[Peace-discuss] Fw: Father values or Mother values, the model for government?

[Joan Cole]

My apologies for sending my last post to the wrong list.  Hope I get this
one right...


 What really caught my eye in the following article was the fear / strict
father model combination.
I think this is very true.  We need to find ways to deal with the FEAR
before people will hear our logic.  We need to point out the cowardliness of
the dominant mythology.

As Frank Herbert, in Dune put so eloquently,
           Fear is the mindkiller,
           Fear is the little death
           That brings total Oblivion
---------------------------------------------------------
Joan Cole
http://www.advancenet.net/~jscole/

 ----- Original Message -----
 · This contains:
    "According to George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley University cognitive
scientist
 and author of "Moral Politics," the anxiety-provoking anti- terrorism
 actions and messages of fear of the Bush administration fall into the
 category of the "strict father" mode of communication.

 Lakoff concludes that the country is dramatically split between two ways of
 understanding the world. Some see this division as political - conservative
 vs. liberal. But Lakoff argues that it is ultimately a moral division, one
 derived from how people envision the right kind of family. Hence it is also
 a personal division.

 Lakoff believes that the "strict father" mode is at the bedrock of
conservative ideology. This morality "assigns highest priority to such
things as moral strength ... respect for and obedience to authority [and]
the setting and following of strict guidelines of behavioral norms."
Nurturant parent morality, by contrast, "requires empathy for others and the
helping of those who need help. To help others, one must take care of
oneself and nurture social ties." This morality provides the basis for
progressive/liberal ideology.

Clearly, in this post-Clinton period, where a fundamental assumption is that
the world is a dangerous place, and people must be protected, the
strict-father worldview is in ascendance. And the conservatives know it, and
they know how to use it.

As Lakoff underscores, "Over the past thirty years conservatives have poured
billions of dollars into their think tanks. They have articulated the system
of moral and family values that unifies conservatives; they have created
appropriate language for their vision; they have disseminated it throughout
the media; and they have developed a coherent political program to fit their
values." Lakoff argues that this infrastructure of ideas and values is the
essential reason "for the success that conservatives have been enjoying,
despite the fact that they appear to be the minority.""

 - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14639
>   is Don Hazen's:
>
> Grappling With the Politics of Fear
>
> By Don Hazen, AlterNet ; November 25, 2002
>
> There's an ongoing debate among media experts, peace advocates and funders
> about what media messages and symbols could galvanize popular opinion
> against the seemingly imminent Bush Administration invasion of Iraq.
>
> A number of ads from peace advocates have recently appeared in the New
York
> Times and in other newspapers, with more in the pipeline. Each of the ads
> makes a somewhat different argument for why Americans should be resisting
> the will of the Bush administration to take over Iraq and try Saddam for
war
> crimes.
>
> Yet, it is increasingly apparent that the climate of fear promoted by the
> Bush Administration in the wake of a series of national traumas is having
> wide effect. It seems clear that the politics of fear and safety has been
> underestimated by progressives and pundits. This political message likely
> had more impact on the Democratic losses and Republican gains in the
recent
> elections than the widespread sense that the Democrats had no message.
>
> According to George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley University cognitive scientist
and
> author of "Moral Politics," the anxiety-provoking anti-terrorism actions
and
> messages of fear of the Bush administration fall into the category of the
> "strict father" mode of communication.
>
> Lakoff concludes that the country is dramatically split between two ways
of
> understanding the world. Some see this division as political -
conservative
> vs. liberal. But Lakoff argues that it is ultimately a moral division, one
> derived from how people envision the right kind of family. Hence it is
also
> a personal division.
>
> Lakoff believes that the "strict father" mode is at the bedrock of
> conservative ideology. This morality "assigns highest priority to such
> things as moral strength ... respect for and obedience to authority [and]
> the setting and following of strict guidelines of behavioral norms."
> Nurturant parent morality, by contrast, "requires empathy for others and
the
> helping of those who need help. To help others, one must take care of
> oneself and nurture social ties." This morality provides the basis for
> progressive/liberal ideology.
>
> Clearly, in this post-Clinton period, where a fundamental assumption is
that
> the world is a dangerous place, and people must be protected, the
> strict-father worldview is in ascendance. And the conservatives know it,
and
> they know how to use it.
>
> As Lakoff underscores, "Over the past thirty years conservatives have
poured
> billions of dollars into their think tanks. They have articulated the
system
> of moral and family values that unifies conservatives; they have created
> appropriate language for their vision; they have disseminated it
throughout
> the media; and they have developed a coherent political program to fit
their
> values." Lakoff argues that this infrastructure of ideas and values is the
> essential reason "for the success that conservatives have been enjoying,
> despite the fact that they appear to be the minority."
>
>
> Messages In a Bottle
>
> The successful appeal of strict-father morality in the face of national
> trauma has fundamental implications for thinking about what messages will
> appeal to a broad cross-section of Americans.
>
> It is a wake-up call when one grasps the significance of the conservative
> success in controlling the central narratives in U.S. politics since Bush
> was elected in 2000. If fear is uppermost in people's minds, progressive
> advertisements with very specific anti-war messages about foreign oil
> dependence or about war's effect on the economy or social spending may
fall
> on deaf ears.
>
> Herb Chao Gunther, head of the Public Media Center in San Francisco,
thinks
> people have been "slapped silly by the dizzying effects of
larger-than-life
> issues, especially 9/11."
>
> As he puts it, "They don't feel confident in making complex decisions.
They
> have a tendency to look for the 'tough cop on the beat' to take care of
them
> ... It is difficult getting mindshare when fear, panic and withdrawal are
on
> people's minds."
>
> Certainly a good case can be made that many Americans - including voters
on
> Election Day - feel overwhelmed, shell-shocked and mystified by a recent
> past featuring a stolen Presidential election, unprecedented corporate
> scandals, a crumbling Catholic church, the devastating attacks of 9/11,
the
> sniper attacks in Washington D.C., and the ongoing war on terror, with
> raids, arrests and constant leaks from the FBI about alleged security
> vulnerabilities dominating the media.
>
> In the face of this tumultuous two years, several advocacy ads have tested
> potential messages. Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, led by
former
> ice cream mogul Ben Cohen, proclaimed in a recent full-page NY Times ad,
> "They' re Selling War, We're Not Buying."
>
> The ad plays on the theme of the Bushies shamelessly marketing war even
> though "war will wreck our economy" (and breed terrorism and discredit
> America in the world's eyes). This ad received a positive response from
some
> readers who in response to a coupon, sent in more than enough money to pay
> for the ad.
>
> Another message appeals to environmental sustainability by advocating an
end
> to our dependence on foreign oil. A third, still on the drawing board,
> raises the alarm over shrinking social services as resources are invested
in
> taking over Iraq.
>
> Another ad in the works, signed by dozens of religious leaders, is from
> Religious Leaders for Sensible Priorities (chaired by former Congressman
Bob
> Edgar, head of the National Council of Churches). Under the headline,
"Jesus
> Changed Your Heart. Let Him Change Your Mind," the ad "beseeches President
> Bush to turn back from the brink of war in Iraq."
>
> Underlying most of the ads is an appeal to cooperative values of
> multilateralism: working with our allies and the UN. This message has had
a
> lot of traction given that a majority of the population, while pro-war,
> hasn't wanted us to move forward without the support of the UN.
>
>
> Uncle Osama
>
> The most controversial of the current crop of ads communicates the fear of
> future terrorism that might result from an invasion of Iraq. It features
> Osama bin Laden dressed as Uncle Sam with the caption, "I Want You (To
> Invade Iraq)."
>
> The obvious implication is that the invasion will play into al-Qaeda's
> hands, making it easy for bin Laden to recruit terrorists and provide
> payback. This ad, produced by Fenton Communications for TomPaine.com, has
> appeared in the NY Times, Rolling Stone and a number of local papers, as
> donors have stepped forward to get it reprinted in other venues.
>
> This "blowback" message also carries the notion that we have to win
without
> war by working with the UN and emphasizes that occupation is costly. The
> Osama ad has attracted a great deal of buzz, been passed around the
Internet
> and provided lots of fodder for mega-mouth pundits like MSNBC's Chris
> Matthews and Fox's O'Reilly.
>
> But whom do these ads reach? One possibility is that none of them are
> breaking through to anyone but the most sophisticated liberals and
> progressives, some of whom will join the organizations that are publishing
> the ads. Yet the larger pool of undecideds or supporters of the war
perhaps
> remain unswayed.
>
> There is a big difference between ads and messages that appeal to and
> energize the anti-war base, trying to build outrage among the already
> committed, and those messages designed to appeal to larger audiences. One
> message (e.g., the Osama ad) may work for the progressive audience but may
> not work for the larger group that turns to the strict father for a sense
of
> safety.
>
>
> Bush's War Machine
>
> No one would argue against the importance of engaging the anti-war base,
> raising money and stimulating more involvement from concerned citizens.
But
> we shouldn't have the illusion that the messages in these ads are likely
to
> be effective with large numbers of people. And, with majorities in favor
of
> invading Iraq under various circumstances, the ongoing challenge is to
> change people's minds about the war and move the undecideds into the
> anti-war camp.
>
> Of course, one huge challenge to affecting public opinion on the war issue
> is a staggering lack of resources on the pro-peace side. The Bush war
> machine, with the general cooperation of the corporate media, buttresses
the
> pro-war debate every waking hour with its continuing emphasis on the
> permanent war on terror. Seemingly effortlessly, the administration
shifted
> the pro-war frame from Osama to Saddam, bringing us to the brink of war,
> and, at least for now, risking no political damage.
>
> The Bush communication capacity would be worth billions of dollars in the
> commercial marketplace. Peace advocates, by contrast, have spent less than
> $200,000 for paid ads, and anti-war advocates, even those in Congress, get
> very little free media coverage. On top of that, there has been no
research
> on what anti-war messages might resonate with the public and very little
> coordination to reinforce messages.
>
> But insufficient resources are only part of the problem, because liberals
> and progressives do have resources. Lakoff argues that not only are
liberal
> think tanks outfunded by conservatives, they are also "organized in a
> self-defeating manner."
>
> As he explains, "Most groups work issue by issue and have to constantly
> pursue funding." He also claims that the funding priorities of liberal
> foundations are self-defeating in a similar way. Their funding tends "to
be
> program-oriented (issue by issue) and ... short term with no guarantee of
> refunding. Moreover," he adds, the foundations, "tend not to give money
for
> career development or infrastructure ... and tend not to support their
> intellectuals ... doing just the opposite of what they should be doing if
> they are to counter conservatives' success. "
>
>
> Fear Factor
>
> So if resources are lacking, people are shell-shocked and fearful, and the
> strict-father appeal is having powerful success, what should progressives
be
> thinking in terms of communication?
>
> The fear factor is often overlooked by progressives, who frequently make
> appeals to logic on the assumption that if people know all the facts they
> will act accordingly. But at this moment in history, facts and analysis
must
> be accompanied by a vision that addresses safety needs and that goes
beyond
> common sense and trying to scare people not to act. Too many people read
> arguments against action, such as those against the war, as arguments for
> passivity. Aggressive action in the face of terrorism (real or imagined)
> plays well.
>
> Clearly intellectual arguments may not be at their most potent at this
> juncture. Many perceive us to be living in a dangerous time. Even though
> there has been no domestic terrorism in the 13 months since 9/11,
terrorism
> still dominates the corporate news virtually every day.
>
> James Carroll, writing in the Boston Globe on Nov. 19, notes that "many
> pleasant conversations often give way to worry. That we are a people
> prepared to go to war against an unpredictable adversary in an inflamed
> region adds to our unease. Meanwhile Al Qaeda has taken on dimensions of a
> mythic enemy," particularly with the authenticated resurfacing of Osama
bin
> Laden.
>
> Carrol adds, "Under cover of escalating citizen anxiety, the
administration
> is masterfully reshaping domestic and foreign policy both - according to
> pre-set ideological dispositions."
>
> Chao Gunther adds, "People are being pummeled into alienation. With a
> national injury people are hurt and the politics of fear is being
practiced.
> This is what happened in Europe in the 1930s. This is the kind of an
> environment where the guys in the brown shirts start showing up. The
> Democrats haven't been able to strike a moral opposition. No one is
heroic,
> no one is saying 'Open your eyes.'"
>
> Chao Gunther suggests: "We need to meet people where they are at and make
a
> patriotic appeal - urging people to start asking questions, to look around
> them and see what is happening, be skeptical, to exercise their patriotic
> duty to ask questions. We need to be telling them it is not a time to be
> hiding, to be sleeping."
>
>
> Balancing Safety with Justice
>
> In the absence of the heroic, minimally there seems a clear need for a
> consistent message, one that balances people's desire for safety with the
> hopes for a fair and just society, values that are clearly in the
background
> at this point for many people.
>
> At some point, fear turns into anger. Right now, though, that anger seems
> entirely directed against Saddam or bin Laden, not against the
> Administration's lies and manipulations. The trick is in turning the tide.
> As senior SEIU union organizer Jane McAlevey notes, "Every time we
organize
> a new union chapter, fear is a big factor - people's jobs are being
> threatened. But fear can be overcome, we do it all the time and win."
>
> Transcending fear and redirecting anger requires a host of ingredients
that
> need developing - both for Democrats and for progressive advocates.
Messages
> focusing on the theme that we are not alone, that many millions share our
> values, are important. Investment in independent infrastructure to
> communicate support in the absence of progressive values in the corporate
> press is necessary. Public events, where speakers can echo consistent
> messages, as well as house meetings, videos, viral marketing and online
> chats are all more "do it yourself" methods, but potentially potent means
of
> communicating.
>
> But just as important is the need for moral certainty and moral
forcefulness
> from our side; we don't need clever or ironic messages at this time.
>
> Adds Chao Gunther: "We are a powerful country because of our beliefs, our
> values; not our weapons or ability to bomb people back to the stone age.
We
> need to speak with courage and conviction. Not enough of us are saying
that
> Bush is wrong, and speaking with forcefulness about why."
>
> At the same time we need to think bigger - much, much bigger - and for the
> long term, since it may be years before a combination of Democrats and
> progressives will succeed in dislodging the conservatives.
>
> As Lakoff emphasizes, "The conservatives want to impose their world view
on
> the country - permanently. This isn't just about taxes, or social
programs,
> or prescription drugs, or the Iraq war. It is an attempt to take over the
> American mind and to impose strict father values on every aspect of our
> lives - in thousands of ways, great and small." He adds, "If progressives
do
> not even see the scope of the danger, then we are in trouble."
>
>
> Don Hazen is executive director of AlterNet.  AlterNet.org is a project of
> the Independent Media Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to
> strengthening and supporting independent and alternative journalism.
>
> First launched in 1998, AlterNet's online magazine provides a mix of news,
> opinion and investigative journalism on subjects ranging from the
> environment, the drug war, technology and cultural trends to policy
debate,
> sexual politics and health issues. The AlterNet article database includes
> more than 7,000 stories from over 200 sources.