The Specific Positions that U.S. Political Parties Take on Contentious Issues Lack Ideological Coherence

Many years ago, I read Moral Politics (1996), in which George Lakoff tried to make sense to the two baskets of positions taken by the two political parties. He was intrigued by the idea that Republicans strongly cling to positions that didn't seem to have any coherent underlying value. What does a strong Second Amendment position have to do with being anti-abortion? What does willingness to through one's weight around in the world using the military have to do with Prayer in Schools, cutting welfare assistance or attempting to limit jury awards on tort cases? Then Lakoff realized that he, a self-proclaimed liberal, took the opposite position on all of those issues. In short, he had his own basket of seemingly unconnected issues. But, he thought, there must be an underlying basis for these two opposing collections of issue-positions. When I read his book, I wondered the same thing.

Lakoff concluded that there, indeed, were separate foundations for the Liberal and Conservative mindsets. He called these the "Strict Father Model" and the "Nurturant Parent Model." See pp 33-35. Lakoff claims that at the center of the conservative worldview is the Strict Father Model.

This model posits a traditional nuclear family, with the father having primary responsibility for supporting and protecting the family as well as the authority to set overall policy, to set strict rules for the behavior of children, and to enforce the rules. The mother has the day-to-day responsibility for the care of the house, raising the children, and upholding the father’s authority. Children must respect and obey their parents; by doing so they build character, that is, self-discipline and self-reliance. Love and nurturance are, of course, a vital part of family life but can never outweigh parental authority, which is itself an expression of love and nurturance—tough love. Self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority are the crucial things that children must learn.

Once children are mature, they are on their own and must depend on their acquired self-discipline to survive. Their self-reliance gives them authority over their own destinies, and parents are not to meddle in their lives.

According to Lakoff, the liberal worldview centers on a very different ideal of family life, what he calls the Nurturant Parent model:

Love, empathy, and nurturance are primary, and children become responsible, self-disciplined and self-reliant through being cared for, respected, and caring for others, both in their family and in their community. Support and protection are part of nurturance, and they require strength and courage on the part of parents. The obedience of children comes out of their love and respect for their parents and their community, not out of the fear of punishment. Good communication is crucial. If their authority is to be legitimate, parents must explain why their decisions serve the cause of protection and nurturance. Questioning by children is seen as positive, since children need to learn why their parents do what they do and since children often have good ideas that should be taken seriously. Ultimately, of course, responsible parents have to make the decisions, and that must be clear.

The principal goal of nurturance is for children to be fulfilled and happy in their lives. A fulfilling life is assumed to be, in significant part, a nurturant life; one committed to family and community responsibility. What children need to learn most is empathy for others, the capacity for nurturance, and the maintenance of social ties, which cannot be done without the strength, respect, self-discipline, and self-reliance that comes through being cared for. Raising a child to be fulfilled also requires helping that child develop his or her potential for achievement and enjoyment. Th it requires respecting the child’s own values and allowing the child to explore the range of ideas and options that the world offers.

Lakoff contrasted these two models in a way that would intuitively sound correct to many people who traditionally vote for Democrats:

Strict Father morality assigns highest priorities to such things as moral strength (the self-control and self-discipline to stand up to external and internal evils), respect for and obedience to authority, the setting and following of strict guidelines and behavioral norms, and so on. Moral self-interest says that if everyone is free to pursue their self-interest, the overall self-interests of all will be maximized. In conservatism, the pursuit of self-interest is seen as a way of using self-discipline to achieve self-reliance.

Nurturant Parent morality has a different set of priorities. Moral nurturance requires empathy for others and the helping of those who need help. To help others, one must take care of oneself and nurture social ties. And one must be happy and fulfilled in oneself, or one will have little empathy for others. The moral pursuit of self-interest only makes sense within these priorities.

There's a big problem with Lakoff's analysis. From 1996 to the present, those who identify as "liberals" have dramatically flipped their positions on censorship, warmongering, race consciousness, trust in the U.S. security state. Did these issues become more "nurturing?" It's impossible to account for these 180 degree turns using a Strict Parent/Nurturant Parent analysis. Over time, conservatives have also turned themselves into pretzels, as discussed in a new book, The Myth of Left and Right, by brothers Hyrum and Verlan Lewis (2023). When they voted for Trump in large numbers, Republicans decided that the type of morality they had strongly touted for decades was no longer important.

Self-identified conservatives and liberals have also recently switched places on the importance of personal morality in public officials. During the Clinton years, conservatives were nearly unanimous in believing that the personal char acter of a politician was crucial to his or her performance in office - it was one of their central justifications for impeaching President Clinton- but as soon as Trump assumed leadership of the right, conservatives reversed course. Before Trump, only 36% of Republicans believed that "public officials can behave ethically in their professional roles even if they acted immorally in their personal life," but after Trump's nomination, that number shot up to 70%.54 More recently, Gallup found that: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe Specific Positions that U.S. Political Parties Take on Contentious Issues Lack Ideological Coherence

Matt Taibbi on the State of the Campaigns

Matt Taibbi has eyes and ears that work, unlike the so-called journalists of corporate media organizations. An excerpt:

[T]he campaign is pure chaos, Pompeii after the blast. In the annals of presidential races we haven’t experienced many days like yesterday, July 31, which ended with the futures of all major candidates appearing hopelessly clouded. Forget the national debt; there are now not-improbable scenarios in which the main issues in next year’s debates, which could easily involve both nominees in ankle monitors, are nuclear fallout and alien visitation. Our leaders, who once had the election process reduced to scripts more predictable than Everybody Loves Raymond, now seem to have no clue what will happen beyond the next few minutes.

If not for the fact that the disintegration of American society might be imminent as a result, I’d be laughing harder. It might be funny anyway. Consider: the establishment plan for the Republican Party this cycle was clearly Ron DeSantis, but a New York Times/Siena poll published yesterday shows he’s plunging like a stone, falling to 17%, a.k.a. 37 points behind Donald Trump...

Incumbent Joe Biden not only has the lowest approval rating in history — he “shouldn’t” be this unpopular “but he is,” mused a mortified Washington Post — but as of Monday, when his son’s former partner Devon Archer testified in Congress, he appeared to be careening toward withdrawal due to impairment, scandal, or both. [P]apers like the New York Times and Washington Post . . . are suddenly filled with baleful criticisms of Biden, appearing to notice flaws for the first time. Pamela Paul in the Times compared her dread feelings about a Biden-Trump rematch to Lars Von Trier’s film, Melancholia, whose premise is an inexorable collision of a rogue planet with Earth.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi on the State of the Campaigns

Whence “Liberals”?

I abhor Donald Trump. I canvassed for Bernie Sanders. I considered myself to be "liberal" until what seems to be the majority of liberals who I know turned pro-censorship, war-friendly, trusting of the FBI & CIA, abandoning the working class in most things except rhetoric, willing to applaud authoritarian measures during COVID & clueless that they were being played by the corporate media on numerous major issues including Russiagate. The majority of these people wouldn't recognize themselves if they time-traveled to meet themselves from ten years ago. For several years I have considered myself to be politically homeless.

Continue ReadingWhence “Liberals”?

Left-Leaning Corporate Media Tries to be Respectful of the Need for Joe and Hunter Biden to Have some Together Time Shaking Down Chinese Businessman

The New York Post reports:

The IRS Whistle-Blower disclose a disturbing Hunter Biden text message shakedown:

"[IRS whistle-blower] Shapley, who sat for a six-hour deposition with the committee on May 26, took over the Hunter Biden case in January 2020 and said that investigators had turned up fresh evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement in his family’s overseas income.

That included eye-popping communications from Hunter Biden’s iCloud account, Shapley said, citing a message that directly implicated the president in an attempt to coerce money from a Chinese businessman.

“[W]e obtained a July 30th, 2017, WhatsApp message from Hunter Biden to Henry Zhao, where Hunter Biden wrote: ‘I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father,'” Shapley recounted.

“We couldn’t believe that we saw that,” the second whistleblower told the committee. “That was more indication that the dad might have been involved.”"

--

Who is refusing to discuss this disclosure? NYT, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post and NPR (as of June 24 at noon, CT).

--

Meanwhile, at today's WH Presser, KJP is twisting in the wind, as this video demonstrates at length:

Glenn Greenwald breaks down the story in detail, including the blatant corporate media complicity, at System Update, "Media Silent as IRS Whistleblowers Expose Blatant Biden Family Corruption."

These developments must be terrifying for DNC operatives. Biden is borderline senile and not competent to have conversations without teleprompters. He is so inept that the DNC will not allow Joe Biden to engage in a primary debates, including with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (currently have the support of 20% of Democrats) or Marianne Williamson (currently having the support of 8% of Democrats). Recent results here.

Further complicating things is that there is no Plan B to Joe Biden, given the repeatedly-demonstrated incompetence of Kamala Harris. The DNC won't deny Harris the chance to run for President because they simply would not be able to bear the resulting inevitable charges that they are racist. That's what happens when a corrupt political party decides to pick a VP purely based on optics rather than competence.

Continue ReadingLeft-Leaning Corporate Media Tries to be Respectful of the Need for Joe and Hunter Biden to Have some Together Time Shaking Down Chinese Businessman

WaPo’s Concocted Reasons for Fighting Wars That do not Benefit Ordinary Americans

At the Washington Post, Marc Thiessen recently authored "This is the ‘America First’ case for supporting Ukraine." I strenuously disagree with his "facts" and reasoning throughout, but his final five "reasons" are especially bizarre. None of these five reasons justifies U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war. Most glaringly, none of these reasons consider a meaningful cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of ordinary Americans. Further, his "reasons" lead to the bizarre conclusion that the U.S. should instigate and prolong numerous unjust wars that fail to serve the interests of ordinary Americans, a major issue conspicuously ignored by Thiessen. Here are his "reasons" (6-10) for continuing with our warmongering 6-10:

6. "A proving ground for new weapons."

This is a valid reason for indiscriminately going to war!  Yes, indeed.

7. "Arming Ukraine is revitalizing our defense industrial base."

Yes, we need to make sure that weapons manufacturers can afford to pay big salaries to management and to their lobbyists.

8. "The Russian invasion has strengthened U.S. alliances."

Not true if you poll people outside of the readership of U.S. corporate media. And if only there were other better ways to strengthen U.S. alliances other than killing people and blowing up their cities . . .

Further, consider attitudes of people outside of Western countries:

Almost a year after Russia’s war against Ukraine started, it has united the west, according to a 15-country survey – but exposed a widening gulf with the rest of the world that is defining the contours of a future global order.

The study, by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) thinktank, surveyed opinions in nine EU member states, including France, Germany and Poland, and in Britain and the US, as well as China, Russia, India and Turkey.

It revealed sharp geographical differences in attitudes to the war, democracy and the global balance of power, the authors said, suggesting Russia’s aggression may be a historic turning point marking the emergence of a “post-western” world order.

“The paradox of the Ukraine war is that the west is both more united, and less influential in the world, than ever before,” said Mark Leonard, the thinktank’s director and a co-author of the report, based on polling carried out last month.

Timothy Garton Ash, a professor of European studies at Oxford University, who also worked on the study, called the findings “extremely sobering”.

Consider this graph, which strongly clashes with the prevailing narrative of U.S. elites:

9. "Victory helps prevent nuclear proliferation."

Do you know what else would prevent future nuclear proliferation? Starting a nuclear war. As Joe Biden admitted on October 6, 2022:

In remarks at a reception for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Biden said it was the first time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis that there has been a "direct threat" of nuclear weapons’ being used, "if, in fact, things continue down the path they are going.”

“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” he said, offering his bluntest comments about the use of nuclear weapons since Russia invaded Ukraine in February.

Biden admitted that he engaged in this stunningly reckless behavior months before recent days, when  decided to send Abrams tanks and F16's to Ukraine. What could possibly go wrong with this?

10. "Victory in Ukraine is achievable."

Didn't we hear this same claim, year after year, in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? Thiessen presents no factual basis for believing that this specious claim is any more true in the case of Ukraine.

It seems that Thiessen's article was penned by a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex, but it seems like Thiessen would not be the kind of person who would be so incredibly unreflective. For instance, Thiessen wrote candidly about the Durham Report--the headline is "The Durham report is a damning indictment of the FBI — and the media."  I would now suggest that he soul-search Hillary Clinton campaign's lies about Russian collusion with Trump, something she did to enhance her personal political ambitions. What is the connection to Ukraine? I suggest this. There is a hatred of Russia simmering under the lack of a meaningful national discussion regarding the Ukraine War. That poisoning, I suspect, motivates unreflective articles of the sort Thiessen has just written about the Ukraine war.

For more on the many ways that the Ukraine War fails to serve the interests of ordinary Americans, see this episode of Glenn Greenwald's System Update: Does Endless Spending in Ukraine Cause Deprivations at Home?

Continue ReadingWaPo’s Concocted Reasons for Fighting Wars That do not Benefit Ordinary Americans