Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think

• #22 in Best Politics Books

75 Reviews

Sort by: Most Helpful ▲ Date Rating

Political positions are usually cast as being either "liberal" or "conservative." But what is the basis of liberalism or conservatism? How is it that conservatives, disapproving of big government, can support rolling up large deficits or extending "welfare" to corporations. Where is the logic? According to the author, the explanation lies in morality. What best explains the politics of conservatives and liberals is their fundamentally different moral worldviews. Those views are grounded in models of family morality.

The "Strict Father" model of family morality that conservatives subscribe to is based on the hierarchical authority of the father who sets and enforces rules of behavior. Children are expected to learn self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for legitimate authority. Obedience is emphasized; questioning of authority is little tolerated. Governmental social programs are seen by conservatives as rewarding a lack of self-discipline, of failing to becoming self-reliant. However, spending for the preservation of the moral order, for protection of the "nation as family," whether it is for defense or for building more prisons, is morally required.

Liberals, on the other hand, subscribe to a "Nurturant Parent" model. Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for, respected, and, in turn, caring for others. Open communications is emphasized; even the questioning of authority by children is seen as positive. Desired behavior is not obtained through punishment. Empathy and a regard for fair treatment are priorities in this model. Social programs are seen by liberals as helping both individuals and the greater society. The maintenance of fairness is a priority for government.

Particularly instructive is the role that competition plays in these models. For conservatives, competition is essential to determine who is moral, that is, who is sufficiently self-disciplined to be successful. Understandably the prototypical conservatives are businessmen who have succeeded in the competitive marketplace. They are at the head of a hierarchical moral order, of a "meritocracy of the self-disciplined." Interestingly, governmental largesse for economic elites is viewed as deserved, unlike assistance for the poor.

But liberals view fierce competition as bringing out aggressive behavior that is hardly consistent with a desirable nurturant personality. Liberals would also contend that there are class and social forces that are essentially inescapable by those on the lowest rungs of society. The ubiquity of the conservative "Ladder of Opportunity" is largely a convenient myth.

The author explains the liberal and conservative position on any number of contemporary issues, from taxation and gun control to the environment and abortion. Invariably, conservatives take a Strict Father moral position and liberals use the morality of the Nurturant Parent.

The book lacks any real historical or geographical perspective on these two models. Although the Strict Father model may seem close to traditional morality, the author does not identify at what point in our history these models clearly emerged, or why. Or have there been changes in these moral models over time, either in basic tenets or in who subscribes to them? Furthermore, what are their connections with such 19th century political philosophies as republicanism or producerism, or for that matter, democracy? Are these models unique to the United States? Why is social democracy so prevalent in Western Europe? Is there little Strict Father morality there? In slightly hedging his message, the author does note that individuals can use different moral systems in different spheres of life, in addition to acting pragmatically within a moral model.

The author complains that the "issue" orientation of news organizations, as well as claims to "objectivity," can be misleading because of unconscious moral system slant. But beyond that point, the author has nothing to say about the influence of the vast oligopolistic media empire. He does note the rise of conservative think tanks and their ability to influence public debate. Have these developments impacted adherence to the Strict Father moral model?

It should be said that the author is not neutral concerning the soundness of these two moral models. He cites considerable evidence that Strict Father childrearing has unintended consequences. Moral strength is often not the outcome and violent behavior seems to be reproduced. In addition, Strict Father morality countenances little in the way of subtle interpretations of morality, which the author points out is not particularly consistent with the way we actually think.

The book is rather lengthy with considerable redundancy in describing these two moral models. The author should have provided historical and philosophical context. His models do seem to comport with political behavior despite the fact that much of that influence may act unconsciously. I think the book would be interesting for those trying to understand political behavior.

I found this book very enlightening, but also a bit depressing.

I now understand exactly why it is pointless (as a liberal) to argue with conservatives about issues such as the deficit or corporate welfare, or about what I perceive as other inconsistencies within their own beliefs. Lakoff argues quite convincingly that our political views (liberal and conservative) are based not on some objective evaluation of the opposing sides of various issues, but on deeply internalized feelings about the rightness of one's "worldview." Once I understood his argument, a great many things started to make sense to me that had never made sense before. I was never comfortable with characterizing all conservatives as "stupid" or "selfish," but now I understand why, while they are not necessarily stupid or selfish, I can never, ever agree with them!

His prescription for liberals to "reframe" the issues by reclaiming the language of morality from conservatives is intriguing, but his two examples at the end of the book ("The Two-Tier Economy" and "The Ecology of Energy..."), while powerful and convincing to a liberal like myself, would, I think just elicit the usual eye-rolling from conservatives - but maybe that's not the point. I just wish he had devoted even more of the book to specific recommendations like these, instead of confining them to the Afterword.

On the whole, I would highly recommend this book. It expanded my thinking in a way that I did not expect, and that I believe will prove useful in staying sane during the coming election.

People writing these reviews don't seem to understand important aspects of what he is saying, both for and against the book.

Logic does not rule most of our political life, but rather our 'common sense' does. Lakoff works to identify the source of this common sense and why it produces such different results, one associated with liberals and one associated with conservatives.

The common sense comes from metaphorical comparison, where comparison with a family structure are used. Using such a metaphor comparison does not mean that people think the government should play the role for their parent. It does not mean people consciously choose a strict patriarch or nurturing parent. Actually people will likely switch between these models at times.

I suspect its a mistake to say decisions about government morality are delegated by metaphor to decisions about family morality. But rather both family morality and government morality delegate to some more abstract model which is common to families and nations. But the comparison is still useful, the abstract set of beliefs that produces the nurturing parent or strict patriarch family model will correspondingly produce the liberal or conservative sense of morality.

Its really hard to isolate personal opinions from this sort of work. Conservatives should not feel bad about being associated with the strict patriarch model. Such a model is not cruel- it produces stronger, more self-sufficient individuals. Of course the government should not occupy itself social handouts because then people do not learn to take care of themselves. A strict patriarch takes care of their children by ensuring they've learned to be independent.

These models aren't consciously used by individuals to make their decisions, but the models can be used to make sense of the other political position- which is something we all often struggle to do. In political discourse we act like all decisions are made through a careful series of logical inferences, and act shocked when others come to different conclusions with the same facts. But rather, Lakoff shows how metaphor plays an active role in value judgements. The family unit is often used as a metaphor, and that different senses about the family unit cause people to draw different political opinions while using the same metaphor.

Lakoff is a well-known cognitive scientist who has made some important contributions to that field. He has extended the linguistic research of Noam Chomsky beyond where even Chomsky thought it could go. Lakoff has shown how our neurological structure determines how we think and use language.

And like Chomsky, Lakoff thinks that he has something worth saying when it comes to politics. Again, like Chomsky, Lakoff is a man of the moonbat left, who thinks that politics is a grand Manichaean struggle, or perhaps a battle between the "more evolved" and the "less evolved": Cro Magnon vs. Neanderthal. There is a ring of truth and historical inevitability behind every conclusion. Religiosity without religion.

But, this isn't even the worst part of the book. Lakoff frames the difference between the left and the right as a choice between a feminine, "nurturant", well-meaning totalitarianism and that of a masculine, "strict", uncaring totalitarianism. Sounds like an unattractive choice, eh? I'd say that most people would choose the former, if these were the only choices.

But, the very idea of government-as-parent, known as paternalism or maternalism, is a pathology. As adults capable of governing ourselves, why should we need parents or minders?

The fatherly totalitarianism Lakoff imagines as "conservative" bears no relation to conservative philosophy. Modern American conservatism is classical liberalism with a dash of Edmund Burke.

Burke said that we should "conserve the forms", meaning that we should honor and conserve the institutions (community, church, family, etc) that make us a society. This is meant as a hedge against the radicalism of classical liberalism, which seeks to free all people from the shackles of feudalism and feudalistic thinking. Conservatism is a philosophy of liberty within a moral framework. Burke said, "when we forget the laws of the heart, the laws go on the books". Unfortunately, this is true, just look at our history for confirmation.

Lakoff's description of motherly totalitarianism paints hardcore socialism in a very favorable light. I do not doubt for a moment that Lakoff, like others on the left, is earnest and honorable. But the excesses of that philosophy resulted in the slaughter of 80-100 million people in the 20th century. The motherly face put on socialist totalitarianism, whether the Year Zero of Pol Pot or the enforced famines of Stalin, does not excuse its vices or its unintended consequences.

Conservatives explicitly reject the idea of utopia, no matter how attractive it is. They spend a lot of time worrying about unintended consequences. They aren't in search of a mommy or a daddy. They want government to help them as citizens. And they believe that the way a government helps a free people is by staying small.

If people want government to be their parent, they are in dire need of help, and would do us all a favor by staying away from the voting booth.

Since you've read this far, I assume you have an open mind. I don't wish to "convert" anyone to conservatism. But do yourself a favor and move beyond the rhetoric that we hear on political talk shows, blogs, newspapers, etc. Think about the source of your ideas: what is the pedigree of your ideas? What do you stand for, and why?

If you are really interested in answering these questions, then you will avoid the bestseller list tripe, whether Franken or Moore, Coulter or Hannity. Read the classics. Know what Burke and Nietzsche and Marx and Locke and Montesquieu really said. Don't let anyone interpret them for you.

Try "Confessions of a Bohemian Tory", by Russell Kirk, or "Anarchy, State, Utopia" by Robert Nozick, or "Modernity on Endless Trial", by Leszek Kolakowski. You'll be glad you did. You don't have to agree with them.

George Lakoff has done some important work in the cognitive sciences, the dominant psychological paradigm, which contends, unlike earlier behaviorist thought, that the brain does not merely respond to phenomena in a simple stimulus-response reaction, but rather processes information, adding form and context before outputting a response.

Lakoff posits first that we often think of our country as a family, secondly that conservatives think of the ideal family as one with a Strong Father (stressing authority and obedience) and that liberals think of the ideal family as having Nurturant Parents (stressing communication and self-reliance), and contends furthermore that people extend these attitudes about family and government to their political philosophy. He goes on to explain and predict liberal and conservative thinking, sometimes even contradictory thinking, on the death penalty, corporate welfare, conservation, abortion, gun control, fiscal responsibility, minority rights and other contemporary issues.

Lakoff writes clearly and makes coherent points. I thought this was an interesting and predictive way of discussing current political differences. A self-declared liberal who nevertheless maintains a reasonably objective authorial stance, Lakoff advises liberals to couch their political arguments in the same moral terms that conservatives have been using successfully for years. Liberals are neither immoral nor amoral, as often depicted by Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich and other extremist conservative; they need to make that known and enter the political discussion on those terms.

The author goes on to analyse the social utility of the two approaches to family and cites research showing that, contrary to conservative prediction, children who are raised with physical punishment in a highly authoritarian home often grow up with little external motivation or control, and consider violence an acceptable alternative to negotiation.

This is a thought-provoking book for those interested in the application of cognitive science to social thought, or rationalists interested in politics.

Here's why "Moral Politics" first interested me personally. As Bush and his neo-cons were telling their lies about WMD in Iraq to propagandize the nation and lead it toward an unnecessary and even detrimental war against a country that neither attacked us nor was a threat to us, I tried an experiment. I was on a list of highschool classmates and had started receiving rightwing email broadcasted by several of them. It seemed that one of them had become neo-con but most had gone over to the religious right (I grew up in eastern Kentucky, part of the Bible Belt). My experiment was to concentrate on three of my former classmates and try to shake their confidence in their illusions via reason. The experiment failed. I tried the same experiment on a close friend, a very Catholic and very intelligent mathematician married to a very Catholic philosopher. Over the years, this friend had used the word 'liberal' disparagingly in our presence several times. Again, the experiment failed. Lakoff's book discusses why my uncontrolled experiments, performed on two entirely different socio-intellectual classes, failed miserably.

"Conservatives have understood very well that their goals are not just political and economic. Conservatives want to change American culture itself. They want to change the idea of what counts as a good person and what the world should be like .... ."

"Moral Politics", pg. 222

In negative reaction to civil rights gains by Blacks and women, and also in reaction to the Vietnam War protests, conservatives over the last forty years have organized themselves extremely well (starting with the creation of 'Christian schools' in the south) and have managed systematically and successfully to define what's important in American politics. According to Lakoff's book, this organization begins in the homes, symbolized by the nurturing methods Dr. Spock vs. the striving for obedience by James Dobson in child rearing.

The battle between liberal and conservative sides is portrayed by Lakoff as belief in 'innocence of young children' (leading to nurturing) vs. belief in 'original sin' (leading to corporal punishment).Lakoff's main point is that rightwing conservatives believe implicity in the notion of a strict patriarchy held in place by threats and punishment. E.g., rightwing ideologues like Dobson teach adherence to a strict patriarchial hierarchy, so that feedback and error correction (certainly necessary for biological survival at the DNA and cellular leval) are completely eliminated. The hierarchy with lack of error correction explains why Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney were able lead the nation into war by lying about 'WMD' in 2003. Lakoff emphassizes that self-righteous people listen only to themselves and judge themselves by their own set of 'moral standards'. This is why Europe was and still is impotent in trying to chllenge the words about (nonexistent!) WMD coming out of Washington.


Lakoff points out that the strict patriarch punishes his kids for disobedience, just as Bush the Partiarch punished Sadam Hussein for disobedience. For neo-conservatives, also discussed in the book, the rest of the world consists of disobedient children who must be taught a lesson by their Father in Washington. As a link, the very popular 1987 book "The Closing of the American Mind" was written by an neo-conservative, Alan Bloom. Bloom was a particularly successful with his readership because he hid his ideology so successfully, he never made clear exactly what was his proposed program (I read and reread the book seven times trying to find out). His program, the neo-con program for America and the world, was put into effect by other neo-cons like Wolfowitz, who was Bloom's student. Bloom's connection with the notion of strict patriarchy is illustrated implicitly in his advice from Plato: censor books and music for the young so that they'll grow up to be obedient, not rebellious. Only an obedient child will willingly die for an arbitrary leader in an arbitrary war like the war in Iraq.

Lakoff discusses why the strict patriarchial hierarchy leads easily into free market extremism (eliminate all government programs, deregulate everything, including schools) and helps explain to liberals why, since Reagan, American conservatives have systematically adopted the policy of trying to bankrupt the U.S. government. Lakoff emphasizes the Calvinistic fear (now propagated by conservative Southern Baptist leaders) that financial success on earth signals approval by God, so that the wealthy, not the poor, are the favored ones, the 'elect' who are headed for heavenly reward.

On page 94, 'moral self interest' and Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' are connected, showing why conservatives in the U.S. have opted for free market extremism: deregulation and the abandonment of all government programs (excepting military ones). From the standpoint of the moral absolutism of the strict patriarchy, anything that smacks even slightly of socialism is seen by patriarchial conservatives as 'immoral'. That position is not empirically justified. In my new book "Dynamics of Markets" the myth of 'The Invisible Hand' (stability and equilibrium of free markets) is exploded empirically (financial markets are shown to be unstable and far from equilbrium, there is no 'Invisible Hand' in financial markets).

On page 113 Lakoff answers the question posed by Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine": why is American Society so violent? Lakoff traces the problem back to the peculiarity of the strict patriarchial model adopted by American conservatives, bringing in the element of Calvinism vs error correcting feedback. This explains why Canadians, who are also 'gun nuts', don't kill each other. Canada is a relatively socialistic country, more like the U.S. was BRTF (before Reagan-Thatcher-Friedman). Norwegians and Swiss also have guns at home, but don't kill each other.

Chapter 21, one of most interesting chapters, discusses the ideas of leading advocates of different methods of child rearing. The teachings of the very influential rightwinger James Dobson and other more extreme Fundamentalist Christians are presented. Their message: punish kids into obedience, by beating, if necessary. But consider Scandinavia as a counterexample. Scandinavia is a relatively crime free society, with little murder of Scandinavians by Scandinavians. Women are typically brought up as feminists (anathama to Dobson). In Scandinavia, a parent can go to jail for hitting a child, 'unwed mothers' are treated no differently than are other mothers, and I can tell you from years of personal experience that one can walk anywhere in Oslo at midnight or any other time without fear of attack. The spirit of freedom and democracy seems highest in Scandinavia, where people are active and healthy, and where there is universal health coverage and (because of governmental redistribution of money) no poverty.

The strict patriarchial hierarchy is misidentified (with no empirical evidence whatsover from biology) by conservatives as 'the natural order'. Extremist interpretations of the Bible and Koran are advocated by conservatives of different stripes worldwide, in spite of massive nonuniqueness in the face of infinitely many different possible interpretations. This is, in fact, why strict patriarchy is demanded by Fundamentalists in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity: educated and informed people who think for themselves will not obey any self-declared authority, especially not one who claims that he has a direct pipeline to God.

Now for some negative comments about the book. Lakoff repeats his main ideas far too often, maybe with the notion that the reader has to see hear the idea more than once in order to grasp it. I make the same mistake in my own writing, according to my wife, but this repetition makes the book less interesting that it would have been had it been properly edited. Second, there is absolutely is no evidence presented in the text that 'methods of cognitive psychology' (whatever they are) or any empirical method at all were used to arrive at the ideas presented in the text. I want to emphasize that, with any kind of mathematical or nonmathematical modelling, there is a terrible problem of nonuniqueness: empirical data can never pick out a single model, at best only some class of models.

Finally, I'm very grateful to Dr. Angelica Frias for giving me Lakoff's book, which should be read be every liberal in the U.S. and by every social democrat in Europe and beyond.

If you have not read this book, I will provide you reasons to want to do so shortly. If you have read this book and liked it, don't try to explain it in general terms to people who have not read it because to do so, I've found, seems to make people think, "Well, of course political ideas are based on personal values, what's so groundbreaking about that?" But that is exactly the point of this book.

What George Lakoff is trying to do is put into words how and what people just instictivly feel, but cannot describe. Hence, the essence of cognitive science, the study of the cognitive, not exactly conscious. His questions are not so much WHAT people value and feel, but WHY they do so, consciously or not.

Quick warning. George Lakoff is a liberal and so one would naturally think that this book is just a ruse for him to preach. But he does not, he maintains a competely scientific and unbiased approach until the conclusion of the book, where his "epilouge" of sorts offers his nonideological reasons for being a liberal. His accuracy is not tainted by bias and is dead on for 99% of the book, complete with massive amounts of endnotes, citations and nonpartisan analysis of studies and facts, thoroughly emcompassing every side of nearly forty years of linguistics and psychology.

In this book, Lakoff lays out the entire structure of the conservative and the liberal ideologies and explores the threads and values that connect those ideologies. He takes on questions like "Why do conservatives link gun control and taxes," or "Why do liberals link universal health care and the environment?" His ultimate answer is that they are connected by a set of values and metaphors that are part of the mental makeup of that person. He believes that the differences in opinion between conservatives and liberals stem from the fact that they hold different metaphorical concepts about the relationship between the state and its citizens and what makes a good person. Conservatives have a "strict father" approach where discipline is learned through respecting authority and enforced through strong emotional reaction or corporal punishment and therefore learn to be self-reliant and disciplined, strict citizens. Liberals have a "nurturant mother" approach, where the key to disciplining and raising a child (or a nation) effectively is to foster a sense of mutual respect through open-mindedness and active engagement that rewards independent thinking, and therefore learn to have empathy for others and not think about only themselves or what impacts them directly. So for Lakoff, the differences in how conservatives and liberals think is not just limited to interpretation of facts or policy results, but is much deeper than that.

This book truly shines in shedding light onto the larger issues of human thought. His point that he emphasizes repeatedly is that contrary to popular belief, people do not just vote for candidates or hold political beliefs based only on their best tangible interest. Both liberals and conservative vote their identity, not their quantifiable interests in all cases. This is why many low-income conservatives who are directly hurt by the Republican tax cuts vote Republican. It is because the party represents (or says they represent) their values and identity, so they overlook their own tangible self-interest. Another emphasized point is that every word invokes a reaction in people's minds, a frame as he calls it. He points out that people have different frames that frame their thoughts and ideas
within a context they have come to understand. This is why contrary to popular liberal thought, the facts alone will not set you free. Facts that support liberal ideology that don't fit into a conservative frame will simply bounce off because they are not put in ways that a conservative will respond to, and the facts lose their impact, regardless of their truth.

The book is an outstanding example of scholarly work and how a talented scientist can apply one discipline to benefit another, or more accurately, demonstrate how ALL disciplines can be connected by a set of values. The overall idea of the book sounds simple and obvious but as Lakoff shows, by the ways people respond to and articulate their values, it truly is anything but simple and present consciously in people's minds. Highest recommendation.

The first part of this book is a reasonable attempt by a professed liberal to try honestly to understand the conservative mind. Its depiction of conservatives is a bit harsh and stark, but the occasional unfair stereotype or subconscious smear is easy to overlook, and the analysis is by-and-large fair.

The final argument, where the author explains why he chooses liberalism, is quite shallow, however: it can be summarized as ~"I'm a liberal because conservatives beat their children"~. This really is silly beyond the pale, but does not invalidate the rest of the book.

Its characterization of liberal morality as an extension of liberal childrearing theory, I think quite unwittingly, fits conservative stereotypes of liberals to a "T". Any conservative reading here that liberals expect children to learn self-reliance and self-discipline by being loved, respected, and tolerated will have to chuckle in agreement: it's precisely this inversion of respect from parent to child rather than from child to parent that is at the root of the cultural divide. But a conservative will with assurance conclude that anyone who actually believes this stereotypically liberal childrearing theory has never actually raised a child!

The value of the book will be to help liberals realize that conservatives are not stupid or illogical, they just have utterly different views of right and wrong: different premises to moral thinking, different axioms, different postulates. And that will clarify the left-right divide.

This book will also help conservatives understand how liberals think of them. If trying to be fair, liberals will see conservatives as prioritizing virtue AS self-reliance and self-discipline. If not trying to be fair, liberals will see conservatives as brutish, authoritarian, "Nazi" childbeaters. The book supports both views.

I found much to agree with, at a meta-level, in this book. The conclusion is depressing, however. It is impossible to see any common ground: right and left cannot agree even on what is right and wrong. The book offers no hope for a future synthesis, but rather for a deepening divide.

It's refreshing to see a resurgence of interest in George Lakoff's principles of cognitive linguistics as they apply to the current political landscape. After just finishing his recently published "Don't Think of an Elephant", I was more than intrigued to go back to his original treatise on this topic first published in 1996. An esteemed professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley, Lakoff is a senior fellow of the Rockridge Institute, the renowned liberal think tank that concentrates in part on helping Democratic candidates and politicians with re-framing political metaphors. He completely understands the power of words, and this book explains how those words feed his model, which render images we retain vividly within our minds regardless of what facts are presented to us.

In this revealing book, Lakoff's model suggests that the apparently contradictory positions between conservatives and liberals lie in the moral underpinnings of their respective mindsets. His treatise explains that conservatives tend to a view that favors what he calls the "Strict Father Morality" model of the family. Liberals, on the other hand, prefer the "Nurturant Parent Morality" model. Each implies a system of beliefs that determine how conservatives or liberals judge the morality of a situation. When the models are applied to the nation, the political clash ensues. He concedes that while the model's ability to predict various aspects of political decisions may not be sufficient proof of its validity, it would certainly be a strong indicator as to predict behavior based on the consistency of the model. As a good academic, Lakoff spends the bulk of the book explaining the model and presenting empirical evidence of its existence in the current political environment. Yet the most intriguing part of the book is when he explains why US politics cannot get away from these morality-based models, and of course, as a self-professed liberal, why liberals have the better moral model. The message is that conservatives, with their push for "family values," understand very well where the basis for their politics originates. Liberals will have to come to a similar understanding if they want to come to the table for political dialogue. Fortunately, Lakoff's treatise is very well written (after all, he is a linguistics professor) and does not come across as a self-absorbed polemic like works by either Ann Coulter or Maureen Dowd.

This is strong, thought-provoking work. Lakoff paints liberals and conservatives as sitting on the opposite ends of a spectrum since the moral models are radial categories. He makes a compelling case for why the models cannot intersect, which he makes clear during his discussion of conservative vigilantism, where he dissects the motivation behind the Oklahoma City bombing. If you are undecided and have a commitment to the democratic process, this is essential reading before the election. If you want a briefer treatment, I suggest you read the aforementioned book by Lakoff, a slim volume entitled "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives". You cannot afford to be without an understanding of his models.

Liberals and Conservatives seem to agree on little. Even the strongest arguments on each side are brushed off as irrelevant by the other. Lakoff has contributed a significant work into the question of why and has begun to build a bridge across that chasm.

First off, it must be said that Lakoff is liberal, notes that it introduces bias into his research, and works hard to keep that bias out of his book (until the end and he warns you it's coming). At its core, he seems to have succeeded in building two frameworks that are largely accurate, the Strict Father (conservative) and Nurturing Mother (liberal) moral foundations. Since I fall closer to the conservative framework, I can only say that I find his explanation of the liberal approach insightful and interesting. Since our national debate so rarely addresses these fundamental beliefs, it has always been difficult to understand the differing perspectives among groups of Americans. Lakoff has helped bring light to this side of the debate.

Unfortunately, Lakoff could not completely overcome his bias. He goes so far as to assert that the conservative moral system necessarily requires stern corporal punishment (using brutally violent allusions) and is, by definition, sexist and racist. I find this characterization insulting and more importantly inaccurate. Despite this inaccuracy, I have to give the book an excellent rating (4) because it is so groundbreaking in its attempt to communicate these very different frameworks.

If you decide to read the book, let me offer a slight refinement of his view which may help a liberal reader better understand the broader conservative perspective and a conservative reader get past his bias. This is especially important to remember when he characterizes the "Strict Father" attitude under the assumption that certain factors are, by definition, included.

I believe Lakoff is right that conservatives believe in a "Natural Order," and perhaps more specifically that there is an absolute truth or an absolute right, in contrast to the "to each his own" or relativist approach he applies to the liberal moral system. Many conservative policies attempt to enforce a particular truth on society as he rightly notes. I believe that this absolute truth for *some* conservatives is held in ancient scriptures and is at minimum largely unchanging, a source of many of his characterizations including a hostility to change. I believe this should be considered a subset (special case) of a broader conservative moral framework; the same being said for the racism and sexism he includes as central or prerequisite in his fundamental "Moral Order." Indeed the whole idea of a moral order is probably a special case of the core philosophy of a natural truth, historically misguided by self-centered bias and supposedly "scientific" proofs (of racial or sexual superiority as an example).

I do not believe that someone in this framework necessarily holds any of these specific subsets of unchanging beliefs and I feel this is where Lakoff misses the mark. It is possible to believe that there is some absolute truth or right (a core feature of conservative mentality) and at the same time be continuously refining your worldview in hopes of achieving this truth. You can recognize that former "truths" were clearly wrong (racism, sexism, and corporal punishment among them) but still believe that your evolving framework is closer and closer to right and thus worth broadly enforcing.

If someone's behavior is clearly improper or in appropriate, your moral obligation is to create a system which encourages them to be "right." You can still be free to question and review your beliefs, but you're not going to sit around doing nothing just because you're not certain that you've got it 100% correct. But a willingness to assert authority at a particular moment does not necessarily make it unchanging, as the stereotype might suggest. Beyond this, the characterizations and attitudes Lakoff notes are, for the most part, accurate.

With that material refinement for the liberal reader and assuming he has accurately reflected the liberal viewpoint, I believe that this book should be required reading for anyone engaged actively in American political debate. Even if someone could offer a better look into the conservative framework, Lakoff would remain an insightful and valuable read on the liberal perspective. Until that time, Lakoff will have to suffice for both.

I recently heard on NPR that since 1964, sixty-three Democrats have run for President and only two have actually sat in office (Carter and Clinton). The ideas contained within this book are probably a key to understanding why.

Lakoff is a well-respected cognitive scientist who has written several books about the power of metaphors in our everyday lives (Metaphors We Live By, being one). In this book, Lakoff explains in extremely easy-to-understand language how liberals and conservatives cognitively associate their ideas for how the country should be run metaphorically with how families should function.

Conservative politicians have claimed their "family" metaphor and family discourse (e.g. family values rhetoric), according to Lakoff, but liberals have not (he claims that liberals also have family values ideals, but in a different way than conservatives do). This has allowed conservatives to completely dominate the political discourse over the past few decades, letting them define the terms on which debates will take place. Democrats have had to play defensive to these attacks, never actually setting any of the conditions themselves. He gives an example of how conservatives have been able to so deliberately and efficiently make "taxes" a negative thing just recently in our political history, even though taxes can be a positive thing because they go to pay for things that everyone needs. Yet the cognitive association with taxes in many Americans' minds has fallen in line with the conservative position when it could just as easily have gone the other way if liberals (Democrats) had been able control the debate or even to get their message across better.

You don't have to agree with Lakoff. Certainly, he does begin to take a position towards the end of the book. Yet if you want to begin to understand what's taking place politically in America, or are even just fascinated with how people think, this is a good place to start.

This book exemplifies what can happen to the scholarship level of an academic area of study when there is no significant internal pier-review or criticism. The author makes unsupported assertion after assertion, creates straw men, makes silly characterizations of the positions of those he disagrees with, makes faulty inferences and draws faulty implications throughout the book. The author claims to have carefully kept his political leanings out of the book. In fact, the entire book is an exercise in moral sophistry through redescription, and one more failed attempt at building a moral metaphysical system. Lakoff's underlying theory (assertion) that our metaphors control our mental conceptualization of the world is finally being critically examined and reviewed.(For a devastating critique, read "Concepts as Metaphors" by Matthew S. McGlone in "Understanding Figurative Language" edited by Sam Gluckberg).

Lakoff lays down an overarching treatment of the political worldviews held by liberals and conservatives. In so doing he suggests the competing ideologies hold distinctly different conceptions of morality.

Unfortunately, some readers have concluded that it's pointless to engage the other side in discussion and debate. I believe this misses Lakoff's point. While two individuals may utilize differing worldviews when arguing a political topic it seems reasonable to conclude that such discourse would still be beneficial. For example, reasons would still need to be given for why a position is held. In so doing those reasons revealing the speaker's worldview would either prove to be well supported or weakly asserted.

Lakoff utilizes metaphors for government options between the "Strict Father Morality" vs. the "Nurturing Parent Morality". I wonder if these models equally convey an idea of truth, morality and meaning? What I mean is, do both sides espouse a need for government to uphold moral law? If the voters are the `children' in Lakoff's model who `vote' for what type of government they want then when is it wise for voters to choose that which is best over that which may be preferred? I think Lakoff could have gone further with this analogy than he did.

One area of the book I remain unconvinced on is Lakoff's suggestion that political views are based not on objective evaluation of the opposing sides of various issues, but on feelings about the rightness of one's worldview. It seems at least some individuals have well-supported convictions regarding various issues. I wish he would have acknowledged at least some people have objectively evaluated why they believe what they believe. Not all political views are based on 'feelings about rightness'.

In the end, Lakoff's book is a needed push to rise above the common media. The media that showers participants in the political process with never-ending images and sound bites. It's Lakoff's type of big-picture thinking which truly contributes to a greater synthesis of ideas, understanding, and mutual respect.

Many years ago I concluded that the overwhelming majority of every race, religion, political party, etc. were decent people. I found that I grew to like nearly everyone I got to know. But I was mystified by many who managed to maintain opinions that seemed to me to be clearly misguided despite what I considered overwhelming evidence.

Dr. Lakoff's book explains how it is possible. 'conservatives' and 'liberals' view the world thru radically different perspectives, based on different views of how a family should function. 'Conservatives,' generally, adhere to what Lakoff calls the 'strict father' model, whereas 'liberals' tend to adopt the 'nurturing parent' model.

It should be noted that conservative vs. liberal is not a true opposition. There are three true oppositions: conservative vs. progressive, dogmatic vs. liberal, and authoritarian vs. libertarian. There are conservative liberals, dogmatic libertarians, and authoritarian progressives, for example, but these are relatively rare. People who are dogmatic are MORE LIKELY to be authoritarian and conservative, and people who are liberal are MORE LIKELY to be libertarian and progressive. Most of us are somewhere between each pair of polar opposites, perhaps dogmatic on some points but liberal enough to acknowledge that differing opinions of others on many questions may have some merit; or libertarian on some issues and authoritarian on others; or generally conservative but favoring some progressive ideas.

The 'strict father' model is clearly authoritarian and dogmatic, leading to the set of family values generelly favored by conservatives, emphasizing obedience to hierarchical authority. The 'nurturing parent' model, on the other hand, tends to lead to a different set of family values more oriented toward cooperation and shared authority, helping people toward freedom and fulfillment, and realizing their potential.

watziznaym@gmail.com

It's time we all figured out how conservatives and liberals really define morality. Last year alone, despite the hype that Republicans and conservatives supposedly won on morality issues, the reality as pointed out by Lakoff is that conservatives and even libertarians won their version of the morality voter. The trick is conservatives think they're moral but in reality they're amoral because they define morality in amoral terms. For example, if tax relief is a moral value, then why is it that this same supposedly tax relief creates new costly burdens on the working class? You'd think liberals and progressives would stand firm and hammer conservatives and libertarians for slashing vital services that the supposedly "tax relief" could even pay for in the first place.

As for the `values' vote, that term, of course, is being happily misused, just as labels like "liberal" are constantly misused with glee. First off, the `values' vote the media is talking about is truly the amoral, overly self-righteous hypocritical bigot vote. Hating gays while approving of killing children with increased air pollution is not a `values' vote. Just because people claim to have `moral values' obviously doesn't mean it. The actual values vote was split between the parties, as some people on each side put what were truly matters of moral principle - for some, standing up against abortion, for others, standing up against the killing of innocents through horrible environmental policy and horrible acts of war - before other issues in choosing their candidate.

And, as has been pointed out, that even the self-righteous hypocritical, "We have values," voters did not do anything so much more massive than they have done in the past, turning out, when the numbers are looked at, in about the same proportion as usual.

What did help President Bush - in fact, what has been his most important base - was a group the rightwing media pretends doesn't even exist: the proudly amoral vote, which also can be referred to as the `bad boy' vote. This is the central strength of the Bush coalition. The guys who say, "My Hummer is going to give people asthma and make global warming happen sooner? Cool, I'll buy two." The people who say, "We tortured people in Iraq? Great, I just wish I could have helped out." The ones who said, "I don't care if we lied to attack Iraq just so we could take the oil - as long as I get cheap oil, I really don't care."

Yes, these are the people the rest of the media pretend don't exist - and that is exactly what these `proudly amorals' love so much. They get to be this scummy yet, at the same time, brag that they are the truly righteous ones, the ones with `values.' They boastingly call themselves `conservatives,' by which they mean `the ones with values,' and then sit around insulting anyone who takes a moral stand on any issue. These people were the true base that gave Bush any chance of competing at all.

They love the fact that their news stations and President lie, because they get away with it. It's great fun for them. They love that they get to claim to be pious while their Vice President swears on the floor of the Senate like a school yard punk. Most of all, they love that they can do or say whatever they want and yet still be dubbed the good ones, the moral ones, and still win. This is President Bush and his base, and the only correct label to call them is Machiavellian anarchists, people who truly take pride in not having respect for laws or treaty, but instead just like the laws of "the strongest rules" and "might makes right." Treaties, international conventions, the Constitution, forget it if they stand in their way. Polluting kids lungs? Waa waa waa, taunt people who care about such wimpy things. Racism? You bet it's fun, even more fun to do when people let you pretend you are not doing what you are doing.

This has been to key for the GOP, and this is what has led our nation in the direction it has gone - even if the rest of the media doesn't want to acknowledge that these people not just exist, but are a huge segment of our population.

Conservatives think they're moral but in reality, not only are they immoral but they're amoral. Progressives and liberals should do what guys like Howard Dean has been doing even as DNC chair which is to read this book and apply Lakoff's principles to dealing with the current amoral political system. After all, this country has had enough of the "conservatives" and their politics of deceptive framing, manipulating morality to their liking, and personal destruction.

The first 80% of the book tries to be unbiased. I found it quite enlightening and I no longer think that the other side is crazy. Still wrong, but not crazy. :-)

In the last 20% Lakoff comes out and states why he thinks empirical scientific evidence, mostly in the area of child rearing, justifies Liberalism.

I found this book to contain an interesting idea but lacking scientific grounding and very tedious to read. The idea of looking at language for transmission of images to identify the central thought processes of persons, groups and societies is valid and has been practiced repeatedly by philosophers. Lakoff posits characterizations (stereotypes) based on imagery he thinks is found in Conservative and Liberal rhetoric.

While these images could be tested scientifically, they are not as the book lacks citations. Instead, we read Lakoff's opinions of the images that he thinks are central to Conservative and Liberal thought about the family and politics.

I found the book to be tedious through repetition. For example, from about page 70 to page 200 almost no new ideas were introduced. Instead Lakoff repeats over and over what amounts to his demonization of Conservative thought ...such as "...disobedience must be punished, preferably in a painful fashion with an instrument like a belt or a rod."

Because the book is written as a first person narration, I could not help but wonder if I was experiencing an academic's "stream of consciousness." Perhaps the repetition is Lakoff's way of trying to keep on topic while searching for the next sentence. Or maybe he is hoping that the more frequently a position is repeated the more valid the position becomes.

I liked the basic idea but found the execution to be a disappointment. There are 150 pages of thought wrapped in a 400+ page commitment.

If you ever wondered how conservatives are so successful at bait and switching working class voters into voting based on cultural interests and empty promises, this book has all the useful and thought provoking answers you won't find in most books. In a sense, these need not apply to just conservatives. Liberals too have fallen into the conservative trap of playing defense on the culture wars while playing kissup on economic issues such as unfair free trade, removal of rights to privacy, foreign wars, most environmental and consumer ripoffs, etc ... Lakoff is right that we need a new way of thinking politics as most elections are more personal and no doubt about the politics of personal destruction these last 5 years. I too am sick and tired of political conservatives not being truly conservative and political liberals not following genuine liberalism where it all counts. This book came out in 2002 but don't think Lakoff's ideas are outdated. Take some time to read this independent nonpartisan book and then take a look at most of the issues that are being handled in a politically disfunctional manner. Only a partisan rightwinger would hate this book as the 1 and 2 star reviewers and even some 3 star reviewers have shown.

After reading this fascinating book I'll never look at politics in the same way again. Lakoff's theory of moral politics pulls together apparent inconsistencies and irrationalities in both liberal and conservative thinking in a way that makes everything fit. Brilliant!

I've bought this book a couple of years ago and only now got around to reading it. It's fascinating to see how Lakoff's model on how conservatives and liberals view politics stays nicely applicable to the 2004 elections and beyond. It's a great read for anyne interested in cognitive science and for those liberals and conservatives trying to understand the mindset of the other side.

While the writing was thorough, it was often dragging due to a lot of repetition. At times it felt as if each chapter was meant to stand on its own and reiterated a lot of stuff just covered in the previous chapter. A good editor should have trimmed this down.

While reading the book, I often wished for (international) examples of other family models and how they reflected in their political views. Specifically, I'd like to have learned more on how the evolving view of family historically affects political attitudes and whether in some places or at some other time, the metaphore went the other way (from politics to family).

I'm planning to read some more of Lakoff's work - starting with "Don't Think Like and Elephant".

Lakoff is one of those rare liberals/progressives who can accurately predict the kinds of activities conservatives are up to. But he doesn't just hold them as the culprit. He points out the thinking behind the conservative ideology and what led up to it. Moreover, he also doesn't hesitate to acknowledge that most liberals also let the conservatives get away with it. Lakoff discusses the various groups of conservatives and liberals that exist. However, he also talks about the "strict father morality" philosophy of swift and severe punishment for those viewed as not pulling themselves up their bootstraps even while giving special priviledges to those who already have more than enough resources and help to take care of themselves versus "nurturing parent" philosophy of shared responsibility, true reform, and true accountability by giving the correct punishment for the corresponding crime or mistake. The liberals have made a terrible mistake of not taking care of themselves first by fulfilling their self interest while conservatives have gone to the point of only looking towards maximizing their own as dictated by the "strict father morality" code. Lakoff's right that the rightwingers never show their gratitude no matter how nice the liberals have been. While this book was last written in 2001, not much has changed. In fact, take a look at all the current events you see and read about in your day to day life after you read this book and you'll be surprised at first that Lakoff was correct. The trick to outwitting the conservatives is to take their inconsistent mindset apart and build a new frame of thought to counter theirs and this book offers plenty of food for long term thinking. Before you let the wacko radical who call themselves conservative spin and frame you, read this book and learn to use the power of thinking to defeat these machievellian cons.

This book by Lakoff goes directly to the point, and describes the current state of morality in politics. It then suggests ways of dealing with the problem. I believe Lakoff is describing a new way of looking at politics that will change the political scene if enough people read the book.

First off I would like to say that Im only fifteen so if you think that this reveiw/view of the world is a bit naive or extreme that may be the reason why, either that or you are a extreme conservetive. This book is interestring in the way that it attempts to analyze the political systems into a subconscience thinking-system. Simply because of the area the author studies. Its nice to see a book about such a touchy subject that isnt biased too much. It is but only at the end and he sees it himself so he's not oblivious to it, perhaps not even then it could be called biased maybe just a personal view of the subject.
Its good in the way that it presents the questions and the contridictions liberals have for conservetives and vice-versa. I have not finished this book yet, I only got it yesterday but from what I have read it is a very good book and like I said in the title a book for both wings not just the right or the left. It shows the point of view for both and thusly may help you understand the other a little bit more.
If you are ignorant in the way that you dont let go of your thought or even just open you mind to it a little you will be saying "they're stupid" and "they're immoral" a lot. But if you have an open mind about world-view than this will be a good read if you are interested in the other.
It takes a new approach on the subject breaking it down to the very core of the wings. Its a new look on how our belief of how a family should be runned also affects our thought on how a politic body should be runned, how if you beelieve in a very strong father-figure you will lean towards conservetiveism, or if you beleive in a very nuturant father and mother liberalism will appeal to you. It is extremely simple to understand even a kid could. A very introspective look into the science of politics.

and making sense out of all this mess. I suggest you read "Don't Think of an Elephant" first and then read this book to get an even better understanding of the psychology of the two ideologies. Progressives and even fair minded conservatives can learn a lot about one another and what can be done to change the current political system for the better of everyone and not just a few elitists by giving this book a read. I also strongly recommend this book to all who are sick and tired of the political mess that's getting worse year after year and producing a greater percentage of non-voters than voters election after election. Lakoff knows that politics doesn't have to stink even as it affects our lives for better or for worse.

An outstanding book that reveals how the other side thinks as they do. The author reveals how and why people support various political positions and candidates.

People are much more likely to vote their idenity and values as opposed to "issues." The Republicans have been a lot better at packaging themselves as the morally right party. This is why George W. Bush is in the White House.

I suggest the readers start with chapter 21 "Raising Real Children." Perhaps if you think that you are a "true conservative," you may not be after reading this chapter and this outstanding book

This thought provoking book is a Must Read for Americans of all political persuasions who want to understand the basis of America's Culture War. The author systematically and persuasively describes the radically different family structures and moral values of Liberals and Conservatives and how they result in opposing worldviews. Powerful stuff.

This book also hits home for me personally. I have lived in both liberal (Midwest) and conservative (Southern) cultures for many years, and I found the author's analysis to be both fascinating and extraordinarily accurate. I sincerely wish I had read and understood it before I moved to Texas twenty years ago. I had no idea that I was entering an alien environment, i.e. a vastly different culture based on conservative "strict father" authoritarian values. It took many years of observation, on-the-job experience, and exposure to the beliefs and backgrounds of radically conservative friends before I began to comprehend the depth of our differences. Even then, I did not fully understand WHY until I read this book. Its liberal and conservative models exactly fit my personal experiences and observations, as well as the political behavior of both parties. The author has made a powerfully persuasive case. For the first time, I am able to see the "big picture."

According to 2004 election polls, the major issue of concern to voters was morality. For the many liberals who find this fact incomprehensible, READ THIS BOOK to discover the answer. For conservatives who think liberals are hopelessly stupid, naive, unpatriotic, etc., READ THIS BOOK to better understand. For those who are mystified that intelligent people can look at the same set of facts and arrive at opposite conclusions, READ THIS BOOK.

Thank You, George Lakoff, for illuminating this critically important topic.

As a practicing Unitarian Universalist, this book was recommended to me very highly by two UU ministers whom ordinarily I trusted. However, I'm sorry to say when I read this book, I was appalled at how poor it was. I'm not saying that because I'm a right-winger sort. Far from it. I would describe myself as someone with a history of being leftist in my adult life, and still am on many issues. But in recent years I have questioned my earlier liberalism and have come to embrace views on some issues that resemble conservative ideas.

The first thing Lakoff did to offend me was that he failed to live up to his promise that he would be impartial to both liberals and conservatives. He said he would do so until the last chapter, where he would then give himself license to give his own opinion as to which view he preferred. He did okay for the first few chapters, but his thinly disguised agenda became more obvious as the book went on. You would think someone who was supposed to be an expert on metaphor would have better skills at hiding his own bias.

But that wasn't the worst of it. Lakoff uses the "stern father" as his key metaphor for conservatives and the "nurturing mother" metaphor for liberalism. Fair enough up to a point. But after a while, to hammer away at the reader with the same two simplistic metaphors amounts to a gross injustice to the subject in question. There comes a point where one should realize that metaphor is only a tool of limited application. It's only an idea that at best approximately illustrates the reality we find around us. Lakoff's method apparently is to invent a metaphor, then treat his metaphor as though it were an independent source of insight, even more so than the empirical object to which the metaphor originally referred. That's getting the cart in front of the horse, to use a classic metaphor myself. This book might itself be studied as a case study of the danger of over-extrapolation.

But the thing I found to be an outrage and an insult to my intelligence was this: I was told that Lakoff is the metaphor expert. The man has devoted his whole career to the idea of metaphor as a key to making sense of reality. Yet Lakoff himself is guilty of the most obvious misuses of metaphor, i.e. reckless over-extrapolation, and confusing the map with the territory itself. For my money, this book was embarrassingly bad.

You want to know why some lazy elitists get rewarded while hardworking souls get punished? Lakoff tears apart the way conservatives define morality and their system of reward and punishment. But he doesn't stop with the conservatives. He pounds the liberals for being too nice and letting the conservative murderers get away with it by failing to define themselves. Not only that but if the liberals had actually followed nurturance all the way rather than simply trying to help everyone else at the expense of losing their own identity, they wouldn't be in the advanced state of decay to the point that even West Virginia votes like Kansas ! It's time to read this book and do some counter thinking while there's a chance !

If you want to know why conservatives create extremely unfair double standards on just about everything and yet they look so consistent, a look into "Strict Father Morality" as a model for governance is the key to the conservatives' success. But they know they can't just count on the model so with the help of Frank Luntz and Karl Rove, they'll find a way to fake being nice such as giving cute speeches after a tragedy or pretending withdrawal from Iraq before a midterm congressional election. Moreover, Lakoff makes crystal clear that liberals also share some of the blame of the political mess. While liberals are supposed to nurturant, the problem is their only goal is to be nothing more than a charity party to the poor and middle class at the expense of making themselves look utterly miserable and unable to communicate with an identity for voters to clearly understand them with. The strict father morality model means maximizing self-interests at all costs even if it means cheating and stealing and then trying to shift blames by framing other(s) as the culprit for their wrongdoing whereas the nurturant model means balancing self-interests with helping the public out in a broad sense and not just on special issues like gays and blacks. The nurturant model also based on cooperation and shared responsibility where appropriate. Think of Jerry Springer's famous line "Take care of yourself and each other" when you read this book.

[...] this book presents a true understanding of the current bastardized conservative ideology of using the flawed "Strict father" model. After all, why is it that criminals like Bush, Rove, Delay, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ken Lay, etc ... don't get punished for their crimes but everyone else who ain't an elitist does? While this book was first published in 1996 and again in 2002 as a second edition, this progressive author think well ahead of his time and was correct even in the 1990s about how rightwing conservatives have turned our country from a reasonable Democracy into an Orwellian dictatorship. The best thing I like about this book is Lakoff nailing the current conservatives for misusing the word "conservative" to promote a radical agenda against the people's interests. This book came out before his best selling "Don't Think of an Elephant!" but it's still an indepth look at morality and politics in general while "Don't Think of an Elephant!" sums it up but encourages people to learn more.[...]

Lakoff aptly describes two personality types. But, when he applies them to the labels "liberal" and "conservative," his premise quickly sinks in a pool of irrational simplicity.

It is the nature of human diversity that refutes this concept. Each individual is a unique, complex composite of characteristics. "Nurturer" and "strict father" describe value systems that are modified by a multitude of other variable influences. The political landscape is littered with similarly inapt labels that purport to explain human behavior in the context of the political decision-making process.

Contrary to the claim that the book is a full-scale application of cognitive science to politics, it is a highly selective, overly subjective and largely unsubstantiated view filtered by the author's assumptions and experiences.

Political Morality is a thought provoking attempt to create metaphorical models of liberal and conservative mindsets. Conservatives use the Strict Father model while liberals use the Nurturing Parent model. These two models do an amazing job of explaining the beliefs of the two opposing sides in such disparate subjects as abortion, education, welfare, love of country and so on.

In one respect Moral Politics is rather bleak as there seems to be no possible détente between the two sides. Mr. Lakoff seems to see this as a zero sum battle. For instance, in education liberals prefer to teach children various views and beliefs, even including conservativism. Conservatives, however, see this as cultural and moral relativism. Conservatives push conservative values at the exclusion of all others. There is no middle ground, either conservatives win or liberals win.

Although Mr. Lakoffs' cognitive models are as good as any I could imagine, he does upon occasion seem to shoehorn beliefs into one or the other. For instance he argues that Newt Gingrich's desire to take children away from welfare mothers and place them into orphanages follows the Strict Father model because the welfare mothers are without a doubt failures at parenting. Better to let the state take over in order to instill those Strict Father values. I would argue that Gingrich's proposal has less to do with his desire to satisfy his Strict Father beliefs and more to do with the fact that he despises welfare mothers.

It almost seems that the words conservative and liberal have been entirely absconded by politicians. There was an article in American Conservative magazine, after the 2004 election, titled "Bush 2, Conservativism 0". The gist of the article was the Bush was literally killing conservativism, meanwhile Bush is seen as the standard bearer of conservative values. Pat Buchanan wrote a book claiming that liberals had infiltrated the White House in the guise of neo-conservativism. So who's correct, American Conservative, Pat Buchanan or the Bush backers? It seems that conservatives are whomever self proclaimed political conservatives declare themselves to be.

Without a doubt Moral Politics gives the reader a LOT to think about. George Lakoff is able to make coherent sense out of conservatives desire to ban abortions while they work towards cutting funding for pre and post natal care. In a age where the rate of infant mortality in the United States is one of the worst of any industrialized nation it boggles the liberal mind how conservatives can place the welfare of an unborn, unwanted child above one that is wanted. Solving that conundrum alone is worth the price of admission.

For a book of theory, I found this completely useful on a personal level. I have never even been close to the middle of the bell shaped curve on anything. I've never viewed a political idea as moral or immoral; these are not concepts that interest me. So in the current landscape of American political discourse I'm often left out. Now I understand why....I'm a moderate. I don't have a package of ideas that gets touched off by one of the sensative topics. I understand why liberals and conservatives can't communicate. They're both totally nuts! Communication is not important to them. Their moral agendas are the only thing that's important to them. That and shoving their agendas down my throat. If ever there was an appropriate book to read in a political year, this is the one.

I've read more elegant books. This author writes well, but it's written in a somewhat academic style. It would be hard to call this book colorful or highly amusing.

I've called it "a joy" because reading and understanding this book was truly a joyful experience for me. I should explain...

I've been talking and thinking about political and ethical issues all of my life, and I've got a doctoral degree in psychology, but I have NEVER been able to understand people who don't share my political leanings (God knows I have tried... ), and they have NEVER been able to understand my point of view, no matter how carefully and politely I have tried to explain myself. It is SO exasperating and disappointing to experience that kind of mutual misunderstanding repeatedly throughout one's life. The problem makes you crazy, because it isn't simply a difference of opinion. It is a fundamental and continuing failure to understand and communicate.

Having read this book, I really, truly understand, for the first time, at my advanced age, the unspoken assumptions and reasoning process underlying the left and right ends of the political spectrum. I've learned to "speak both languages," one might say. I am even able to reason in the manner of the people I disagree with, and articulate their positions quite clearly, without irony or exaggeration. I'm amazed I am able to do this now.

Understanding these things brings joyous relief, as if I've pulled a splinter out of my foot that has been festering for more than 50 years.

George Lakoff has done interesting research in Cognitive Science, but when it comes to politics he has nothing to add other then his obvious liberal bias. This book is similiar to Noam chomsky works in that the author has taken his credibility in one field and tried to pawn it off in another namely politics.

The Author Makes broad generalizations About Conservatives and Liberals, which while interesting, are merely opinions from a Berkeley hermit. Lakoff Villanizes Conservatives, While flattering Liberals with sophomoric rational. Such narrow mindedness and hubris is something best left for Moorish Political propaganda for the masses.

This Book is self affirmation for liberals, as Hitlers Racial ideology was for Facist. But beyond the warm fuzzy liberals will get from reading this, and the extra cash in Lakoffs pockets, there is little substance or anything new to learn here.

This book is a must-read for anyone thougtful about politics who wonders why politics is about emotions and not about what works. It describes how people project their understanding of "proper" family structure onto the government. It also answer great questions as to: How do adulterous conservative get away with their crimes? and Why would conservatives be against a highly efficient and highly effective social program (for example, headstart)?

Great read.

This is a must read for every American trying to make sense of the Bush administration and the conservative GOP nightmare.

Wow. There's something with linguists and their ability to detect language patterns and how politicians frame the debate that is amazing.

Mr. Lakoff's book is a wonderful, entertaining and finally a mind-opening read. It's like reading Chomsky but without his endless repetition of facts and figures or historical data and his -sometimes unaccesible- obscure use of the language. I'm not a native english reader and Chomsky (another linguist) often leaves me scratching my head thinking "why did he had to use such obscure term or why is he making that point -AGAIN-?". In contrast, Lakoff's book is more broad, and at times more "clear" to the reader than Chomsky.

In some sneses he also reminds me of a much more elaborate, polished and intellectual version of "We're right, they're wrong" by Carville (an excellent complement to read with this book).

Speaking of that, here's my definitive list: I recommend you this book along with other three that will open your mind like never before. These are:

1. "FUZZY MATH" by Paul Krugman. Explains the Bush tax cuts, the real reason behind those cuts ("fight the future", you'll understand the meaning of that phrase when you read it)
2. "We're right, they're wrong" by former Clinton advisor James Carville. (the less intellectual and the more gutsy of all three books I'll recommend here)
3. "One Market, under God" by Thomas Frank.

In short... I suggest you read this book, along with the above three.

Everyone should read this book. Do not interpret it as a blueprint for left or right - rather a sliding scale of views based on central belief systems. The one flaw I found in the book was that there was lttle or no discussion in HOW the belief system is internalized - is it a reflection of nature or nurture. I hope that someone will take the premise of this important book and trace back the origin of one's beliefs.

I found this book highly significant and convincing in the linguistic and psychological framework of our current political structure. This book presents the frames of ideas behind liberal and conservative thinking, the psychological models that shape the two main avenues of perception and projection into all areas of life, morals; the basis behind religion and politics. The political sides, liberal and conservative are in essence only ideas that follow from these prior ideals. And what the author frames as the two models are, the two moral ideals of the Strict Father morality and the Nurturant Parent morality. Both are opposed to each other and yet, there are variants or combinations or radial categories which are gray areas which are not so clear cut. But overall, there are these two current trends that shape our thoughts.

George Lakoff goes into each model, their traits, attributes, virtue and vices. I think he does a good job at maintaining neutrality. It is only later in his book where he identifies himself under the nurturant morality and thus a liberal and later in the book attempts to argue in his thesis in that direction.

What these models boil down to is the family morality, and that of raising children. In politics it is the government as parents, the citizens as the children. And the views on raising children are the basis of frames behind political agendas. After detailed explanations of the two models, then applications to current political issues as in abortion, gun control, education methods, crime and capital punishment, welfare, affirmative action, foreign policies and so forth are discussed according to the two models.

The conservative model represents the Strict Father Morality, which is about self-discipline, self-reliance, self-strength, your on your own, rewards and punishments which includes harsh discipline or tough love. The father takes the lead, and while treating others compassionately, he is the last word. Anotherwards life is a hierarchy, God head of Christ, God and Christ head of man, man head of woman, parents head of children, humans head of animals and the planet. And so it is a strict arrangement where the harsh laws of nature as in the natural selection, survival of the fittest is applied morally.This morality represents absolutes, therefore anything different cannot be allowed since therefore it is immoral. Rights of the individual take precedence where free market fundamentalism is concerned, while individual rights that infringe on those with economic power are considered as threats. So the upper hand lies in what is considered that "best," the self disciplined who has gained more financially for their hard work, their hard won discipline and reward. The poor receive punishments and suffer due to their own lack of self discipline.

The liberal model represents the Nurturant Morality, which is about empathy, tolerance, degrees of relativity, flexibility, about open communication, about nurturance, tolerance, compassion and understanding. It allows differences and has vulnerability. It reneges some power to allow the other to grow on their own terms. Empathy is directed towards the unbalance of wealth and poverty, the economic framework, what is "fair" and equalitarian, also to the planet earth, animals, and all of life in general, under the ideas of free individual rights that do not interfere with the rights of others. Those with economic power that put their interests above others are considered as threats to the masses. The poor need a the same equal opportunities as the rich where it is not a matter of self discipline, but the lack of opportunities to advance in an unfair society.

I think what is so crucial here is the liberal's ability to turn to a higher objective paradigm of unity and equalitarianism outside all other paradigms. Like the conserative paradigm of morals, the fascist of power, the libertarian of unregulated liberty, the liberal, through the paradigm of unity and fairness, recognizes the validity of the conservative ideals, those of rewards and punishments, of tough love, of self-discipline, however here they are not absolutes, as they are relative within the particular culture, economic class, race, minority and so forth. So the liberal can very well be a conservative but only within the relativity within the group of fair values When it crosses the lines beyond fairness and equalitarian opportune justice, then the higher paradigm of flexibility in a non-absolute framework must be applied. And for this, I find liberal ideals of a higher evolutionary consciousness which works towards integral, holistic unity of peace and harmony, unlike the absolutes of conservatism which considers all outside its absolutes as immoral. There are conservative rules within each paradigm, but the moment circumstances of unequality and injustice apply, then there are no absolute blanket rules which apply to all paradigms. Adjustments are necessary, crucial for harmonious, peaceful existence.

What I mostly enjoyed was his methods for liberals to correct the problem they are in. That is to form their own think tanks that do what the conservatives have done; obtain new language and/or particular meanings to words that fit the liberal paradigm. In this way, they will not defend conservative driven meanings to words, agreeing or maintaining defense within their frame of reference, only to maintain the answers within the conservative created definitions, but rather to use another reasoning linguistically within a new liberal frame of reference in word definitions. This is not a matter of semantics, but rather a separate perceptional projection which relates the parent nurturant morality over the strict father morality.

I was visualizing a couple of years ago when Congress was passing around Clarke's book where questions were being raised on Bush and the Iraq question, that it would have been beneficial if it were this book, which I know no conservative or any one changes due to a book or persuasion, but at least it could radically wake up some liberals to understand the psychology behind their ideals. People only grow only when they're ready and willing to do so, otherwise they stay put in their model, their paradigm.

It's interesting to see how conservatives exploited the loopholes and weaknesses of conservatism to the point of bastardization. Look at today's conservatives here in America compared to conservatives in Europe and after reading this book, you'll realize that while both believe in "Strict Father Morality", conservatives in Europe don't abuse it while the current Nixon/Reagan/BushSR/BushJR Republicans abuse it to conceal their immoral policies. America needs principled conservatives like Dwight Eisenhower, not the current brand of Limbaughian conservatives who do anything to win if they can't do it right ! Liberals too need to get over being too nice to the wrong people like George Bush and Rush Limbaugh and be assertive for the common people.

I'm sorry, but I almost find myself laughing at how Lakoff so obviously stacks the deck in his terminology. The SF model for conservatives is clearly pathological right out of the chute, while the NP model for liberals is all sweetness and light. No wonder he ultimately asserts his NP liberalism against the SF model.

There is a model for liberals that would be comparably pathological to Lakoff's SF model, and I would name it something like Arrogant Social Meddler (ASM). ASMs are similarly authoritarian to the SFs, only the authority lies within a nebulous collective called society, the village, the school board, the people, etc.--to which the ASM is connected! The pathological incarnation of ASM is what has been termed by writers on totalitarianism: matriarchal collectivist. Communism comes to mind.

But I like the book...

For my complete review of this book and for other book and movie
reviews, please visit my site [...]

Brian Wright
Copyright 2007

I have to give George Lakoff's "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think" a "B" for effort for at least trying to understand the cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives. Unfortunately, that's where my credit for his book ends.

Lakoff's thesis is that the worldviews of liberals and conservatives in general are formed by what each considers to be the best family dynamic for which to raise children. For conservatives, Lakoff creates what he calls the "Strict Parent Model," while the "Nurturant Parent Model" describes its liberal counterpart. After thoroughly explaining both models, Lakoff extrapolates them to address issues upon which liberals and conservatives fundamentally disagree.

Because he is a liberal, I am sure that Lakoff's rich description of the "Nurturant Parent Model" and its application to various issues is accurate and complete. Alas, because he is a liberal, his "Strict Parent Model" is one-dimensional and fundamentally flawed. Lakoff doesn't understand, for example, that punishment and discipline ARE nurturing to a child since children naturally crave limits and boundaries. They see limits as security, and a parent who imposes them as loving. Love and security are both nurturing traits.

Lakoff also doesn't seem to understand that the whole concept of using a "parental" paradigm as a worldview is absurd. An individual's need for parental care is something to grow out of, not something to merely transfer to a worldview or a governmental entity in particular. That's called "maturity." A governmental entity's function should never be transformed into that of a surrogate parent, which is precisely what the liberal worldview compels it to do. His model has value in explaining why liberals are the way they are, but it should never be held up as something noble or desirable, but only as the abnormal pathology that it is. Unfortunately, Lakoff tends to do just that as he strays from being a dispassionate theoretician to active advocate for the "Nurturant Parent Model."

The basic fallacies underlying the "Nurturant Parent Model" are readily detectable (arising predominantly from a fundamentally incorrect view of basic human nature,) rendering the model unworkable and ridiculous. Therefore, his extrapolations into individual issues with both models are, on the one hand, totally inaccurate on the conservative side and laughably utopian on the other.

The only value I see with this book is as a means for conservatives to understand the liberal worldview better. Unfortunately, this new-found understanding will only confirm to them how illogical and dangerous liberals are if they are ever allowed the power to actually implement their "nurturing."

The author argues persuasively that conservatives view the world, particularly politically, from the strict father morality, while leftists view the world from a nurturant parent point of view. The analysis that conservatives and leftists view themselves and the world this way is correct. The problem that is almost assumed (laughably given just a few paragraphs out of hundreds of pages) that a family oriented view of the world, particularly politics, is a good model.

This book deserves three stars for delivering a straightforward analysis of the way Americans view politics. I am persuaded that his arguement that the two dominant views in this country is correct.

What I am, also, convinced of is that viewing politics as an extension of the family, in either model, is not only wrong but destructive. Families are wholly different from communities, states, and countries. This seems almost so obvious that I can't even believe that I have to say this. But as pointed out in this book, that's exactly what most people think.

Families are different because every person in the family knows every other person in his or her family intimately well. From this intimate knowledge we have expectations and obligations. The idea that these expectations and obligation can be extended to include even our neighbors, much less an entire country is absurd.

Both frames of reference view themselves in terms of what the government should be doing for or against the activities of it's citizens. Neither views the limits that must be imposed on government. Both believe that if something is good for some, it must be good for everyone. Teetotalers on the right think drinking is bad, so impose the disastrous prohibition. Do gooders on the left think the government should help people, so implement "social" packages that cost tens of trillions with very little to show for spending so much.

This is an important read to understand the Republican and Democrat party views on politics, but it should be kept in mind that the model used by both parties is fundamentally flawed, and has caused an enormous amount of unnecassary woe and heartache.

A Conflict of Vision, by Thomas Sowell, is a superior book to this one. Read it in addition to, or instead of, this one.

First, I want to blog a little. An above review calls conservatives murderers, which is really honest of him. That reviewer also says, to paraphrase, "If you want to know why lazy elitists get far and hardworking people don't, real this book." I can tell you the real answer in one sentence: Hardwork does not necessarily define how far you get, it is what you work at! If I dig holes for 10 hours a day and then fill them up for another 5 hours a day, I am working extremely hard. However, how far am I going to get in life by digging holes? If you want to get ahead in life, choose something with the opportunity for advancement. If you want to choose something noble like being a soldier, nurse, teacher, police officer, etc., then accept the fact that you will live a middle class life and might have financial restraints at times. Hardwork is usually an ingredient for success, but it is not the only one. You must work hard toward the right things.

Others have explained the content of the book and I want to mention an observation. As you have noticed, almost all of the viewers loved the book and they were also liberals. Coincidence? Lakoff tries to be objective, but his theory is too simplistic. It is true that liberals and conservatives have a different philosophy about life and policy. However, I reject some of the assertions Lakoff makes. To get a better understanding on the philosophy of liberals and conservatives I recommend reading Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions." Thomas Sowell is one of America's leading intellectuals and his book is fair and describes the philosophy of liberals and conservatives going back to the American Revolution era. Most of the reviews on Sowell's book are conservatives, but that is only because the left and mainstream America are censored from black conservatives. He is one of America's leading scholars and a prolific author, but he has the misfortune of being a black man with PhD in economics from the U of Chicago. He also graduated from Harvard in the 1958 and Columbia in 1959 (before affirmative action) after growing up in poverty. He has taught at Cornell and UCLA and he is now a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute.

Lakoff's book does seem to have created some tolerance among liberals towards conservatives (And you thought conservatives were intolerant. Tell a liberal you love Bush, are pro-life, and support the war in Iraq and see how "tolerant" they are of your beliefs!).

Sowell's book is much more comprehensive and makes a lot more sense. Both liberals and conservatives agree with what Sowell says because he uses a lot of quotes from leading conservative and liberal thinkers in the past 200 years. He is unbiased and you close the book with a great understanding of the philosophy of both conservatives and liberals.

Mr. Lakoff states that Conservatives and Liberals differ in their view of the nature of the family: Conservatives believe in a strict parent; Liberals believe in a nurturing parent. He bogs down in examples.

It might be useful to look, as he suggests, at the view Conservatives have of the government as a strict parent from whom we need to break away. But he is a little off base on the liberals whom he sees as looking to the government as one might look to his nurturing parent. Using his ideas about the two differing world views, I would say a more useful metaphor is that the Liberals view themselves as the nurturing parent. Unable to care for all one's "children," Liberals say that if we all work together, we can repair the bad spots in our society and maximize the potential of our children. Government is the way we get together.

Lakoff's premise is simply an elaborate variation on the ancient libertarian joke that Republicans want the government to be your father, Democrats want the government to be your mother, and libertarians want to treat you as an adult. Except that Lakoff's frame doesn't have room for the third option, or for any variations of the left or right that call the parental metaphor into question.

Which is, of course, typical of the sort of people who want to ram government down your throat. But why is *Moral Politics* worth reading? Well, this sort of book provides good insight into the current socialist - er, "Liberal" (or are they calling themselves "progressive" now?) - perspective on depriving you of the ability to live your life as an adult.

Considering that most of the conservatives writing on the subject are just as completely bankrupt as the skunks of Lakoff's stripe (I make exception for libertarians like Walter Williams and Tom Sowell, who are accepted as conservative thought leaders but who regularly hold the conservatives' collective nose against high-speed grinding wheels), there is a genuine need for the non-Democrat, non-Republican American citizen (i.e., most of us) to find some sort of intelligible and explicit articulation of the arrogantly contemptuous smothering "motherliness" of today's left-wing statists. Lakoff provides the closest thing to an official Democratic National Committee promulgation on the subject, and (like *Mein Kampf* and *Das Kapital*) his writings deserve an honored place on your "Enemies of Liberty" bookshelf.

Just don't buy a used copy without closely examining the pages under ultraviolet light.

This book was written before Lakoff's latest book "Don't Think Of An Elephant". It is essentially a longer, more detailed version of that book.

So for those who have read "Don't Think Of An Elephant", and want more of Lakoff's thoughts, this would be the book to read. The reason I gave it 4 stars is that at over 400 pages,it is a more involved read.

While Lakoff's ideas about framing are frequently discussed, the significance of his work is often misunderstood. Even among Progressives who say they agree with him, the message received is that politics is about slogans and marketing. Fortunately Lakoff doesn't actually argue that, because it's wrong. This book is about how underlying concepts influence everyday politics. Knowing these things won't tell you how to win arguments or convince people, but you will gain a greater understanding of what lies beneath the surface of the apparent jumble of politics.

George Lakoff's recent "Don't Think of an Elephant" draws its main points from this earlier book, which explains in depth his theory that liberal and conservative political viewpoints in today's America stem from two radically opposed views of the ideal family. Lakoff is convincing when he quotes actual political writings and speeches to show how the family metaphor permeates political discourse. Until the very end of the book he confines himself to lucid explanations and applications of the two models, the "Strict Father" (conservative) and "Nurturant Parent" (liberal) paradigms. The last few chapters then turn into a hard-hitting indictment of the drawbacks of the former model, and an impassioned plea for all those who believe that the recent conservative ascendancy is steering America in the wrong direction to fight back--how? By first of all using the "Nurturant Parent" approach in raising their own children.

More than any other book I've ever read about the current political scene in America, Lakoff clarifies why the conservative mentality can embrace apparently contradictory stances on such issues as abortion, capital punishment and gun control with such ease, and why liberalism has been more or less routed as a viable alternative up until now. His careful dissection of the failures of the "Strict Father" approach to family life and child-rearing exposes the falseness of the same approach to politics, and gives hope that the tide may yet be turned. This book won't convert any conservatives, or cause them to give up their ideas. But it may give people who wonder where simple decency and humanity have gone the key to begin taking back America.

I thought this book really helped me conceptualize and understand the 'differences' between so-called liberals and conservatives, and to understand that perhaps many debates are not indeed framed in pragmatic or utilitarian fashions, but rather are framed around moral questions. Its helps one understand the 'other side'. Also, being a father of young children, there were many issues raised related to family life that forced me to evaluate my own methods....
I think what is missing is a detailed explanation of how one gets to the metaphors that Lakoff describes, and how they are determined. How do we know that these are the 'right' metaphors? And are these metaphors determined by nature, nurture? Are they changeable during one's lifetime? Maybe I need to start with one of Lakoff's earlier books.

This book is not just about politics but it examines the psychology of various voters in general. While there are other parties, the main focus is between the liberals and conservatives and their take on the politics of morality. Unlike most progressive books, Lakeoff does not go about simply attacking conservatives as bad people but takes apart what conservatives were supposed to be but why that led and still does lead them to abusing the "strict father morality". Liberals and progressives, on the other hand, believe in the nurturant parent model but because there is supposed to be room for tolerance, many Democrats simply allowed conservatives to exploit that weakness by acting like a bunch of abused spuses in pandering to rightwing ideology since 1980. The book starts out with these various classes of morality followed by the major issues and how each model of morality sees it. Throughout the book, Lakoff does acknowledge that it is possible for various positions on various issues to reflect a mix of the two models and thus swing voters. Finally, this book goes totally outside the political realm which is what makes this book great for both political junkies and people not interested for fed up with the current disfunctional politics that has destroyed this nation for the past 25 years. Republican or Democrat or Independent, this book is very well worth the read.

I've always been baffled by why Bush and GOP along with their media crony allies always make it look like GOP cons are moral and others are not even when it's clear that their destructive policies never get a word of attention much less fixing them. Read this book and ask yourself a few questions:

Would a truly moral conservative shower CEO and other rich elite with unneeded tax cuts while taking away vital services from the poor and middle class?

Would a truly moral conservative lie about weapons of mass destruction and drag this wonderful country into another Vietnam-like War for oil and corporate profiteering?

Would a truly moral conservative give the green light to polluting industries to wreck our environment?

Would a truly moral conservative continuously make false complaints about a liberal media even when they know that such does not exist?

I could ask a hell of a lot more but at least take the time to understand what conservatives were supposed to be and why they've abused moral values to hide their pure immorality.

P.S.: This book also made me think that liberals too have been part of this mess by standing by as abused spouses while allowing conservatives to abuse "Strict father morality" to bankrupt America to the point of no return to stability and peace.

Every American should read this book. It helped me answer many of my questions about the right and left. I teach so I see many kids act out much of what he talks about. A well writen, easy to read and Wonderful book.

This is an excellent book, even though the author is biased towards liberalism. His great contribution is to introduce the possibility of objective neutrality into the discussion of politics, and then to provide a unifying theory on the nature of the differences between liberals and conservatives. According to Lakoff, this difference lies in two different views of the nature of the nuclear family, and the connection to politics is the result of people projecting their "family values" onto the political stage. Lakoff describes the conservative as favoring a "strict father" model of the nuclear family, while a liberal favors a "nurturing parent" model. It is here, at the very beginning, that Lakoff's bias begins to show. His names for the two family models immediately introduces an ideological and gendered bias. Why not moral-PARENT as conservative and permissive-MOTHER as liberal, the way an unapologetic conservative might have framed the problem? The way Lakoff frames the problem, a value judgement has already been implied. Of course the strict-father family is dysfunctional when compared to a nurturing-parent family, but so is the permissive-mother family compared to a moral-parent family.

From a sociobiological point of view, the two dysfunctional families (strict father, permissive mother) are dysfunctional because the respective parent has opted for power and control and has become predatory upon the children, the strict-father requiring obedience through the use of force and the permissive-mother through the inducement of crippling dependence. Non-dysfunctional families require that children be nurtured AND taught to be self-reliant, so that they may one day become functioning adults, replacing the parents as family representatives. From a sociobiological point of view, the power grab inside the family is pathological because the predatory actions of the parent, who will not live forever, and whose only genetic legacy is the family, serve to destroy that very legacy. Governments on the other hand, do not die a natural death.

Lakoff introduces the link to politics by seeing correctly that people tend to view the nation as a large tribe or family. The nation-as-family metaphor, with the government in the role of parent, has only variations along the mother-father or, equivalently, liberal-conservative dimension. But both are authoritarian in nature, with the citizen as child. What about the other possibility of citizen-as-adult? The idea of nation-as-family probably comes from our thousands of years of evolution under the tribe-as-family metaphor which is valid because the tribe is essentially an extended family of genetically close individuals. The leader of a tribe could be depended upon to not engage in too much predatory behavior on the members of his own tribe because it would be pathological in an evolutionary sense and therefore selected against. The same is not true of a genetically diverse nation.

The metaphor of government-as-parent is less appropriate for the modern nation to the degree that the nation is genetically inhomogeneous. For a genetically diverse democracy like the United States, the paradigm of nation-as-parent is particularly pathological. The advantage to be gained by a "parent" (politician) doing a power grab, which would be dysfunctional in a family, becomes very advantageous for the parent (politician) in such a genetically diverse environment, resulting in a liberal government-as-shepherd or conservative government-as-wolf predatory metaphor in which the government represents itself to the electorate as a caring parent, but in fact is engaged in a sophisticated form of predation upon the citizen-as-sheep. (I know, the shepherd metaphor is generally an emotionally positive metaphor but I never heard of a vegetarian shepherd, if you get my drift).

In summary, Lakoff has opened a new way of thinking about politics which, if his bias can be successfully ignored, can be very enlightening and valuable to any politically minded person, no matter what their political persuasion.

I basically liked this book and thought there were many great points made. I think the author may be stuck a little too much on the strict father/nurturant mother angle though and unaware that a great many children do not grow up in this type of an environment and would not identify with this demographic.

"Christianity works by a moral accounting system...Immoral deeds are debits; moral deeds are credits...If you have a big enough positive balance of moral credit when you die, you go to heaven; if you have a negative balance, you go to hell. These general notions are shared by most forms of Christianity."

Wow. That's one of the grossest mischaracterizations of Christianity I've ever heard, let alone from a professor. One only has to read the Apostles' Creed, or heck, listen to the words of "O Holy Night," to know how wrong Lakoff is. I think I sense a bias. I have no doubt Lakoff is a scholar; just not in any of the areas addressed by this book. I suggest he stick to Cog Sci and Linguistics; and peer-reviewing isn't a bad idea either.

A compendium of weak, foolish arguments disguised as scholarly thought. If you REALLY want to read Al Franken, but would rather pretend that you're better than that, then this is the book for you.

Lakoff, once again ignores every law of economics and makes an emotional account for his view of the world. All flames and no facts.

Moral Politics is written in the language of liberals. It is a lengthy rationalization of how liberals reconcile their stated beliefs with their actual day-to-day choices. George Lakoff rates things like aesthetic appreciation and capacity to experience pleasure near the top of the list of important civic attributes.

His "insights" about conservative thinking are profoundly misinformed. He really should talk to a conservative once in a while though I can see how awkward that would be for both parties.

The passage below, found on p. 32 deserves to be quoted in full:

"It is important that the public become aware that we think by using conceptual systems that are not immediately accessible to consciousness and that conceptual metaphor is part of our normal thought processes."

You see not only do we think with systems inaccessible to our consciousness (?!), but also it is important that the public become aware of this. You will not find a better illustration of how liberals and conservatives differ in the ways they think about public matters. A liberal has on his list of things to do making the public aware that we think by using inaccessible sytems. Try dropping the above quote into ordinary conversation (off-campus please)sometime. Chart the fortunes of the Democratic Party in the depth and profundity of the blank look you receive.

These days, politics is getting to the point of being too personal. For some like Bush and GOP, it's an asset. For the rest of us progressives and independents, it can be a handicap more often than not. George Lakoff is out to prove otherwise. Learn the strengths and weaknesses and learn what you can do to peacefully strike back and strike forward at bad conservatives and libertarians who have been intertwining morality and politics to the point of pursuing the politics of personal destruction.

for people who have an interest in politics, philosophy and morality. Fantastic and wide ranging information which is well presented and well written.

Thank you for the incisive analysis of Lakoff's bias, Tomba "PR." We can certainly find 'strict father' Republicans, but we can also find Democrats who fit the same bill, and the 'suffocating mother' appears in both parties. Neither metaphor accounts for conservatism or progressivism.

Yet Lakoff's 'strict parent' conveniently sounds like a totalitarian, which fits the common liberal _ad hominem_ tendency (in Berkeley, CA, especially) to associate American conservatives with Nazis, even though there is no political similarity in principle, policy or practice. Think viscerally, like a teenager: rule-makers are the enemy of freedom, and freedom (to do whatever you want, with no consequence, and at no cost) is good.

Lakoff's operative metaphor isn't 'the nation as family': he's describing what he takes to be 'the political enemy,' i.e. Republicans, who are the black hats, and 'the political friend,' i.e. the Democrats, who apparently always wear the white hats.

If Lakoff had only provided some metaphoric balance (and some historical context and philosophical depth) to his political categorization, then he'd be honored by everyone, not just Democratic fanatics. Then he would have noticed that the Democratic party's fondness for communication (the traditional progressve answer to all problems) tends to lead party members to follow the smoothest talker (Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama being the most obvious examples), but not to pay so much attention to pragmatic tests of favored policies. The danger to this fondness is the rise of a cult of character (as Chris Matthews of MSNBC could testify, if he weren't an acolyte in the cult of Barrack.)

While there are surely problems often enough with Republican practices, and a fondness for both cultural tradition and personal independence amonst conservatives (both of which can have pragmatic issues), the rise of a cult of personality--associated with promises of a 'chicken in every pot,' a job or check for every citizen, a nationalized health system, an environmental and sanitary utopia, and strong controls over greedy businessmen--isn't one of the conservatives' problems. Such a big government picture is the Euro-socialist form of a 'kinder and gentler' politics, instead.

Such a politics has been called the welfare state, or the Nanny state, which Lakoff should appreciate, for its version on the family politics theme. Yet Lakoff did not want to note the 'suffocating mother' potential in his Democratic preference. To note that the oppressive Nanny state is the opposite of the liberating notion of the citizen as adult would have balanced Lakoff's critique of our partisan tendencies.

Liberals like Lakoff react with disbelief and anger at Jonah Goldberg's account of the 'progressive' common ground between American liberals and European fascists, because it doesn't fit their compassionate self-image. Yet the history of eugenics (included the 1930's origin of abortion as a social tool to control undesirables), state-controlled industries, state-provided work and welfare, and grand rhetoric and public works (like the Autobahn), provides lots of common policies.

Clearly, our learned image of Hitler is wholly negative, but that means that we don't remember why people voted for Hitler, or re-elected the kinder, nicer Mussolini. Or why _Time_ made a fascist its Man of the Year. Hitler was a racist and a nationalist and a war-mongerer, truly, but he was also a social progressive, just a progressive with iron-shod boots. Think of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela today, for a contemporary totalitarian Nanny state leader who likes his power.

To realize that anti-democratic potential in the progressive movement should send chills down the leg of everyone, including Chris Matthews and Lakoff. Then, maybe, we could ask, what is the alternative, the conservative movement, really? I don't think that we will see Berkeley, CA, sending us any balanced account any time soon.

The author's name rhymes with ...?? Enough said; good book to see liberal thought process if you don't mistakenly try to follow him logically all the way through. Accept him for what he is and the 'progressive' philosphy for what it is; a feel good worldview that is accepted and defended with religous zeal. Useful NOT in understanding logic of modern Liberalism, but helpful in understanding Bush derangement syndrome, their fear and loathing of truly religous people, and even those who love and respect the Founding Fathers and the truly unique and incredible system of self-governance they created. Not an honest or comprehensive comparison of the two schools of thought, nor the history of how Liberalism of this kind has always failed and worsened the lives of those they espouse to care about, as contrasted to how American Conservatism has worked every time it's been attempted WITHOUT too much (see Bush 1 and 2) watering down.

I'm giving this book 5 stars because I found it fascinating, and would recommend it. But I must confess that I have mixed feelings about it. This book attempts to explain why some Americans are "progressive" and others are "conservative" based on their conception of morality, which stems from their views about the family. This theory of political affiliation is built on Lakoff's theories of cognitive linguistics and metaphorical thought (which are best explained in the excellent book he coauthored with Mark Johnson: "Philosophy in the Flesh" -- which is a must-read for anyone who is interested in language and how the mind works). I find Lakoff's theories of cognitive linguistics to be very insightful. I also find his theory of political affiliation to be plausible. However, I do see some problems with it.

First, Lakoff focuses exclusively on American politics. It isn't clear how well this theory would apply to politics outside of the United States. Unless we want to assume that American politics are radically different from politics in other countries, a theory that explains political affiliation in the U.S. would also have to be able to explain political affiliation in other nations.

Second, Lakoff's theory divides people's moral and political views into just two broad camps: "conservative" and "progressive". He argues that an individual can have a mixture of conservative and progressive views (e.g. one can take a progressive view on some things and a conservative view on others); but he insists that there are no other political and moral viewpoints that one can hold, and that there is no such thing as a true political "moderate". For me, this is the one aspect of Lakoff's theory that is hardest to swallow. Nonetheless, I think he's got some good insights here; and his theory is potentially useful.

I didn't agree with many parts of this book but all in all, I would recommend it. It will make you think and maybe even understand what goes on in the political arena.

The divide between conservatives and liberals in the U.S. and the West has probably never been greater and appears unbridgeable. The author addresses this issue in terms of opposing models of family values and specifically their modes of child rearing, all within the context of the Nation as Family metaphor. The author skillfully and convincingly makes this seemingly naïve approach plausible. I found much to like in his arguments, which I expect will shape my thinking from here on. At the same time I found much to dislike and believe the author's rendering furthers the liberal-conservative divide.

The author's opposing family value models are the conservative Strict Father Model (bad) and the liberal Nurturant Parent Model (good). In simple terms the former model has the father (government) strictly in control of the family (nation) and meting out rewards and punishments to exercise that control. The latter model has all family members (government and citizens) coequals negotiating from mutually respectful and loving positions. Conservative fathers who find this nomenclature offensive need only rephrase them as the Strict Parent Model and Nurturant Parent Model or more simply as the Strict Model and Nurturant Model with no other change to the author's arguments required. Beyond this offensive nomenclature issue there are more substantive issues that conservatives will find offensive or at least puzzling and that receive some clarification only toward the book's end.

One such issue arises when the Strict Model is equated to the academic community's Authoritarian (bad) Model of child rearing and the Nurturant Model is equated to that community's Authoritative (good) Model of child rearing. Implicit in both is the importance of parental authority, but the former emphasizes strict (abusive) emotional and physical interactions with the child and the latter emphasizes loving (nurturant) emotional and physical interactions. The author reminds us that the Nurturant Model also requires parental authority, but I found that message to be muted and submerged beneath other concerns in the earlier discussions. Also, in contrast to the author's assertions, I believe that most conservatives will identify more strongly with the Authoritative (good, liberal) Model. We find this inconsistency clarified when it is discovered that the Strict Father Model is really the model promoted primarily by elements of the fundamentalist Christian community, a minority in the conservative community. The author would have us believe that his Strict Father Model is central to conservative beliefs and that all conservatives adhere to it in various shades of gray, but it may be that his Strict Father Model is more correctly an extreme position on some continuum.

This view receives support from the author's reports that the Strict Father Model produces children who become ineffective adults, in contrast to those raised under the Nurturant Parent Model. If so, and all conservatives were raised under the Strict Father Model, then in time liberals would run the world. That this is not so and does not appear to be an eventuality suggests that the author's view of conservatism and the Strict Father Model needs modification.

A complete theory of politics should include the problem of hostile foreign nations and terrorists. The author discussed neither, but he does touch briefly on difficult (hostile) individuals and groups. His prescription for dealing with them is continued attempts at nurturant interactions, a strategy that a persistent enemy could easily turn to his or her advantage. Accordingly, it seems to be an insufficient strategy for foreign policy but is consistent with the Democratic strategy for the current war in Iraq and against terrorism, which consists of cessation of fighting (troop withdrawal) and negotiating with the enemy.

A puzzling inconsistency with the author's thesis is his report that many in the academic community prefer the Strict Model when teaching their students. Since most academics are liberal it would seem they should prefer the Nurturant Model. Could it be that the author's thesis is just another case of an academic counseling, `Do as I say and not as I do?'

A major reason that it has been difficult for self professed conservatives (of various stripes including libertarian)to make headway in normal society is that they have no principles, only bunches of whining excuses for social and economic Darwinism. Conservatism is nothing but a set of excuses for "Screw you, I got mine," only now they don't feel the need for any cover whatsoever. Conservatives and their roach motel "think tanks" write ideologically prescribed papers based solely on references to other demented conservative nonthinkers. A curse on those mutants who cannot tolerate any iota of uncertainty and worship at the altar of Reagan, a true idiot, coversational savant though he may have been. So, now this pack of craven curs takes it upon themselves to excoriate Lakoff--like Swiftboat liars.

this cogent study helps trial lawyers understand juries, teachers to understand students...

As a progressive I have not been able to understand what makes the conservatives behave the way they do. After reading this book I now have some understanding. That does NOT mean I agree. It will help me articulate my views in a way conservatives may be able to listen and rationally discuss the issues.

Lakoff book Moral Politics describes how conservatives and liberals construct their political opinions through their personal system of moral integrity. Although he admits his own liberal leanings, Lakoff remains objective. He does not claim that each set of moral systems is the be all, end all to liberal and conservatives. Rather, he makes the argument that each person with their political positions are leaning strongly in one direction according parental models of strict-father model or nuturent parent model . He helps us understand why we think like we do through a linguistics research. Great book no matter what party or ideas you support.

Liberal and conservative greatly misunderstand one another. This book should help anyone get a different perspective for the other party and hopefully give new insights into understanding people.

This may be the most important book one could read to understand the differences in worldview and the underlying values that motivate one's position on any specific social or political issue. I have recommended it a number of times to friends.

For some time now, I've been very curious as to how it is possible for two rational human beings to get along in every possible way yet when the subject of politics comes up, have no common ground at all.

Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think is the book that helped me find the answers to my questions. George Lakoff's hypothesis is that people conceptualize abstract ideas through metaphor. One way to help understand the complexities of society and government is to model it as one big extended family. The government is modeled as the parental figure and citizens as it's children. I was skeptical about this at first, but after reading the thorough reasoning that went into that hypotheses, I'm convinced that whether you think so or not and whether you're a conservative or a liberal, this is indeed how people think. If you doubt that you think this way yourself, ask what you think is the best method for raising children, then think about what role government should have in people's lives. If you find some similarity then you are probably also using the Nation as Family metaphor. In this context, the difference between a liberal and a conservative is in the _kind_ of family they think society should emulate. Lakoff proposes that there are two models of the family that are used for the Nation as Family metaphor: The Strict Father model and the Nurturant Parent model. As you might guess, conservatives generally favor the Strict Father model where liberals favor the Nurturant Parent model. The reason is in how people view the ideal way to raise children. Each side sincerely believes that their way of reasoning is based on solid morals and that the other side is simply ignorant, misguided, or worse, immoral. Lakoff thoroughly describes the inner workings of each model and how one would reason within that model. He also understands and describes at great length the varieties and forms those models can be extended which I found to be the most interesting part of the book.

Ultimately, I was surprised by how much I was forced to reflect on my own moral framework and how I reason - not just within politics but as a father as well. There is no doubt that anyone reading this book would find great insight into own viewpoints as well.

I gave the book 5 stars not because I'm thoroughly convinced of the hypotheses, which I am not, but because I believe this endeavor is ambitious because of the subjective nature of politics and morality. For that alone, Lakoff did an awesome job.

What a revelation this book provides.
It doesn't focus on who's correct or incorrect, progressives or conservatives.
If focuses on understanding why each personality type agrees or disagrees with the main issues of each party's platform.

The author wrote a shorter version that gives the conclusions, but not as much explanation, in "Don't Think of an Elephant".
I read both, the shorter one first, then with my curiosity roused, i read the longer one to understand the conclusions.

I'm no longer confused on why my mother-in-law and others support a political party that continues to harm them financially and remove their first amendment rights.
Thank goodness for this confusion clearing book.

After reading Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant", I had to go back to "Moral Politics" for more. His is one of the first books regarding politics that has made me less angry at conservatives. Though I still wholly disagree with them, I now better understand where they are coming from, and that is so important in our current political situation. It is vital that we understand rather than demonize the other's view in order to debate and question ourselves and eachother. We have definitely lost touch with objectivity and this book made me question conservative ideas in a new light, but also rethink my own progressive values. Love it or hate it, you cannot deny the profound impact of Lakoff's thinking and models. It is exactly what we need more of and will challenge the way you look at politics.