The WELL: inkwell.vue.229: Glenn Smith, _Politics of Deceit: Saving Freedom and Democracy from Extinction_

#142: Sharon Lynne Fisher (slf) Sun 21 Nov 04 06:43

Sun, 21 Nov 2004 06:43:00 PST

I accidentally posted that before I proofread the last few paragraphs, but I assume you'll get the gist. [Read entire topic]

#141: Sharon Lynne Fisher (slf) Sun 21 Nov 04 06:41

Sun, 21 Nov 2004 06:41:00 PST

<hidden> [Read entire topic]

#140: Drew Trott (druid) Sat 20 Nov 04 18:15

Sat, 20 Nov 2004 18:15:00 PST

I like that, but I'm afraid any political descriptor starting with "comm" has an uphill battle in this society! [Read entire topic]

#139: from PATTY HORRIDGE (tnf) Sat 20 Nov 04 16:39

Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:39:00 PST

Patty Horridge writes:

Glenn, do individuals actually fall neatly into these three categories? I don*t think I do. When I take the quizzes to see how I line up with the candidates, at best, I agree 50% of the time with them. The majority fell in the 20-40% range. So I can*t put myself squarely in any one category. My faith puts me in the moralistic culture; my ego puts me in the individualistic culture; and my traditional side wants to celebrate where I*ve come from. It makes sense to me to appeal to all three. Is that even possible with what you envision?

It*s interesting that you describe the moralistics as being less in number compared to the individualist/traditionalist combination. All I*m hearing and reading is that the far right has the *moral vision* for our country today. I don*t believe this for a minute, and those that do, like you said, haven*t been listening.

Drew, your metaphor of the wagon train is excellent. The image speaks well to all three political cultures. How about the term commutuality in place of moralistic? It*s probably too surreal, even my computer didn*t recognize it. * [Read entire topic]

#138: Drew Trott (druid) Sat 20 Nov 04 10:16

Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:16:00 PST

Meanwhile, I've been trying to think of metaphors that combine the individualist and moralist perspectives. (I'd rather call the latter something else, something conveying a sense of combination and mutuality, but I can't think of the right term.)

The only metaphor that has occurred to me so far is the wagon train. The idea is a collective moving forward, a village on the move so to speak, but with a definite role for rugged individualists -- the scouts and hunters. [Read entire topic]

#137: Glenn Smith (glennsmith) Sat 20 Nov 04 07:40

Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:40:00 PST

I'm most interested in all perspectives on the matter, Sharon. So I'd like your summary. But do a detect a note of dismissal on your end? [Read entire topic]

#136: Sharon Lynne Fisher (slf) Sat 20 Nov 04 05:08

Sat, 20 Nov 2004 05:08:00 PST

My class in comparative state politics last term talked about the individual/moral/whatever split, and had some discussion about it, which I can go through and summarize here if people are interested. [Read entire topic]

#135: Drew Trott (druid) Fri 19 Nov 04 23:42

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:42:00 PST

That strikes me as a terrific model, and it parallels a lot of my perceptions. Recently in another conference on the Well I found myself realizing (and saying) that I would negotiate away my support for (more) gun control if it would help win the next election. This grew out of my realization that there are a lot of people on this system who probably agree with me on more issues than they do with the Republicans -- but there are a few hot buttons, like gun control, that keep them sitting on the fence or going sideways (with a third party candidate) or even going over to the GOP. This fits in pretty well with what you're describing -- and I think prescribing. I'm a moralist, but I can see myself striking compromises with the individualists in a way I can't with the traditionalists.

It's also ironic in light of this model that the Bush Republicans have managed not only to corral the individualists (along with their own traditionalism), but also to preempt the language of "morality" -- the inappropriateness of which isn't lost on progressives, but in classic Rovian fashion cuts the ground from beneath them (us). [Read entire topic]

#134: Glenn Smith (glennsmith) Fri 19 Nov 04 22:44

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:44:00 PST

Let me lay out another well-accepted model from political science that might help on the "where do we go from here" front. That's the late Daniel Elazar's schematic of three political cultures. I've spoken of him in the context of covenant before.

Elazar divided the nation into three political cultures or traditions: moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalistic. These traditions stretch all the way back to the original emigration to North America, and were extended West and South as the continent was conquered in the original shock and awe campaign.

Interestingly, the moralistic political culture is the progressive culture, born in New England, cares about community, believes government has a responsibility to make a "good society." The individualistic culture is born of the mid-Atlantic, extended West, takes a market-place, Adam Smith-like approach to political organization (and all the accompanying mythological aura of the rugged individualist). The traditionalistic culture, largely of the South, likes hierarchy, has no use for government meddling with it, imbues its aristocratic aspirations with religious fervor.

Lest anyone thinks this is a bit abstract, it's a well-accepted model. Recent studies of state budgeting and implementation of welfare reform in the 90s confirm the model's predictive power. There are a few unexpected things: Utah falls in the moralistic category, for instance. And many states are a blend. Texas, for instance is individualistic/traditionalistic. But I bet visions of red and blue are easy to call up.

Lakoff's progressive vision is largely a brilliant reframing of the moralistic tradition. But looked at geopolitically, it becomes clear that progressives have done an excellent job advancing their vision in states where they enjoy cultural and political dominance. Well, each of the traditions has done a good job asserting themselves where they enjoy dominance.

I think our problem is literally that when you add the individualists to the traditionalists there are many more of them than there are moralistics. The Republican message is tailored to appeal to both: utilitarian, free-market economics and traditionalistic respect for the past (leveraged in the South through the exploitation of race and fundamentalist churches, which are much more integral to white Southern culture than progressive religiosity is in New England).

Mapping Lakoff's authoritarian/nurturant model onto Elazar's will be tricky. I'm working on that now, so if anyone has any ideas let me know.

Just as a strategic possibility, it's going to be much easier to appeal to the individualistic culture than the tradionalistic. Individualistic cultures don't believe in government intervention in private lives. But they will go along with it for pragmatic reasons. And they don't like Big Brother any more than we do.

We can appeal to the utilitarian leanings of the individualists by pointing out that the deteriorating health of the economic (and social) environment is blocking individual initiative. We steal the anti-government (at least government as it is today) message from the Republicans, carefully describing government's role as a watchdog of a fair and open playing field, not as an interventionist social engineer.

This is a rather Clintonian approach: wed our moral vision to the pragmatic concerns of the individualists.

What do you think? [Read entire topic]

#133: Glenn Smith (glennsmith) Fri 19 Nov 04 22:32

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 22:32:00 PST