WASHINGTON — Georgia state Rep. Betty Price (R) — the wife of Tom Price, who resigned last month as President Donald Trump ’s health secretary amid investigations into his frequent use of private planes — wonders if isolating people with HIV would help stop the disease’s spread. Price, a […]
George Lakoff has a lot of important insights into our current civil disfunction.
His theory, which I happen to fully agree with, says liberals like the Nurturing Mother world view, while, conservative like the Strong Father world view.
For liberals, the community exists to establish a safety net so the more in the community have opportunities for success. Conservatives, on the other hand, think God is they need, and the community actually gets in the way. Gay marriage being a great example.
In any case This is a great read. I hope you enjoy it.
Conservative moral values arise from what I call the Strict Father Family.
In this family model, father knows best. He decides right and wrong. He has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, because what he says is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father’s authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they control.
In this moral worldview, it is his moral duty to punish his children painfully when they disobey. Harsh punishment is necessary to ensure that they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world.
What if they don’t prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. In this conservative view, the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving while the rich deserve their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility, not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you, not society. You are responsible for yourself, not for others.
The strict father logic extends further. The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality (the strict father version), and that, in a world ordered by nature, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate.
Why do conservatives love Trump (who harms them) and hate healthcare (which helps them)? It makes more sense when you consider the conservative moral hierarcy.
The Conservative Moral Hierarchy:
• God above Man
• Man above Nature
• The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak)
• The Rich above the Poor
• Employers above Employees
• Adults above Children
• Western culture above other cultures
• America above other countries
• Men above Women
• Whites above Nonwhites
• Christians above non-Christians
• Straights above Gays
Most Trump supporters have Strict Father morality. It determines their sense of right and wrong. They see Trump as bringing America back to their values in a powerful way, making their values respectable and in line with the way the country is being run. Trump’s presidency has given them self-respect. Their self-respect is more important than the details of his policies, even if some of those policies hurt them. On the whole, they like the way he has restructured the government and what he is doing throughout the government.
Strict Father morality insists on a particular notion of self-responsibility. Being taken care of by “the government” is seen as immoral because it gives the government an authority above strict father principles. The care of the Affordable Care Act in itself violated the moral sense and the very identity of conservatives – even those who benefit greatly from it.
If this is true, and I believe it is true, it is important.
If you support Trump you probably don’t believe this true. That it is “fake news!” Right?
So there are two questions: 1) Do you believe that Trump’s top national security officials were surprised he did not include the Article 5 language? Or Not? 2) Independent of your belief on the trueness of this, what narrative does this data support? Does it support the narrative of: 1) Fake News, 2) Trump is an idiot, 3) Trump is purposefully realigning our alliances.
Trump’s decision to dump the speech and instead dump on NATO shocked even his own team.
It was not until the next day, Thursday, May 25, when Trump started talking at an opening ceremony for NATO’s new Brussels headquarters, that the president’s national security team realized their boss had made a decision with major consequences—without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.
Instead of the speech that had been carefully written, vetted, and approved in advance, Trump decided to deliver an insulting demand for payment even as a relic from the World Trade Center was being installed to remind the member states of the one time they had been called on to spill blood together—in defense of the United States.
Article 5 is the heart of NATO. It’s the section of NATO’s founding treaty where all the nations that participate in the alliance promise to come to the defense of any member under attack. Article 5 has been invoked exactly one time—by the United States following 9/11. In response […]
Tweet A convenience store in Tennessee is featuring a scrolling digital sign outside the gas station offering $50,000 for Kathy Griffin’s head. Lewis Country Store’s Facebook page is littered with controversial messages in an attempt to garner attention. The store’s Facebook page is very pro-Trump and anti-liberal. Apparently, the […]
This feeds the narrative that we are moving more to the “Alt-Right.”
MADISON, Wis. (AP) – Assembly Republicans moved closer to creating tougher penalties for University of Wisconsin student protesters Tuesday, advancing a bill that would suspend or expel students who disrupt speakers. The Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities approved the bill on an 8-6 vote. This sends the bill […]
I find this post from a Christian Media Outlet to be very important. I particularly thought the following quote interesting.
Political candidates have proven they are able to motive their colleagues to strategize, work, and give to accomplish their goals more than the church has proven its ability to motive the saints of God to reach lost people and serve the living Christ.
It seems to me author is correct; developing and implementing public policy is easier then trying to convince 21st Century people to believe and follow a 1st Century world view that becomes more out of date every day.