and put-downs.”
“the ideas that the right wing wants to establish, [are] nothing less than a radical
revolution I how America and the rest of the world functions. The Vehemence of the
culture war provoked and maintained by conservatives is no accident. For strict father
morality to gain and maintain political power, disunity is required.” “radical conservative
ideologues are unwilling to compromise, and insist on the most rapid and complete
change possible.”

17
But what exactly is changing? Dr. Lakoff says “conservatives see the strict father family,
and with it their political values, as under attack. They are right” This statement confirms
that Conservatives are DEFENDING, not attacking. They did not instigate a culture war,
but are defending long standing institutions, ideas and even the definition of words from
relentless attack.

Dr. Lakoff says, “Abortion is a stand in for the larger issue: Is strict Father morality going
to rule America?”

“opposing same sex marriage is thus reinforcing and extending strict father morality
itself, which is the highest calling of the conservative moral system. Same-sex marriage
is therefore a stand-in; it evokes the larger issue, namely what moral system is to govern
our country”

Abortion as a Natural Right and Same-sex marriages are changes to the Status Quo, both
of which are being instituted following a process that denies the right of the people to
determine their own laws. Conservatives are defending against un-ratified changes to
their social compact , not instigating the “Culture War”

Dr. Lakoff says Progressives assume “that the world should be a nurturant place."
(emphasis his) This is a tacit admission that it is currently NOT a Nurturant place and that
is something the Democrats wish to change.
Dr. Lakoff defines “Hypo-cognition [as] the lack of ideas you need, the lack of a
relatively simple fixed frame that can be evoked in a word or two…Progressives are
suffering from massive hypo-cognition.”

And says “Common sense is reasoning within a common place accepted frame”

These two statements admit that Progressives believe their ideas are NOT common, and
are not accepted, and do not jive with common sense. To a certain degree liberals revel in
this idea, because they feel this makes them unique, superior and better able to guide
mankind.

Contrastingly, “Conservatives can appeal to an established frame, that taxation is an

affliction or burden, which allows for the two word phrase tax relief” “The conservatives
used to suffer from [hypo-cognition] . When Goldwater lost in 1964, they had very few
of the concepts that they have today.” “Conservatives have worked for decades and spent
billions on their think tanks to establish their frames, create the right language, and get
the language and the frames they evoke accepted. It has taken them awhile to establish
the metaphors of taxation as a burden, an affliction and an unfair punishment —all of
which require “relief.” They have also, over decades, built up the frame in which the
wealthy create jobs, and giving them more wealth creates more jobs.”

It would be difficult to come up with a Conservative Frame that is not at least 200 years
old, if not older. (Think about how many Strict-Father Conservative Frames are in the
Bible). Conservative frames are established and propagated from one generation to the

18
next because they do in fact correspond to the empirical reality and therefore common
sense.
The Founding Fathers agreed with the “Conservative frame” that “taxes are a burden” as
discussed in the Federalist 36 :

“Many specters have been raised out of this power of internal taxation, to excite the
apprehensions of the people: double sets of revenue officers, a duplication of their
burdens by double taxations, and the frightful forms of odious and oppressive poll-taxes,
have been played off with all the ingenious dexterity of political legerdemain.”

And the idea of the wealthy creating jobs is discussed in Adam Smith’s (The father of
Modern Economics) The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III :

“Those unproductive hands, who should be maintained by a part only of the spare
revenue of the people, may consume so great a share of their whole revenue, and thereby
oblige so great a number to encroach upon their capitals, upon the funds destined for the
maintenance of productive labour, that all the frugality and good conduct of individuals
may not be able to compensate the waste and degradation of produce occasioned by this
violent and forced encroachment. “

This is further expounded in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part IV Chapter 1 “The
rich ... divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an
invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would
have been made, had the earth been divided into equal proportions among all its
inhabitants.”

These conservative frames for wealth have held true to the empirical data for centuries. If
we are to abandon these frames for the Progressive view, shouldn’t the real world
behavior be taken into account? Apparently, Dr. Lakoff believes he has only to repeat his
belief enough times and the real world will begin to mirror his words.

Dr. Lakoff’s plan for winning the culture war is to take Progressive frames and repeat
them “over and over again, and [refine] them until they take their rightful place in our
synapses. “ In other words, their plan is to brainwash people into accepting views of the
world that have been looked at, tried, and then rejected. In doing this Lakoff advises
Progressives to “Avoid a shouting match. Remember that the radical right requires a
culture war, and shouting is the discourse form of that culture war. Civil Discourse is the
discourse form of Nurturant morality. You win a victory when the discourse turns civil”
and to “Never answer a question framed from your opponents point of view. Always
reframe the question to fit your values and your frames”

This, in effect, makes it impossible to have a rational conversation with a Progressive. If

it is impossible to have a discussion that compares the frames to the empirical reality,
there is no way to discover the truth. IN stead, Dr. Lakoff advises Progressive to deny the
other frame exists. Lakoff suggest Progressive “tell a story. Find stories where your
frame is built into the story. Build up an effective stock of these stories” or to “use

19
rhetorical questions: wouldn’t it be better if..? Such a question should be chosen to
presuppose your frame. Example: “Wouldn’t it be better if we had a President who went
to war with a plan to secure the peace?”

Anecdotal stories can be fiction: they can carry a point that does not correspond with the
common empirical reality, or if true, may simply be a statistical aberration; the exception
that defines the rule. Rhetorical questions like the one Lakoff suggests, presuppose not
only a Liberal frame, but a lack of real-world constraints. No war in the history of man
has ever been fought with a plan to secure the peace after the war, and certainly never
with the idea that the plan, once written, would correspond so perfectly with the real
world situation that nothing would go wrong. Progressives want to frame their ideas so
they are judged on the morality of their intentions, rather than on the real consequences in
the world of practical application. They do not believe the path to hell is paved with good
intentions. In fact, Progressives often act as if they believe a virtuous intention will
always result in a benefit, and that an evil intention (say a profit motive spurred by
Greed) will always result in a detriment.

Lakoff offers further advice “Hold your ground. Always be on the offense. Never go on
defense. Never whine or complain. Never act like a victim”

Dr. Lakoff should realize that most Progressives rely on considering themselves either
the victims of something (to cover a poor personal performance) , or as the defenders of
those victims (self-righteous moral preening). Victim-hood is at the root of claims of
sexism, racism, “exploitation” by the wealthy and even environmentalism where the
victim is the planet (which will be around long after the human race will have passed
from its surface)

Lakoff also proposes his own Wedge and Slippery Slope issues: “Imagine a campaign
for poison free communities, starting with mercury as the poison of choice, then going on
to other kinds of poison in our air and in our water, around us in various forms. That
could be made into a wedge issue, splitting conservatives who care about their won and
their children’s health from those who are simply against government regulation. The
very issue would be a frame in which regulation favors health, and being against the
regulation endangers health. This is also a slippery slope issue. Once you get people
looking at how and where mercury enters the environment – for example from the
processing of coal and other chemicals —and you get people thinking about cleaning up
mercury, and about mercury poisoning, and how it works in the environment, you can go
onto the next poison in the environment, and the poison after that, and the poison after
that.”

One might notice that there is no mention of the empirical fact that there will be
radioactive materials in our food, contaminants in our air and water, and other
environmental hazards no matter what steps we take. The questions of “HOW MUCH
RISK?” or “HOW MUCH WILL MITIGATING THE RISK COST?” are ignored
because they are unimportant to Dr. Lakoff. Apparently, Dr. Lakoff is a proponent of the
idea that creating unfounded hysteria is a good way to attain power. Cleaner water,

20
cleaner air, cleaner food and cleaner fuels drive up the cost of these resources, and
products derived from their use, thus making those things more difficult for the poor to
obtain. These considerations never enter the mind of the Progressive because of the
intrinsic belief that they are the elite intellectuals who must protect humanity from its
own stupidity.

Dr. Lakoff suggests that conservatives believe that “The hated liberals, who are effete
elitist, unpatriotic spendthrifts, are threatening American culture and values, and have to
be fought vigorously and continuously on every front. It is a threat to the very security of
the nation, as well as morality, religion, the family, and everything real Americans hold
dear“

Given the Progressive support for removing decisions from the hands of individuals and
their representatives, confiscating and redistributing wealth and opportunities, driving up
the cost of living, silencing dissenting opinions via speech codes and prohibitions on
public religious expression, changing the definitions of family and morality and ignoring
the frames and principles of our founding fathers, attitudes such as this should not come
as a surprise. They are founded on empirical experience with Progressives . There is a
Culture War, but even Dr. Lakoff’s own rhetoric betrays the fact that it is traditional
beliefs, institutions and values that are under attack by people that hope to play God,
change the world, and remake it in their own image.

Chapter 4: The Role of Government

Dr. Lakoff defines Progressive Values as: Freedom, Opportunity, Prosperity, fairness,
open communication, community building, community service and co-operation, trust
and honesty.

Based on these values, Dr. Lakoff defines several Progressive Political Principles, which
will be examined in turn:

The Progressive principle of “Equity” means that “if you Work hard, play by the rules;
and serve your family, community and nation, then the nation should provide a decent
standard of living, as well as freedom, security and opportunity” and Lakoff even asserts
“America Promises a decent standard of living in return for hard work”

No Progressive-backed social programs require anyone to work hard, or “follow the

rules”, other than the administrative one for getting paid. Attempts to introduce
accountability or responsibility into these systems are routinely blocked and opposed by
progressives. Furthermore, there is nothing anywhere in the U.S. Constitution that
promises citizens a decent standard of living in return for hard work. It is true that
America is one of the few places in the world where hard work is a characteristic that is
often rewarded, but that does not result in a guarantee. Again, Dr. Lakoff is using framing
to obscure the actual operation and actual results of Progressive Social Programs, which
are, in effect to take money by force from those who have earned it by contributing to the

21
society and giving it to others who have not. The progressive principle of Equity in
effect is equality of economic results, more commonly known as socialism or
communism.

The Progressive principle of "Equality" means “To do everything possible to guarantee

political equality and avoid imbalances of power. “

Progressives believe that equality means selected minorities should be on the same
political footing as majorities . This principle is illuminated by Progressive’s stance on
Senate Filibusters (Preventing a Majority from Voting) , Affirmative action (Taking
opportunities from a Majority and giving them to a minority) , welfare (taking wealth
from the majority and giving it to a minority) , Gay Marriage (allowing a minority to
redefine a word used by the majority) , and Religious Displays (Allowing a Minority to
control what ideas are allowed in public) In effect, the progressive principle of equality
means a rejection of the principles of Majority Rule and Representative Democracy. This
is further illustrated in Dr. Lakoff’s definition of a corporation: “In the law, corporations
are (metaphorically) persons. They are not really persons. They are collective legal
entities, intended to serve the needs and interests of the real individuals in a society. The
needs and rights of individuals therefore should take precedence over the needs and rights
of corporations.” This is a firm assertion that progressives believe the needs and rights of
certain individuals should take precedence over the needs and rights of a group of
individuals.

Lakoff says “Corporations are chartered by and accountable to the public. Instead of
maximizing only shareholder profits, corporations should be chartered to maximize
stakeholder well being, where shareholders, employees, communities and the
environment are all recognized and represented on corporate boards.”

Thus, Progressives DO NOT support the right of free association and believe that
decisions made by any group of freely associated individuals should be subject to the
review of 3rd parties who represent Progressively defined “stakeholders ”.

Ironically, Lakoff claims "Democracy" is a Liberal Principle in which Progressives

attempt to “Maximize citizen participation, minimize concentrations of political,
corporate, and media power. Maximize journalistic standards. Establish publicly financed
elections. Invest in Public education. Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not
just stockholder control”

However, Progressives support unhampered and unregulated Labor unions which are a
huge source of political power and money. Likewise Progressives support government
funded and progressive controlled entities like PBS and NPR (Media) and an ever
expanding federal government, including a government funded school system that
teaches progressive values and frames. Dr. Lakoff asserts that groups of Private Citizens
(Corporations) should have Progressively defined “stakeholders” thrust into their private
decision making process. He says “The airwaves must be kept public, and media
monopolies (Murdoch, Clear Channel) broken up.”, thus asserting a progressive agenda

22
that allows the Government to decide and censor what can be broadcast on its “public
airwaves”. He singles out Murdoch as a entity that must be broken up, but ignores Time
Warner and Disney which are both larger enterprises. Dr. Lakoff also provides this
example of Progressive Journalistic standards: "The Media Does not have to accept the
right wing’s frames. What can a reporter ask besides “do you support gay Marriage? Try
this: “Do you think that the government should tell people who they can and can’t
marry?” or “Do you think the Freedom to marry who you want is to a matter of equal
rights under the law?” or “Do you see marriage as the realization of love in a lifetime
commitment?” or “Does it benefit society when two people who are in love want to make
a public lifetime commitment to each other?” Reframing is everybody’s job. Especially
Reporters… It is a duty of reporters not to accept this situation and simply use those
right-wing frames that have come to seem natural. ” From these examples it is clear that
Progressives support using private and public assets to support and expand Progressive
institutions and political powers to advance a Progressive Agenda while using
government power to simultaneously curb, regulate and check conservative power
structures. Thus the Progressive principle of Democra cy means expanding Progressive
Media Outlets while silencing Conservatives . Dr. Lakoff is simply using framing to
obscure the real agenda of state sponsored censorship and the squelching of free speech.

Dr. Lakoff says “Our values apply to business. In the course of making money by
providing products and services, business should not adversely affect the public good, as
defined by the above values” Thus is defined the principle of "Ethical Business"

Applying the above values implies that Progressive’s believe Ethical Business is the
Progressive right to serve as self-appointed judges over other people’s decisions on how,
when, and where they may try to earn a living.

The Progressive principle of a “Values based foreign policy” means “The same values
governing domestic policy should apply to foreign policy whenever possible”
“An ethical foreign policy means the inclusion of issues previously left out: women’s
rights and education, children’s rights, labor issues, poverty and hunger, the global
environment and global health”

In fact, this means that they are justified in imposing Nurturant Morality on the world (
and thus maintaining Progressive’s illusion of their own moral purity and superiority ).

The Final progressive principle is “Government for a better future” in which

“Government does what America’s future requires and what the private sector cannot do
or is not doing—effectively, ethically or at all. It is the job of government to promote
and, if possible provide sufficient protection, greater democracy, more freedom, a better
environment, broader Prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life, less violence,
and the building and maintaining of public infrastructure”

In Practice, this means more government (progressive) control of all areas of life.
Progressives want to government to provide “secure harbors, industrial facilities and
cities” and “safe neighborhoods (community policing) and schools (gun control); safe

23
water, air and food (a poison-free environment); safety on the job; and products safe to
use… health care for all, pre- and postnatal care for children, a focus on wellness and
preventive care, and care for the elderly (Medicare, Social Security and so on)”. In
addition they want the government to impose “gay rights, affirmative action, women’s
rights (abortion)” without the consent of the governed. They want the government to
decide when labor is being exploited (without labors consent) and force businesses to
provide “living wages, safe workplaces, [and] no intimidation” in the ways specified by
the government. The government should control how much an individual can earn and
decide who has "earned the right to living wages and health care." Progressives believe
the Government should decide that “The economy as a whole should decently
compensate those who hold it up” and redistribute income if it fails to do so. The
government should tell people what kind of art should be produced an what curriculum
should be taught because “Art and education are parts of self-fulfillment” In fact,
”beauty, and self-knowledge are part of human fulfillment, and so the government must
see to it that institutions promote such forms of human nurturance”

In his presentation “Take Back America” George Lakoff asserts that the role of
Government from a progressive point of view is to “provide protection, freedom,
fairness, political equality, prosperity, the best possible natural environment, healthy
communities, and a reasonable standard of living: decent housing, food, clothing, first-
rate public education, and health care.” All of which are defined by Progressives. In other
words Progressives believe the Government has the right to decide on the type of fairness
applied (equal results), the types of protection offered (not property rights), the degree of
freedom offered (Abortion is available, Guns are not.), the political representation in the
government, how much prosperity each person is allowed to have, what environment
people will live in, what kind of communities we will have and the values they will
support, the quantity and types of housing, food, or clothing each person should have, the
type of education that will be offered and the curriculum and values it will impart, and
when, where and how an individual will be allowed to seek medical attention and with
what drugs or procedures, what a person can smoke for recreation (marijuana, but not
tobacco), and when, where, and how an individual will be allowed to seek or offer
employment, and all in complete disregard to the social compact ratified by the people.
Or put more simply Progressives believe the role of government is to impose their
decisions on other people using the power of the State often while ignoring or
overstepping the Constitutional limits placed on that power.

Ghandi said: “I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear,
because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the
greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all
progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none
where the State has really lived for the poor.”

In Contrast, Dr. Lakoff say Conservatives believe that the proper role of Government is
“to protect the lives and the private property of Americans, to making profit seeking as
easy as possible for worthy Americans (the disciplined ones), and to promote

24
conservative morality (strict father morality) and religion” This is an opinion that is
shared by our Founding Fathers:

“Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of
individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by
those who are charged with the government.” Federalist # 54

“The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not
less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties
is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of
acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately
results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective
proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.” James
Madison)

“The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened

statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth,
and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares. By multiplying the
means of gratification, by promoting the introduction and circulation of the precious
metals, those darling objects of human avarice and enterpris e, it serves to vivify and
invigorate the channels of industry, and to make them flow with greater activity and
copiousness. The assiduous merchant, the laborious husbandman, the active mechanic,
and the industrious manufacturer, --all orders of men, look forward with eager expectation
and growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toils.” (Hamilton )

Hence, in direct opposition to Progressives , Conservatives believe that the Constitution

protects the Property Rights as well as the right to claim the rewards of one’s own work.

However, contrary to Dr. Lakoff’s assertion that Conservatives wish for a state imposed
religion, Conservatives simply believe that the First Amendment prohibits the Federal
government from either encouraging OR discouraging Religion. Dr. Lakoff probably
misinterprets the conservative stance on this issue because of the common Progressive
belief that the First Amendment provides Freedom from exposure to Religious Thought,
and hence feel that no one has the right to express religious opinions or symbols in
public. However, on matters of morality, Conservatives do tend to agree with the
sentiments of George Washington:

“all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality
are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who
should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the
duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to
respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private
and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for
reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the
supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded

25
to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and
experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of
religious principle.” Washington’s Farewell address

Conservatives feel that Religious beliefs promote the maintenance of an important pillar
of civilization, and that religious beliefs in our leadership preserve our liberty.

According to Lakoff, Conservatives believe “It is immoral to give people things they
have not earned, because then they will not develop discipline and will become both
dependant and immoral. This theory says that social programs are immoral because they
make people dependent.” Conservatives are “Against Social programs that take care of
people. That is what they see as wrong. That is what they are trying to eliminate on moral
grounds.” and “What they really want to do away with is social programs – programs
which invest in people, to help people help themselves.”

More accurately , Conservatives believe it is immoral to use government force to steal

from people who have earned their wealth to give it to people who are unwilling to earn
it. In direct contradiction to Dr. Lakoff, Conservatives (and Christian ethics) do not see
the care of people as wrong, in fact they advocate it. The conservative system’s morals
simply indicate that such behavior shouldn’t be coerced. Why would conservatives who
value independence and find dependence to be immoral, oppose programs that allow
people to help themselves and thus become independent? Again, Dr. Lakoff is attempting
to use framing to obfuscate the simple fact that Conservative s disagree with the method
of providing the support, not with the support itself. Progressive social programs
encourage people to help themselves by allowing them to help themselves to money in
some other person's wallet. They do not promote self-sufficiency or responsibility and do
not encourage beneficiaries to become productive members of the society. , and thereby
avoid doing anything productive for others or the society. Conservatives are against
Social programs that provide no current or long term benefits to the society because they
create incentives counter-productive to the goals of the program, or are otherwise
ineffectual at achieving their stated goals. Copious amounts of data have shown that
dependency on the Government is increasing, so how are these programs helping people
to help themselves? Conservatives believe that different incentives (positive or negative)
will have an effect how people currently behave, and that people will make future plans
based on their perceptions of those incentives.

Lakoff observes “Conservatives are not against [funding for] the military, they are not
against homeland defense, they are not against the current department of justice, nor
against the courts, nor the Departments of Treasury and Commerce” “Conservatives
don’t really want smaller government. They don’t want to eliminate the Military, the FBI,
of the treasury and commerce departments, or the nine-tenths of the courts that support
corporate law. It is big government that they like.”

U.S. Constitution, Section 8 (The powers of Congress) : “The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts

26
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the
credit of the United States; To regulate Commerc e with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of
Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the
United States;To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix
the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of
counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;To establish Post
Offices and Post Roads Post ;To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries ;To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme
Court;To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grantLetters of Marque and
Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;To raise and support
Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two
Years;To provide and maintain a Navy;To make Rules for the Government and
Regulation of the land and naval Forces;To provide for calling forth the Militia to
execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide
for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;To exercise exclusive Legislation in
all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by
Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the
Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased
by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the
Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings ;
AndTo make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution
the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government
of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” (Emphasis Mine)

The items highlighted by Dr. Lakoff are enumerated in the Constitution as legimate
Federal powers. Dr. Lakoff might also observe that the Constitution DOES not enumerate
Welfare programs of any kind as being a power of the Federal government, and the
Federalist Papers clearly say that the clause “General Welfare” is clarified by the
following specifics. “Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general
phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

Critics against ratification of the Constitution argued that the General Welfare phrase
would be abused by unscrupulous men to expand the power of the Federal Government. .
Madison responded to these critics :” Some, who have not denied the necessity of the
power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the
language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission
to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or
general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these

27
writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other
enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution,
than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some
color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of
describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. “

Plainly stated, Conservatives believe that the Federal government should be kept within
its Constitutional boundaries.

Lakoff says “Strict Father values are seen as central to democracy – to the empowerment
of individuals to change their lives and their society by pursuing their self-interests:”

Conservatives believe that individuals should have the freedom to pursue (and determine)
their own happiness, and where those pursuits conflict, Democracy is used to settle the
dispute.

“Suppose you are a moral authority. As a moral authority, how do you deal with your
children? Do you ask them what they should do or what you should do? No, you tell
them. What the father says, the child does, no back talk. Communication is One-Way. It
is the Same with the White House”

Conservatives believe that a President, elected to be in charge, is in charge within the

bounds of his office as described in the Constitution, until the President’s term is over or
is removed from office by Constitutional means (impeachment)

Lakoff then suggests that to Conservatives “ Rights must be consistent with Morality…
thus there is no right to an abortion, no right to same-sex marriage, no right to health care
(or any other government assistance), no right to know how the administration decides
policy, no right to a living wage and so on”

This is more true of the Progressive worldview where moral absolutes rule. Conversely,
Conservatives believe that Rights are limits on governmental power concerning legal
protections retained by the people when forming the United States or their State
Governments (via ratification of a Constitution and amendments)

It must be said that most conservatives will not support rights inconsistent with their
morality, but it does not follow that they wouldn’t submit to the rule of the majority if
they were ratified modifications to the societal compacts that they live under. In contrast,
this suggests that Progressives believe that Rights are benefits given to some at the
expense of others, by dictatorial order, rather than by majority rule.

28
 Chapter 5: Tax Relief or Delinquent Dues?

One of Dr. Lakoff’s main examples of “conservative framing” is the term “Tax Relief”,
which carries with it, the “conservative worldview” that Taxes are an affliction that need
to be relieved. Dr. Lakoff believes that the Progressives need to frame and use similar
two-world phrases that invoke the Progressive world view, rather than being forced to
explain their position in detail.

Dr. Lakoff compares taxes to a country club. “Taxation is paying your dues, paying your
membershi p fee in America. If you join a country club or a community center, you pay
fees. Why? You did not build the swimming pool. You have to maintain it. You did not
build the basketball court. Someone has to clean it. You may not use the squash court, but
you still have to pay your dues. Otherwise they won’t be maintained and will fall apart”

Most “Country Clubs” do not let people who do not pay dues come in and use the club,
which is exactly what happens with most liberal Social programs, and the tenants of
government provided housing certainly neglect to ‘wipe down” the squash court before
they leave. Most Country Clubs also don't round people up in the middle of the night and
force them to join under pain of imprisonment. In the end, this is an attempt as
misdirection to avoid admitting that Progressives believe people who pay should provide
benefits to people who do not. Or, in Dr. Lakoff’s words: “Just as in a nurturant family it
is the duty of older and stronger children to help out those that are younger and weaker,
so in a nation it is the duty of citizens who are better-off to contribute more than those
who are worse-off. “

Dr. Lakoff also compares Taxes to Investments: “Our parents invested in the future, ours
as well as theirs, through their taxes…Today we have assets – highways, schools and
colleges, the internet, airlines—that come from the wise investments they made. ..Every
businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to
make his money. He did not make is money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He
got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve,
the Treasury and Commerce departments, and the Judicial System, where 9/10 of cases
involve corporate law… The Wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers
have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it
back”

Dr. Lakoff suggests at first that the returns on the investments of taxes are the assets that
become availabl e to everyone, but then asserts some have to pay for the use of those
assets out of the benefits they derived from their use. So, in the progressive frame, The
Government is a for-profit business that collects fees from the successful for the use of
the National infrastructure in order to provide a dividend to the original investors (the
taxpayers) some of whom never invested a dime. Of course, Dr. Lakoff doesn’t explain
what percentage of a given tax-payment is new investment vs. a fee for using the
infrastructure, or how much is due as a dividend to an individual who has "invested". To
use Dr. Lakoff’s own example of a Country Club from the above, a Champion Swimmer

29
that makes a million dollars a year not only owes dues to his country club for the right to
use the swimming pool and other facilities, but also owes the other members of the club a
cut of his income, because they also “paid their dues” to help maintain and improve those
facilities. This interpretation is confirmed by Dr. Lakoff’s statement:
"The more wealth you accumulate using what the dues payers have provided, the greater
the debt you owe to those who have made your wealth possible."
If taxes worked as investments as Lakoff suggests, the government would issue shares
for each investment made in new infrastructure, and would pay out the most in dividends
to those who put the most in, instead of the current system where 10% of the population
pays over half of the tax burden, and use the fewest of the governments services. In
addition, the Dr. Lakoff suggests the Government also invested in

“•The highway system

•The internet, semiconductors -- computers
•The satellite system, and cell phones
•The scientific and medical establishment.
•The stock market”

Therefore, according to Dr. Lakoff, taxpayers owe the Government a return on their
initial investment for using those things too, even though most are now owned by private
enterprises . This implies that the government should be allowed to seek its economic self-
interest via a profit motive, while individuals should be restrained from doing so.

Dr. Lakoff says, "Prosperity is for everybody. Government makes investments, and those
investments should reflect the overall public good." However, this is in direct
contradiction to the idea that taxpayers made investments, on which a return should be
paid. In effect Progressives believe that taxes are funds owned by and invested by the
Government, and not funds held in trust to be spent for the benefit of the taxpaying
public. Hence Dr. Lakoff believes that the Government is owed a return on the
investment, rather than the taxpayer.

Dr. Lakoff believes these “these are accurate views of taxes. But they are not yet
enshrined in our brains. They need to be repeated over and over again, and refined until
they take their rightful place in our synapses.”
It is hard to say what two-word phrase Lakoff would like these ideas to be enshrined
under. Perhaps Dr. Lakoff would prefer the term “Fee Delinquency” rather than “Tax
Relief.” Regardless of what two-word phrase is picked, it should be evident there is no
power on Earth that will make the ideas described by that phrase an accurate view of
taxes.

Dr. Lakoff says: 'Propaganda is an attempt to get the public to adopt a frame that is not
true and is known not to be true, for the purpose of gaining and maintaining political
control”

30
 Chapter 6: Education or Indoctrination?

Dr. Lakoff asserts that “no Child Left Behind” is Orwellian speech

“The Clear Skies Initiative, Healthy Forests, No Child Left Behind. This is the use of
language to mollify people who have nurturant values, while the real policies are strict
father policies… Imagine if they [conservatives] came out supporting a “Dirty Skies Bill”
or a “Forest Destruction Bill” or a “Kill Public Education” bill. They would loose. They
are aware people do not support what they are really trying to do. “

While at the same time, Dr. Lakoff asserts conservatives believe that “preserving and
extending conservative morality is the highest goal, education should serve that goal.
Schools should teach conservative values. Conservatives should gain control of school
boards to guarantee this.”

This appears to be a contradiction: WHY would conservatives want to destroy public

education if they planned to use that infrastructure to expand conservative moral systems,
and that expansion was “the “highest goal”? The simple explanation is that
Conservatives only want control of their OWN child’s education, and the public
education system as it exists today does not allow for that flexibility. Again, Dr. Lakoff is
attempting to use framing to avoid the real point of contention : Who is in control of what
people learn?

“Why an education bill about school testing? Once the testing frame applies not just to
students but also to schools, then schools can, metaphorically fail—and be punished for
failing by having their allowance cut. Less funding in Turn makes it harder for the
schools to improve, which leads to a cycle of failure and ultimately the elimination of
many public schools”

One must admit that if a group is given a task (like educating students), and that task is
not accomplished, it is not a success. Is it a metaphorical failure? No, it is a failure plain
and simple. At first, it may seem that Progressives believe there should be no
accountability, rewards or consequences for doing your job well or not at all. However, in
reality, it may simply be that Progressives believe that the role of the Public School
system is to spread Nuturant morality at which it excels.

Dr. Lakoff says Progressive educational policy should provide “A vibrant, well-funded,
and expanding public education system….where teachers nurture children’s minds and
often the children themselves, and where children are taught the truth about their nation”

“Every child’s brain is shaped crucially by early experiences. We [Progressives] support

high-quality early childhood education.”

“Empathy and responsibility are to be promoted in every area of life, public and private.
Art and education are parts of self-fulfillment and therefore moral necessities”

31
Therefore Progressives believe they are morally obligated to spread Nurturant Morality
using public facilities , including the public school system. Ironically, this is exactly what
Dr. Lakoff accuses his political opponents of.

One must wonder why Conservative parents who want their children taught “Strict Father
Morality” should be forced to support an educational environment where “Nurturant
Morality” and its attendant values are taught, and where the “truth” about our nation is
“framed” from a progressive point of view (“Reframing is telling the truth as we see it—
telling it forcefully, straight forwardly and articulately, with moral conviction and
without hesitation.”) Thomas Jefferson, often cited as the Father of Public Education
also believed this:

“That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions
which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to
support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the
comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he
would make his pattern” - The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. (Thomas
Jefferson)

Dr. Lakoff asserts: “Less funding [for schools] in Turn makes it harder for the schools to
improve, which leads to a cycle of failure and ultimately the elimination of many public
schools”

In actuality, the Public Schools are currently funded 6 times better (in adjusted dollars)
than they were in 1960 (when academic achievement was higher) and increasing funding
over the last 30 years has resulted in lowing academic achievement. Dr. Lakoff gives no
rationalization why continuing in this manner will be likely to provide better results in the
future.

Dr. Lakoff says that, for Conservatives, “What replaces the public school system is a
voucher system to support private schools. The wealthy would have good schools—paid
for in part by what used to be tax payments for public schools. “

”Vouchers and school testing are not ultimately about school vouchers and school testing;
they are about conservative control of the content of education”

“Because immoral, undisciplined children can lead moral, disciplined children astray,
parents should be able to choose to which schools they send their children… Since
preserving and extending conservative morality is the highest goal, education should
serve that goal. Schools should teach conservative values” “

Currently, many parents choose to pay for their child’s education twice, once in taxes and
a second time in tuition, none of which is in their economic self-interest. (one must
assume that they side with “identity” when they choose a school – or maybe they simply
believe that the academic achievement, a good classroom environment (the definition of
which varies per child), or an environment which teaches and fosters their own values

32
(Strict Father Morality) is more important than money ) In short, Conservatives believe
that Parents should decide what the best academic environment for their children is.

Apparently Dr. Lakoff’s definition of “Conservative control” means “a lack of

Progressive Control”, as vouchers put the decision in the hands of parents who may be
either Progressive or Conservative. Voucher Programs remove the decision from the
hands of the government and hamper Progressives ’ abilities to make decisions for others,
and this is the reason Vouchers are unacceptable to Progressives. Vouchers provide a
choice for student trapped in a failing school, a school that teaches values contrary to
those of the parents, or a school whose permissive policies (some mandated by Liberal
judges) make it unsafe to attend. Testing sends a clear message to the school to
concentrate on teaching rather than on furthering “Nurturant Morality” and enhancing the
power of the Teacher’s Unions.

D. Lakoff asserts vouchers mean “The poor would not have the money for good schools.
We would wind up with a two-tier school system, a good one for the “deserving rich” and
a bad one for the “undeserving poor”

“The vouchers given to poorer (less disciplined and less worthy) people will not be
sufficient to allow them to get their children into the better private and religious schools.
Schools will thus come to reflect the natural divisions of wealth in society”

If the poor had “good schools” under the current system, why would they use their
voucher given choice to switch? This statement implicitly admits that the current Public
Schools for the poor are NOT GOOD. If they were, the vouchers would NOT be used,
and the public schools would loose no funding.

The wealthy (and a high percentage of public school teachers) already send their kids to
private school, and a two class division exists under the current system. Vouchers would
give Poor children access to the choices that Rich families have, granting them access to
the school system of the “deserving rich”. Further, does a Student need to go to Harvard
in order to get a decent education, or will a State School do? Harvard is a “better” school,
but this says nothing about the quality of the education received. The intent of vouchers is
to allow the poor to escape a bad school and trade-up for a "better" one. If they can't, they
are not obligated to use the voucher.

Lakoff says Conservatives believe “Uniform testing should test the level of discipline.
There are right and wrong answers, and they should be tested for. Testing defines
fairness: those who pass are rewarded; those not disciplined enough to pass are
punished…Education should promote discipline, and undisciplined students should face
punishment (for instance paddling), and intellectually undisciplined students should not
be coddled, but should be shamed and punished by not being promoted…

“Teachers should be strict, not nurturant, in the example they set for students and in the
content they teach”

33
To clarify, Conservatives believe that tests indicate if the student has achieved an
understanding of the subject. Conservatives believe that many subjects like Math,
Science, Grammar, History contain facts about which questions can be asked, and that
these questions have correct answers. Conservatives believe that those who “follow the
rules”, “work hard” and achieve the intended goal should be advanced, where as those
who do not, should be forced to obtain the required education.

Conservatives believe Schools exist for the education of youth, and understand (along
with our founding Fathers (such as Madison and Jefferson)), that values are a part of that
education. As such Conservatives should be enabled to claim the right of Conscience in
deciding what values should be taught to their children. Progressives, on the other hand,
want to remove children from their parents' influence early, teach them progressive
values, and do so with public funds coerced from the parents.

34
 Chapter 7: Majority Rule and the Right to Kill

Dr. Lakoff believes Conservatives oppose abortion because “there are two stereo-typical
cases where women need abortions: unmarried teenagers who have been having “illicit”
sex, and older women who want to delay child rearing to pursue a career. Both of these
fly in the face of the Strict Father Model….. Pregnant teenagers have violated the
commandments of the strict father” and “Career women challenge the power and
authority of the strict father. Both should be punished by bearing the child; neither should
be able to avoid the consequences of their actions, which would violate the strict father
model’s idea that morality depends on punishment”

Apparently, Dr. Lakoff feels that Childbirth and its attendant responsibilit ies are a
Punishment. Conservatives, contrastingly, don’t believe childbirth is a punishment, as
much as it might be a consequence of immoral or irresponsible acts. Conservatives are
against abortion, NOT because it allows an immoral or irresponsible person to go
unpunished, but because they find killing an unborn child to be immoral. Dr. Lakoff’s use
of framing to obscure this point is obtuse in the extreme.

Dr. Lakoff continues: “in the strict father model, it is the father who decides whether his
wife or daughter should have an abortion. As it is the father who controls his daughters’
sexuality, when the daughter takes a lover, then the father loses control. If the father is to
maintains control over his family, then the women in the family cannon freely control
their own sexual behavior and their own ability to reproduce”

Conservatives believe that women who control their own sexual behavior and act
responsibly (ensuring the use of Birth control etc) would not need an abortion, and would
understand the risks involved with their actions. As a practical matter, Dr. Lakoff is
arguing that women have the right to take another life as part of their sexual self-control.
Conservatives also believe that Parents have a right to be notified and be required to give
consent before medical procedures are to be performed on their children, because their
children (being children) are not always able to make good decisions on their own. This
lack of good judgment in the young can be easily demonstrated by examining how the
child became pregnant in the first place. One can only surmise that the Progressive
opposition to this is based on some notion that children are no different than adults and
should be given all of the rights thereof.

In Dr. Lakoff’s section on talking to conservatives he suggests that if a Conservative

brings up abortion, the Progressive should “Raise the issue of military rape treatment.
Women Soldiers who are raped (by our own soldiers, in Iraq, or on military bases) and
who subsequently get pregnant presently cannot end their pregnancies in a military
hospital, because abortions are not permitted there. A Military Rape Treatment Act would
allow our raped women soldiers to be treated in military hospitals to end their rape-
induced pregnancies. The wedge: if he agrees, he sanctions abortion, in government -
supported facilities no-less, where doctors would have to be trained and facilities
provided for terminating pregnancies. If he disagrees, he dishonors our women soliders

35
who are putting their lives on the line for him. To the women it is like being raped
twice—once by a criminal soldier and once by a self-righteous conservative”

This is a very good argument for why women shouldn’t be in the military or in combat,
but it has little to do with the issue at hand. Dr. Lakoff assumes a moral absolutism that
simply doesn’t exist. Undoubtedly there are some conservatives so dedicated to the
principle of life that they would deny access to an abortion even if the pregnancy were
the result of rape or a failure to abort would result in the woman’s death. However, many
Conservatives want laws that evaluate the situation and make reasonable trade-offs.
These laws would be passed by our elected representatives in accordance with the
principles of majority rule. Progressives, however, claim the right to pre-empt such
decisions by the people. For instance, Progressives oppose Partial Birth Abortions
(called by Progressives a “Late-Term Abortion ”) which involves puncturing the skull of a
(very likely viable) fetus in the birth canal and suctioning out its brain. Progressives
believe the performance of this act is the in-alienable natural right of the mother.

Dr. Lakoff states that “There are almost no such cases [of partial birth abortion] . Why to
Conservatives care so much? Because it’s a Slippery Slope to ending all abortion. It puts
out there a frame of abortion as a horrendous Procedure, when most operations ending
pregnancy are nothing like this” Ironically, he also has this to say on abortion: “To
understand this is not to ignore the real pain and difficulty involved in decisions made by
individual women to terminate a pregnancy. For those truly concerned with the lives and
health of Children, the decision to end a pregnancy for whatever reason is always painful
and anything but simple.”

If abortion isn’t a Horrendous Procedure, and that is a false frame, why is it always
painful and difficult to decide to have one? In a letter Dr. Lakoff republished it was
suggest liberals respond to anti-abortion conservati ves by telling them "if they are anti-
abortion, then by all means they should not have one."
The partial birth abortion procedure makes up only 2000-5000 cases of the over
1,000,000 abortions performed in the United States every year. Should society accept
2000-5000 infants dead every year from parental abuse because infanticide makes up
only a very small percentage of child abuse cases? Should infanticide be declared a
natural inalienable right and a choice because it seldom happens? If someone is against
infanticide, should they simply not kill their child? Again, Dr. Lakoff is using framing to
obscure the real issue: Should our Society be enabled to restrict access to abortion via a
democratic process, or should the society be forced to treat such access as a natural right,
because 5 unelected and unaccountable people issued a (unconstitutional) fiat. It is absurd
to assert that the Bill of Rights was ratified by the people with the understanding that it
granted access to abortion, or that it would have taken 200 years for the court to arrive at
that opinion. Dr. Lakoff says abortion is a part of the Progressive value of “Freedom”:
“That includes freedom of motherhood —the freedom of a woman to decide whether,
when and with whom. It excludes state control of pregnancy” If this is an example of
the progressive value of freedom, then it again demonstrates that the freedom being
valued is that of making decisions for others by depriving them of the democratic
decision on how abortion should be handled in their society. One should also note that

36
access or restrictions on abortion have ZERO affect on woman’s capability to decide
“whether, when and with whom”, nor would a government ban on abortion affect these
decisions, it would merely remove the woman’s ability to escape the consequences of
those decisions. Again Dr. Lakoff is using framing to obscure the simple fact that
Progressives believe that women have a natural an inalienable right to act irresponsibly
and escape the consequences of their actions by taking an innocent life that the majority
cannot regulate in any form.

37
 Chapter 8: What is in a Name?

Dr. Lakoff asserts Conservatives oppose Gay Marriage because “Same sex marriage does
not fit the strict father model of the family; it goes squarely against it. A lesbian marriage
has no father. A Gay marriage has fathers who are taken to be less than real men.” As
such, Conservatives want to define Marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
But, Lakoff says, “as anthropological studies of American Marriage have shown, they
[conservatives] got the definition wrong. Marriage, as an ideal, is defined as “the
realization of love though a lifelong public commitment” "With love and commitment,
you have the very definition of the marital ideal—of what Marriage is fundamentally
about” “Marriage is about love and commitment, and denying lovers the right to marry is
a violation of human dignity”

Dr. Lakoff “forgets” to document the study he was citing so no comment on it can be
provided. However, American Marriage is based on the Traditions of old Europe, and
Marriage as an institution exists in almost every culture in some form, including tribal
cultures. Many cultures have arranged marriages, and Love is not expected to be part of
it, much less a central theme. Modern Dictionaries of the English language define
Marriage as:

mar·riage n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ( The American
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

mar·riage n. 1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or
wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and
dissolvable only by law (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-
Webster, Inc)

You will notice that neither dictionary uses the Word “Love”. Dr. Lakoff, apparently
believes he can create new definitions to words whenever he wants. Dr. Lakoff here tries
to establish a false frame in order to hide the fact that the definition of marriage is being
changed. As a linguist, Dr. Lakoff understands the power of words, and knows that
changing a definition is tantamount to lying.

Lakoff says, “Marriage is central to our culture. Marriage legally confers many hundreds
of benefits, but that is only its material aspect.”

Marriage consists almost entirely of legal obligations; Shared income, shared property,
shared responsibility, and accountability to another person. One loses autonomy and
freedom when they Marry, which most would consider far more valuable than any
benefits they might obtain. Even then, very few of the legal “benefits” are not currently
available to same sex couples via normal legal channels, with the largest missing one
being a “one stop shop” where these benefits can be conferred together and at once. Legal
documents can handle inheritance, legal proxy and other such arrangements. Most
hospitals have adjusted their rules to allow same-sex partners to visit, and many

38
companies offer health benefits to same sex partners (and many deny them to the spouses
of Heterosexual Married couples—it is an employer choice.) The Fact the Progressives
believe the central point and utility of Marriage are the benefits that they obtain shows
that Progressives have a Fundamental lack of understanding about the institution of
Marriage. This is also why they frequently call it useless, outdated or an expression of
Patriarchal society while demanding it for their homosexual brothers and sisters.

Dr. Lakoff says Marriage “is the beginning of family life, commonly with the expectation
of children and grandchildren, family gatherings, in-laws, little league games, graduations
and all of the rest”

“The ideal marriage is happy, lasting, prosperous, and with children, a nice home, and
friendships with other married couples. The typical marriage has its ups and downs, its
joys and difficulties, typical problems with children and in-laws. “

As Dr. Lakoff implies above, Love is not the reason the institution exists; People can love
and have sex with whomever they choose and for as long as they choose outside of
Marriage. Before the years of effective Birth control ( that only recently began in the
latter part of the 20th century), a societal ethic of Marriage before sex was required, as
babies would inevitably follow the repeated act of sex in most cases. Marriage is about
the “expectation” of children.

Society promotes marriage as a socio-economic cradle that allows would-be parents to

prepare a home using the benefits of the division of labor, a practice that is secured by
guaranteein g assets to one party that may give up a job and a steady income to
participate. The Rules surrounding traditional marriage, that were once codified in law,
(they were replaced with “no fault divorce”) are designed to protect the union for the
benefit of the children, and the happiness of the parents was only a secondary concern.
Children depend on a stable environment where they feel secure, and marriage is
designed to provide that. By this token, what reasonable expectation do Same-Sex
marriage couples have for a child? How many desire a child? Should this status be
granted to a small segment of the population who are unlikely to contribute to the
institutions purpose? If they do contribute and have children, by what methods should
they be allowed to obtain them? Should two-mother, one father groupings be condoned?
What effects do such configurations have upon the raising of children? What effects does
having two fathers or two mothers have upon the children? These are valid questions,
none of which are addressed by Dr. Lakoff.

The studies that have been done have very small sample sizes, address one socio-
economic background, or deal with children that had a traditional family early in their
lives. Furthermore, the social conditions in the Netherlands and other places where Gay
Marriage has been adopted, Marriage seems to suffer, and many more children are born
out of wedlock, and hence loose the stable environment and constant relationship needed
for healthy growth. Before we change an institution that has supported every civilization
on earth for millennia , it would probably be wise to understand the effects of such a

39
change on the institution itself and its intended product: children capable of taking up the
mantle and perpetuating the society.

“Gay for the right connotes a wild, deviant, sexually irresponsible life-style”

There are groups of Gay Men who have demonstrated tendencies to willingly and
wantonly spread AIDS and other diseases, and simply advocate unsafe sex. Should
Society be advocating putting children into a family environment where at least one
parent is likely to die before the child reaches maturity? Lakoff fails to address the
possibility that Gay Men will continue to behave as they behave now, even when in a
Marriage, and to investigate what effect that could have on the ethics and rules
surrounding marriage throughout the society. Feminism has already led to “No-Fault”
divorce laws which put the well-being of Parents over the well-being of their children
(Statistics show that Children of Divorce are more likely to have problems than children
who remain in a “conflicted” marriage (unless the conflict involves physical violence))
Does Society really wish to make it even more difficult to discipline and maintain the
ethic of fidelity? Does society wish to deliberately create orphans? Also of note is that
Lesbian behavior is quite different. If the debate were over Lesbian marriage, the idea
would likely find more acceptance.

Lakoff says “Polls show most Americans overwhelmingly against anti-gay

discrimination, but equally against “gay marriage.” One reason, I believe, is that marriage
evokes the idea of sex, and most Americans do not favor gay sex.” “Marriage confers a
social status—a married couple with new social roles. And for a great many people,
marriage legitimizes sex”

Progressives often cannot tell the difference between tolerance and acceptance . Most
Americans believe they should tolerate behavior that they believe imposes low or no
costs on them or the society. The Strict-Father Christian Religion warns its adherents not
to judge others and to leave the judging to God. Therefore consensual acts that occur out
of sight in someone’s bedroom, tend to be tolerated in modern times. The word Marriage
connotes a societal (and non-legal) obligation to support and accept the union. In effect,
granting Homosexual Unions under the label “Marriage” forces people to accept, and not
just tolerate the behavior; it legitimizes homosexual sex. It is a violation of an
individual’s right of conscience to force others to publicly support a union they find
sinful.

“When conservatives speak of the “defense of Marriage,” liberals are baffled. After all,
no individual’s marriage is being threatened. It’s just that more marriages are being
allowed.”

Progressives are proposing that the very definition of Marriage be changed. Changing the
Use of the word “Marriage” to put both groups under the same label is repugnant to
many, especially given the vastly different behavior of those groups. This isn’t about
“political views,” it is about the general behavior of the group being associated. Is
someone who parades down Main Street in the buff shouting obscenities and thumbing

40
his nose at the rules of society likely to obey the tenants of marriage? Stereotyping is
based on group generalizations. It isn’t uncommon for the members of a group not
causing detrimental effects on others to separate themselves from those causing the
disruptions. Even the homosexuals do it as shown by this note from the American
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

gay n.
1. A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex
2. A man whose sexual orientation is to men: an alliance of gays and lesbians.

Usage Note: The word gay is now standard in its use to refer to homosexuals, in large part because it is the
term that most gay people prefer in referring to themselves. Gay is distinguished from homosexual
primarily by the emphasis it places on the cultural and social aspects of homosexu ality as opposed to
sexual practice. Many writers reserve gay for males, but the word is also used to refer to both sexes; when
the intended meaning is not clear in the context, the phrase gay and lesbian may be used. Like the other
names of social groups derived from adjectives (for example, Black), gay may be regarded as offensive
when used as a noun to refer to particular individuals, as in There were two gays on the panel; here
phrasing such as gay members should be used instead. But there is no objection to the use of the noun in
the plural to refer collectively either to gay men or to gay men and lesbians, so long as it is clear whether
men alone or both men and women are being discussed.

Lesbians use a separate word to describe themselves because they don’t want to be called
gay either. They do not want to be associated with behavior (promiscuity, irresponsible
sex) exhibited by others because it will taint the publics perception of their group.

“Most Gay activists want more than Civil Unions. They want full-blown marriage, with
all of its cultural meanings—a public commitment based on love, all of the metaphors, all
of the rituals, joys heartaches, family experiences —and a sense of normality, on par with
all other people.”

A minority population that engages in behaviors different from the majority is by

definition abnormal . It does not follow that they should be granted a sense of normality
anymore than the behavior of groups like NAMBLA should be condoned as normal. Dr.
Lakoff admits that the Gay activists are not interested in tolerance, but acceptance with
all of the metaphors, rituals and ethics that apply to Heterosexual Marriage. Progressives
who support Gay Marriage believe that individuals do not have the right of conscience
protected by the first amendment, and should be forced to publicly accept and approve of
acts they find immoral.

Lakoff asserts “The ability of ministers, priests, and rabbis to perform marriage
ceremonies is granted by governments, not by religions”

The rules of who may perform and witness CIVIL marriages varies by State, but ANY
community may choose to recognize or not recognize a marriage INDEPENDANT of the
State. For instance, the Catholic Church officially refuses to sanction any marriage not
performed within a Catholic Church. This is because the word Marriage has both a Legal
and a Societal (religious) connotation. The force of state allows the enforcement of the
contract via Civil Marriage, but the force of communal morality and tradition supports
and upholds it. Marriage ceremonies often include a verbal commitment of those present

41
to help the couple maintain and keep the marriage contract. Members of the community
are obligated by morality and tradition to council against extra-martial affairs, sex before
marriage, and divorce. Such communities are often based on a religion, and Christian
religions in general have the same ethics toward the institution and therefore are able to
bolster each other. They form a layer of unofficial enforcement of the contract. It is this
second area of moral enforcement that Gay Activists are trying to gain access to,
otherwise they would be content with Civil Unions.

“Progressives need to reclaim the moral high ground—of the grand American tradition of
freedom, fairness, human dignity, and full equality under the law”
Lakoff says “The issue is one of personal freedom: The state should not dictate who
should marry whom. It is also a matter of fairness and human dignity. Equality under the
law includes social and cultural as well as material benefits”

Hence we find that Progressives believe the Government is entitled to regulate social and
cultural benefits. To Progressives “full equality under the law” means using the force of
law to compel society to produce the type of equality they see as desirable, even if
achievement of that equality requires overriding the values or desires of the majority.
This is why they support affirmative action and laws that treat people differently based on
the color of their skin. Gay Marriage is an attempt to use the law to force people to treat
Homosexuals Differently than Heterosexuals, by enabling them to marry the same sex. In
short, progressives are claiming a right of government to establish a near totalitarian
regime in which laws specify certain behaviors towards homosexuals and their unions,
and carry a penalty for violation of those laws. Many Universities (the most Progressive
Communities in America) have already put in place totalitarian speech codes that ban not
only disparagement of Homosexua ls, but the expression of respectful but unfavorable
opinions of their behavior. These codes are then enforced only against certain segments
of the University population in order to achieve “equality”. Progressives believe the
“Moral High Ground” entitles them to mandate the behavior and opinions of others, in
complete contradiction of the principles of majority rule, self-government, and the right
of Conscience .

Contrastingly, Conservatives believe that “full equality under the law” means that the
laws are applied in the same manner, regardless of who they are applied to. Marriage is
an institution based on gender, not on sexual orientation. A Homosexual person is NOT
denied the right to marry a person of the opposite sex because of their sexual orientatio n.
Heterosexual people are not allowed to marry the same gender. The rules are the same
and apply the same for everyone. It is not the same case as when Black Men were unable
to Marry white women. If one chooses to argue against the matter based on Gender
Discrimination, the American people have already rejected the Equal Rights Amendment
that attempted to proclaim Men and Women were equal (the same)

In his section on how to respond to Conservatives, Lakoff reprints a letter which says
“Every time someone started screaming about Gay marriage I’d ask if they want to
Federal Government to tell them who they could marry. I’d go on to explain when
challenged that once government has crossed the huge barrier into telling one group of

42
people who they could not marry, it is only a small step to telling other groups, and a
smaller yet step to telling people who they had to marry.”

The Government is not determining who should marry whom, and suggesting that there is
a slippery slope towards a government mandated Eugenics (which the government
already does by forbidding marriages to first cousins etc) of every union is absurd. It is
simply yet another attempt by Lakoff to obscure the Progressive position. The
government already HAS the power to determine who is involved in a Marriage and the
sort of government control prognosticated above has not occurred. The argument over
Gay Marriage is about restricting power the government already has, and restricting
which decisions the majority can make, not giving the governmen t new powers that leap
some imaginary barrier. This belies the real slippery slope: That once you forbid the
government from setting standards for which groups can be involved in a Marriage, and
do so against the will of the majority, there is nothing to prevent the legal challenge of
Polygamists, proponents of Bestiality, Pedophiles or any other small minority group who
suddenly has a desire for “acceptance” and no principle by which they may be denied.

The Founding Fathers amended the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights, designed to
protect minorities from the will of the majority. That agreement can ONLY be changed
by an amendment approved by the Majority. The Founding Fathers did this because a
minority is just as apt to produce a tyranny over the majority as vice-versa. There is not a
Homosexual Amendment granting protection to Homosexuals or to those who commit
Homosexual acts. Homosexuals differ from others only in their behavior, not in the color
of their skin or ethnicity. The behavior may or may not be voluntary. Alcoholism isn’t
voluntary either, but drunk drivers who are alcoholics are still held responsible for their
actions. The High Recidivism rates of Pedophiles (and in particular homosexual
pedophiles) suggest their behavior isn’t voluntary either. Should Pedophilia be legal
because of that? Should we take another step and approve of it as natural and normal?
American Society is blessed with an ability to decide via a Democratic process how we
will react to different acts, and different lifestyles. Progressives desire to circumvent that
process, and remove the right of conscience, and the right to determine, make and live by
democratically enacted laws.

Chapter 8: World Despots vs. The People of the United States

The international relations community adds to the nation as a person metaphor what is
called the rational actor model. The idea here is that it is irrational to act against your
interests, and that nations act as if they were rational actors.-individual people trying to
maximize their gains and assets and minimize their costs and losses.“ But, “There is an
alternative way of thinking about foreign policy .... The premise is that when
international relations work smoothly, it is because certain moral norms of the
international community are being followed. This mostly goes unnoticed, since those
norms are usually followed. We notice problems when those norms are breached. Given

43
this, is makes sense that foreign policy should be centered around those norms. The
Moral norms I suggest come out of what in Moral Politics I called Nurturant Morality.”

This statement asserts that the “world community” currently adheres to Nurturant
Morality in their dealings with each other; Progressives feel various nations do not
currently engage in bad behavior toward each other because of the threat of reprisals and
possibly war, but because they feel empathy for the needs of other nations. Ironically,
Lakoff also asserts

“We must be the change we want! The foreign policy
foreign policy. In the idea of responsibility for oneself,
empathy and other forms of responsibility (protection,
community development) it would lead to international
interdependence”
of moral norms is the only sane
it remains practical. But through
care, competence, effectiveness,
cooperation and a recognition of

This statement implicitly recognizes that the Nations of the world DO NOT
CURRENTLY follow Dr. Lakoff’s “Moral Norms”, and is, in effect, just a reiteration of
the Progressive belief that others will adopt Nurturant Morality and values if they see an
example. “We Must be the Change we want” is a quote from Gandhi, who was fighting a
highly developed Western Nation, whose ethics had already led them to lead a war to
abolish Slavery world wide (including in India). Gandhi believed the British Empire to be
a benign institution, and knew that non-violence was the only tactic that an unarmed
people might use to prevail over a militarily superior foe. It pre-supposes a National ethic
against genocide on the part of the British. Gandhi also said “Non-cooperation with evil
is as much a duty as cooperation with good” It is mere foolishness to assert that Gandhi's
tactics or Moral Leadership will work universally with Atheist Dictators who abuse their
own people (and who define the National Ethic in one man) , or with Islamic Radicals
(Whose ethics demand death to the infidels). Moral Leadership will simply not work in
these situations, and advocating such a thing is cooperation with evil. Ironically, Dr.
Lakoff, says:

“Radical Islamic Fundamentalists hate our culture. They have a worldview that is
incompatible with the way that Americans —and other Westerners –live their lives…
What about the First cause [of Islamic hatred for the U.S] -- The radical Islamic
Worldview itself? Military action won’t change it. Social action won’t change it.
Worldviews live in the minds of people. How can one change those minds—and if not
present minds, then future minds? The West Cannot. Those minds can only be changed
by moderate and liberal Muslims—clerics, teachers, elders, respected community
members… we depend on the goodwill and courage of moderate Islamic leaders. To gain
it, we must show our goodwill by beginning in a serious way to address the social and
political conditions that lead to despair… Most Islamic would-be martyrs… have grown
up in a culture of despair; they have nothing to lose. Eliminate such poverty and you
eliminate the breeding ground for most terrorists – though the September 11th terrorists
were relatively well-to do.”

44
Here, in addition to negating his own argument about poverty, Dr. Lakoff negates the
idea that “Nurturant Morality” practiced by Westerners would have ANY effect on
terrorists. However, even if poverty is accepted as a factor, Dr. Lakoff does not
acknowledge that the source of this poverty is rulers who keep the majority of the people
uneducated, and who make no expenditures on promoting a stable infrastructure of roads,
schools or rule of law. “When the Bush Administration speaks of eliminating Terror, it
does not appear to be talking about eliminating cultures of despair and the social
conditions that lead one to want to give up his life of martyrdom” It doesn’t even occur to
Lakoff that a regime change followed by a stable democracy might just accomplis h that,
just as it did in 1776.

Instead Dr. Lakoff says “we are supposedly fighting them [Islamic Terrorists] because
they killed innocent civilians. That made them evil. If we do the same, are we any less
immoral?...In Conservative morality, there is a fight between good and evil, in which
lesser evils are tolerated and even seen as necessary and expected. The argument that
killing innocent civilians in retaliation would make us as bad as them works for Liberals,
not for conservatives” No one has ever talked about deliberately targeting and killing
innocent civilians in retaliation (except the terrorists.) The intent of the Terrorists was to
kill as many innocents as possible, the goal of the U.S. military is to kill a few civilians as
possible while trying to eliminate our enemies. To Progressive, any war or violence
would be hypocritical and a contribution to terror : “If the United States wants terror to
end, the United States must end its own contribution to terror. And we must also end
terror sponsored not against the west, but against others”

Progressives believe that no moral principle can be carried out unless we have the
resources and ability to carry it out everywhere and at the same time. These examples
bolster the idea that Progressives to not understand the idea of trade-offs. To progressives
there is no moral difference between those who target military enemies (and accidentally
kill civilians) and those who target civilians (and accidentally might kill a few soldiers).
Progressives deny that you are limited to the choices actually available, and that any
outcome desired can always be selected. Contrastingly, Dr. Lakoff says Conservatives
believe that “only superior strength can defeat evil, and only a show of strength can keep
evil at bay. Not to show overwhelming strength is immoral, since it will induce evildoers
to perform more evil deeds, because they will think they can get away with it. To oppose
a show of strength is therefore immoral. Nothing is more important in the battle of good
vs. evil, and if some innocent noncombatants get in the way and get hurt, it is a shame,
but it is to be expected and nothing can be done about it. Indeed, performing lesser evils
in the name of good is justified” Conservatives believe that sometimes one must decide
between undesirable (and possibly immoral) paths and Moral Trade-offs are sometimes
required to ensure survival.

Lakoff says the progressive value of “Protection translates into an effective military for
defense and peacekeeping” and that “Protection is part of the Progressive Moral System,
but it has not been elaborated on enough. And on September 11, progressives did not
have a whole lot to say. That was unfortunate, because nurturant parents and progressive

45
do care about protection. Protection is important. It is part of our Moral System” I believe
they had little to say, because it isn’t American Citizens they are interested in protecting.

Progressives have routinely tried to cut military and intelligence budgets, and Dr. Lakoff
himself said of 9/11: “Justice is called for, not vengeance. Understanding and restraint are
what is needed. The model for our actions should be the rescue workers and doctors – the
healers – not the bombers. We should not be like them. We should not take innocent lives
in bringing the perpetrators to justice”

Ironically, Karl Rove was blasted by the Democratic party for saying almost the same
thing.

Dr. Lakoff accuses the Bush administration of propagating a false “rescue scenario
[where] the victims are (1) the Iraqi people and (2) Saddam’s neighbors, whom he as not
attacked but is seen as threatening. That is why Bush and Powell keep on listing
Saddam’s crimes against the Iraqi People and the weapons he could use to harm his
neighbors…Most of the American people have accepted the idea that the Iraq war is a
rescue of the Iraqi people and a safeguarding of neighboring countries. Actually, the war
threatens the safety and wellbeing of the Iraqi people”

So as a practical matter, who is protected by Progressive Foreign policy? The Terrorists,

the Countries that Harbor them, and the countries that have political or financial
agreements with those countries. It does nothing to protect United States citizens or the
victims of despots. In truth, the only thing the Progressives are really interested in
Protecting is their own illusion of Moral Purity. Progressives routinely protect this
illusion by opposing all actions that might be perceived as having a non-altruistic motive.

Dr. Lakoff believes “The reason for the resentment against the United States, both in
Europe and elsewhere, stemmed from a widespread perception that American interests
really lay behind the invasion of Iraq.” “Millions of people around the world can see that
the metaphors and fairy tales don’t fit the current situation… the lack of a credible link
between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, no WMDs found”

Progressives tend to only support the U.S. where there is no obvious benefit or self-
interest and actions appear to be altruistic. Thankfully there were no Progressives running
the show in France during the revolutionary war (fought over a Tax on Tea, and in which
France dealt a blow to its rival superpower, England), or here in America during WWII
(and there was no “credible” Link between Germany and Japan either).

Progressive Foreign Policy requires a “view of ethical behavior that centers on empathy
and responsibility (for yourself and others needing your help). Many things follow from
these central principles: fairness, minimal violence (for example, justice without
vengeance), an ethic of care, protection of those needing it, a recognition of
interdependence, cooperation for the common good, the building of community, mutual
respect and so on…This of course, implies (1) multilateralism, (2) interdependence, and
(3) international cooperation.”

46
Progressives mainly support Multi-lateralism, inter-dependence and co-operation so that
the blame for any catastrophe can be safely placed on the group or part of the group, thus
providing an “out” that preserves the Moral Purity illusion. You can see this in effect
when they blame the United States for the genocide in Darfur or the U.N.s cowardice
when they left Iraq.

To further protect their moral purity, Progressives think they have a right to know
everything the government is doing. For example, the Rockridge site asserts : “Trust,
Honesty and Open Communication are required of an open government that respects its
citizens. Regular press conferences, public hearings, and open deliberations by
policymakers allow the people to communicate with their elected officials, and foster
trust."

Since there are no caveats to this, it also must follow that Progressives believe that the
Government should reveal information that puts our country or troops at risk, in order to
foster Trust and Open Communication with Citizens. A good example is demanding an
exit plan with dates for Iraq. Al-Qaeda would love a morale booster like a specific date
American Troops will leave. Progressives also feel they have a moral obligation to co-
operate with Evil by helping our enemies win the Public Opinion war, and want open
disclosure of unfortunate events in Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib to assist with that. What else
can be expected from people who empathize with the terrorists?

“Cooperation is a hallmark of healthy communities, where everyone in a community

works together to meet shared goals. Open communication requires cooperation and trust.
In foreign policy, cooperation is expressed in support for the United Nations, diplomacy,
and respect for international agreements and treaties. “

Dr. Lakoff seems to be a little unclear about what happens when members of the
community don’t share the same goals, but it is clear that Progressives believe the U.S.
should put its wealth and military resources under the control of an unaccountable,
“multilateral” organization, that may or may not have the best interests of the United
States (or even its continued survival) in mind. They also believe that a treaty signed by
enough nations becomes “International Law” that must be obeyed by the United States.

Contrastingly, “In foreign policy, a strict father nation would be giving up its sovereignty
and its moral authority if it has to ask permission to act in a way it judges to be moral.”
(Take back America) The “Strict Father” model “says that you cannot give up
sovereignty. The United States, being the best and most powerful country in the World –
a moral authority—knows the right thing to do. We should not be asking anybody else”
Conservatives believe that the American Principle of Representative Government means
that subservience to an unelected government is immoral and a violation of our Natural
and inalienable right of self-government . The United States is a Sovereign Country
whose leaders are delegated authority by an agreement with the people of the United
States called the Constitution, and whose leaders are unable to legitimately give up
sovereignty without breaking their compact with the people.

47
To progressives, “The role of the nation should be to promote cooperation and extend
these [progressive] values to the world.” - Rockridge website

“what is needed .. is a new kind of moral foreign policy, one that realizes that America
can only be a better America is the world is a better world. America must become a moral
leader using fundamental human values: caring and responsibility carried out with
strength to respond to the worlds problems”

“Caring and responsibility translate into caring about and acting responsibly for the
world’s people; world health, hunger, poverty, and ecology; population control (and the
best method, women’s education); and rights for women, children, prisoners, refugees
and ethnic minorities”

Progressives believe they should impose their morality and “solutions” on the rest of the
world via Foreign Policy, regardless of what the people in those Nations want. This is all
the more ironic, since imposing Nurturant Morality on the rest of the world, presupposes
those nations can not take care of themselves; they are metaphorical children.

This instead is an idea that Lakoff asserts belongs to the “Strict Father” model :in which
Nations attempt to maximize their self-interest. “By the further metaphor that Nations are
persons… there are adult nations and child nations, where adulthood is industrialization.
The child nations are called developing nations of “underdeveloped states”

In reality, these are terms that refer to the economic conditions in a country, and do not
imply Conservatives view them as child nations. To further his assertion Lakoff says that
Bush’s use of the words “Permission slip” was “Conservative Framing” because it “puts
you back in grammar school or High Schools, where you need a permission slip from an
adult to go to the bathroom. You do not need to ask for a permission slip if you are the
teacher, if you are the principal, if you’re the person in power, the moral authority. The
others should be asking you for permission. That is what the permission slip phrase in the
2004 State of the Union Address was about… What Bush did was evoke the adult-child
metaphor for other Nations. He Said, “We’re the Adult””

Only a progressive would take the next step and assume that meant that everyone else is a
child. If anything Bush was arguing from the Progressive frame in which anyone not
displaying “Nurturant Morality’ is a child, and was therefore required to assert that the
United States wasn't one. Conservatives instead believe that the people of other Nations,
like other citizens, should be allowed to find their own paths, their own solutions, and
therefore support the spread of Democracy and oppose tyrants and despots.

48
 Chapter 9: Big Brother

Dr. Lakoff states “The conservatives have figured out their own values, principles, and
directions, and have gotten them out in the public mind so effectively over the past thirty
years that they can evoke them all with a ten-word philosophy: Strong Defense, Free
markets, Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, Family Values. We progressives have a
different ten-word philosophy, but it won’t be as meaningful yet because it will take us a
while to get our values, principles, and directions out there. My nomination for our ten-
word philosophy versus theirs is the following: Stronger America, Broad Prosperity,
Better Future, Effective Government, and Mutual Responsibility. ”

“A Stronger America is not just about defense, but about every dimension of strength,
our effectiveness in the world, our economy, our educational system, our health care
system, our families, our communities, our environment and so forth”

By his own description, Dr. Lakoff admits A “Stronger America” in effect means a
more powerful centralized government that regulates all aspects of American life
including the types of communities and families we may live in.

Dr. Lakoff says “Broad Prosperity is the effect that markets are supposed to bring about.
But all markets are constructed for someone’s benefit; no markets are completely free.
Markets should be constructed for the Broadest possible prosperity, and they haven’t
been.”

Thus Dr. Lakoff proposes interjecting 3rd party decision making into our economic
system, allowing Progressives to define who should benefit. Thus, Broad Prosperity
means interposing government control between the buyer and seller (the old
beneficiaries) in order meet Progressive ideals of what Prosperity should be (typically
everyone having equal wealth and opportunities)

“Americans want and deserve a better future – economically, educationally,

environmentally, and in all other areas of life—for themselves and for their children.
Lowering Taxes, primarily for the super rich elite, has had the effect of defunding
programs that would make the future better in all of these areas. The proper goal is a
better future for all Americans”.

Therefore a “Better Future” means Higher Taxes and new Government programs to
cover “all areas of life” Progressives would like to make “better”

“Smaller government is, in conservative propaganda, supposed to eliminate waste. It is

really about eliminating social programs. Effective Government is what we need our
government to accomplish to create a better future”

Progressives have never been interested in the actual effectiveness for their programs—
the War on Poverty, whose stated goal was to reduce dependence on the Government, in

49
fact increased it. Affirmative action increases inter-race hostility and results in higher
failure rates of black students. Dr. Lakoff never refutes this point, or indeed ever
discusses the actual benefits of such programs in empirical terms. However, if one looks
carefully at Progressive Policies and programs there is one attribute they all have in
common: Creating and promoting Dependency and an expectation of entitlement from
the Government:

 Welfare and other Social Programs prevent provide an incentive to be dependant

upon the government, rather than their own abilities.
 Progressives support policies that weaken Marriage and increase the number of
Single Mothers forced onto welfare
 Progressive support for Universal health Care will undercut free enterpirse
medicine and force the entire nation to be dependant upon the Government for
Healthcare
 Progressive support for massive government research programs make researchers
and Higher Learning institutions dependant upon the government (Which
pressures them to preach Progressive Propaganda)
 Progressive Environmental laws increase the cost of energy and housing, forcing
more people into Welfare and government dependence
 Progressives promise support for Affirmative Action because it makes certain
populations dependant on the government to provide certain opportunities via
quotas in jobs and education
 Progressives support expanding the public school system and other government
agencies because these employees become dependant upon the government for
their living
 Progressive support for massive foreign aid is an attempt to make foreign nations
dependant upon the U.S. Government Progressives support higher safety
standards, and living wage benefits to make it harder for businesses to employ
workers, and thus increase the number of people on welfare. .

It is obvious there is only one thing these policies are effective at, and this is the real
strategic goal of the Progressive movement. “Effective Government” means making
more people dependant upon the Government. The party that supports government
dependence, in effect can buy votes with public funds by promising the continuation or
increase of those benefits. Were it not for this payout, the Democrats would receive few
votes at all.

Dr. Lakoff asserts: “Conservative Family values are those of a strict father—
authoritarian, hierarchical, every man for himself, based around discipline and
punishment. Progressives live by the best values of both families and communities:
mutual responsibility , which is authoritative, equal two-way, and based around caring,
responsibility (both individual and social) and strength”

Therefore, Mutual responsibility refers to an arrangement where each individual has

equal authority over everyone else (children excepted of course) that can be applied in
any direction and at any time. Equal authority in effect is only Personal Authority,

50
without any sort of external standard and no external authority. Somehow Lakoff seems
to believe Millions of autonomous individuals following “nurturant” morality will arrive
at a set of compatible moral standards. However, without a higher authority, there can be
no accountability to others. Even if some general standard is arrived at, someone
breaking the general standard can do so by their claim to individual authority, and expect
others to simply abide by it, regardless of the effects. Standards are just suggestions if no
one abides by them and they can’t be enforced. Thus “Mutual Responsibility” really
means a lack of universal moral standards and therefore a resultant lack of accountability
for those in authority and a lack of responsibility for those they care for (the children- or
any adult that “needs help” in their eyes) A good example of this principle in action is the
Public School System – According to Dr. Lakoff, the teachers are not accountable for
their performance as educators, and the students are not responsible for their failure to
learn.

Dr. Lakoff says “Hypo-cognition [is] the lack of ideas you need, the lack of a relatively
simple fixed frame that can be evoked in a word or two…Progressives are suffering from
massive hypo-cognition.” In fact, the opposite it true, and the Progressive ideas and
frames Lakoff is discussing have been around a long time. The problem is really that
Progressives and the public don’t like the sound of the short phrases that actually evoke
the Progressive Ideas being discussed: The real philosophy proposed by Dr. Lakoff can
be summed up as: Totalitarianism, Socialism, Higher Taxes, Welfare State, and
Moral Anarchy. All of these are concepts which are widely understood, and also widely
rejected by Americans. Contrary to Dr. Lakoff’s thesis, Democrats do not loose elections
because they suffer from Hypo-cognition, or that “nurturant” frames aren’t commonly
used or understood. They loose because it is understood all too well what the
consequences of those frames are from empirical experience. This isn’t to say that
Progressives don’t suffer from Hypo-Cognition in other areas. There are fundamental
concepts that they lack, or find so abhorrent that they refuse to think about them:

1) Progressives don’t have the concept of a common objective reality. They are unwilling
to investigate the incentives and effects of their own policies over time, or measure the
effectiveness of a policy against its publicly stated goals. This is due to an unconscious
tendency to value emotion over reason, and their own personal feelings of moral
superiority over the real world results of their actions. Instead they tend to think that
there is no empirical truth and everything is a matter of opinion. This leads naturally to
multiculturalism and moral relativism because no one set of ideas or opinions can be
more valid than anyone else’s (unless that person is an “evil” believer in strict-father
morality)
2) Progressives don’t have the concept of a Trade-off. They believe all of their policies
and moral principles operate in isolation and do not interact. (Say Environmental
Protection vs. Affordable housing or Fuel for the poor, Or a “living Wage” vs.
unemployment) Consequently, Dr Lakoff ascribes many Conservative beliefs and
positions to a moral imperative or absolute when they in fact they are derived from a
practical consideration of the trade-offs imposed by real world constraints.

51
3) Progressives don’t have the concept of individual freedom or understand that such
freedom leads to variances (in intelligence, athletic ability, work ethic, etc) This is why
they expect equal results for any given group of people, even when each individual is
allowed to decide their own moral code. The Progressive concept of Freedom is the
ability to make the world conform to their internal picture of how it should be, rather than
dealing with the empirical reality of what it is, and what is actually possible.

4) Progressives don’t have the concept of limited human capability or knowledge.

Consequently they believe that wars can be planned from start to finish, they can judge
and smooth out inequities of birth and coincidence , and that all risks engendered by
individual decisions (saving for retirement, unemployment or health care, smoking,
riding without a helmet, etc) must be overridden with their superior decisions and God-
like knowledge.

Dr. Lakoff’s approach to voicing Progressives issues via Framing may fool the
inattentive , but will not succeed in occluding the real issues or in pre-empting discussion
of them. Dr Lakoff is really only proposing the use of framing to initiate a Goebbels -like
program of propaganda, using Orwellian New Speak to hide the true meaning of the
agenda proposed. The Hypo-Cognitive areas defined above will prevent Progressives
from realizing their mistake in using this approach. In effect, Dr. Lakoff is proposing that
victory can only be achieved by deliberately hiding the facts and real effects of their
agenda behind redefined words, and this should clearly demonstrate how intellectually
bankrupt the Democratic Party has become. The repackaging of old ideas so that they
appear new will not result in their renewed acceptance. A Bitter pill is still bitter no
matter how much sugar you coat it with. The American people will continue to reject
any platform that calls for a Big Brother to come and watch over them, especially when
the actions of that Big Brother will be in the control of a few self-appointed, self-
important intellectual elites who feel they alone have the ability to guide the Society and
mold it into a paradise of their own imagining.

Sources:
Presentation "Take Back America "
Article in American Prospect called "Framing the Dems",
Metaphor, Morality, and Politics Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust
Don’t Think of an Elephant

52