What Do They Really Want?

What Conservatives Really Want by George Lakoff

--Dedicated to the peaceful protestors in Wisconsin, February 19, 2011.

The central issue in our political life is not being discussed. At stake is the moral basis of American democracy.

The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.

Budget deficits are a ruse, as we've seen in Wisconsin, where the governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions, not just in Wisconsin, but seeking to be the first domino in a nationwide conservative movement.

Deficits can be addressed by raising revenue, plugging tax loopholes, putting people to work, and developing the economy long-term in all the ways the president has discussed. But deficits are not what really matters to conservatives.

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

The market itself is seen in this way. The slogan, "Let the market decide" assumes the market itself is The Decider. The market is seen as both natural (since it is assumed that people naturally seek their self-interest) and moral (if everyone seeks their own profit, the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand). As the ultimate moral authority, there should be no power higher than the market that might go against market values. Thus the government can spend money to protect the market and promote market values, but should not rule over it either through (1) regulation, (2) taxation, (3) unions and worker rights, (4) environmental protection or food safety laws, and (5) tort cases. Moreover, government should not do public service. The market has service industries for that. Thus, it would be wrong for the government to provide health care, education, public broadcasting, public parks, and so on. The very idea of these things is at odds with the conservative moral system. No one should be paying for anyone else. It is individual responsibility in all arenas. Taxation is thus seen as taking money away from those who have earned it and giving it to people who don't deserve it. Taxation cannot be seen as providing the necessities of life, a civilized society, and as necessary for business to prosper.

In conservative family life, the strict father rules. Fathers and husbands should have control over reproduction; hence, parental and spousal notification laws and opposition to abortion. In conservative religion, God is seen as the strict father, the Lord, who rewards and punishes according to individual responsibility in following his Biblical word.

Above all, the authority of conservatism itself must be maintained. The country should be ruled by conservative values, and progressive values are seen as evil. Science should have authority over the market, and so the science of global warming and evolution must be denied. Facts that are inconsistent with the authority of conservatism must be ignored or denied or explained away. To protect and extend conservative values themselves, the devil's own means can be used again conservatism's immoral enemies, whether lies, intimidation, torture, or even death, say, for women's doctors.

Freedom is defined as being your own strict father -- with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, you will of course need a gun.

This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.
What is saddest of all is to see Democrats helping them.

Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific "cuts" is working within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American -- the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent. Middle class wages have been flat for 30 years, while the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life, but not the American way of life.

Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud over and over that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic.

Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called Democratic Communication Disorder. Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media, and booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on TV are conservatives. Talk matters because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths.

And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks -- talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies. They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them.

Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like "entitlements" instead of "earnings" and speak of government as providing "services" instead of "necessities."

Is there hope?

George Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics, Don't Think of an Elephant!, Whose Freedom?, and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.

Inspiration

Kayvon made an excellent point recently. Don't force it! Great advice for many situations.

On March 1st at 7 pm I'll be driving over to the Old California Coffee House and Eatery on Las Posas in San Marcos to meetup with a few new folks under the heading "Desperately Seeking Intelligent Conversation." (DSIC)  Found them on Meetup.com and looking forward to possible new connections, but certainly a transfusion of dialogue.

Making my bucket list on 1/1/11 fell short of inspiration. The new thing I want to do this year is skydive for my 60th b'day, and before I expire I want to see New Zealand. Having no other fantasies, plans, want to's, must do's, etc. in the next 30+ years is depressing. Shouldn't there be more to look forward to?

Looking back at KidXpress, Children of Fallen Soldiers, Circle of Art, Desert Home Care, and College of Borrego Foundation involvement, all since 2004, it seems that it isn't for lack of trying. So what is my thing? When will it appear, what form does it take, who will be involved, where will it happen???

sparksyou.com is Kayvon's venture and it really hits home these days. Looking for hats to try on for fit, comfort and/or possible headaches begins anew at DSIC on March 1st. In the meantime and beyond, I will return to these pages whenever the mood strikes, but not if I have to force it!

Rereading Siddhartha certainly helped about 2 weeks ago when I got caught in the "need a new car" vise and impulsively bought the wrong one. I lost my center and that night in the darkness, Siddhartha was the tonic needed to make it 'til dawn. I should probably carry a copy in my new 2001 Van alongside Jar Jar Binks and Sully from Avatar. My traveling companions on the road of life.

Eric's got his American Football in Italy, Casey's has his unveiled project, Kayvon's sparksu is on the horizon and these young guys inspire me to keep moving forward and let it flow even when the river bed ahead looks dry. When you're in your 20's you are supposed to be seeking a path to satisfying work and life involvements. It is a bit abnormal to still be seeking that at 60 but it is what it is and the travel here has been episodic, but you can't go back, no do-overs, and all we have is forward.

Today is a good day to start.

Read My Lips

The following was written by Bruce Dearborn, a fellow traveler, observer, and truth speaker.

Read My Lips: Social Security is not an entitlement

Congress and our “leaders” are all in a froth, again about Social Security, saying, continuing to pay such “entitlements” will add to the deficit and must be “addressed.”  What this apparently means, is that our leaders are prepping us for a new scheme for not paying back the $2.5 trillion the taxpayers have funded the deficit via the mechanisms in place to move the SS surplus into the general fund of the Treasury – off the books.  That’s right, the Social Security tax has served as a cash cow for the government bookkeepers. 
PL 101-508, passed in 1990 allows this to happen; Social Security receipts and payments “shall not be counted . .  for deficit or surplus purposes.”

The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was created in 1939 and has generated a surplus – of our money – ever since.  Where has the surplus been going?  The Board of Trustees has given it to the Treasury in exchange for non-negotiable, interest-bearing “claims on the treasury,” not really “Bonds” since they have no market and can’t be sold, but are still being backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.
Confused?  It is no accident.  As a result of this maneuver the $2+ trillion is not on the books, anywhere.  Well, the SSA and the Treasury say they have an “accounting” of this number, but it is not recorded on the books and records of the annual indebtedness of the US Government.  Here’s what the SSA has to say about it:

“The trust fund provides automatic spending authority to pay monthly benefits to retired-worker (old-age) beneficiaries and their spouses and children and to survivors of deceased insured workers. With such spending authority, the Social Security Administration does not need to periodically request money from the Congress to pay benefits.

Funds not withdrawn for current expenses (benefits, the financial interchange with the Railroad Retirement program, and administrative expenses) are invested in interest-bearing Federal securities, as required by law; the interest earned is also deposited in the trust fund.”  Source - SSA

If these statements are accurate, then, when you and I begin to draw our “invested” funds which have more than adequately funded SSA until now, the US Treasury merely buys back these “interest-bearing Federal securities” and bundles them up and sells new ones in the same amount with no impact on the deficit.  Social Security is not insolvent, and won’t be for nearly another generation – or more.  The problem is, they can’t; PL 101-508 says not to keep track of it so, to pay it back, since it shall not be counted . .  for deficit or surplus purposes when it happened in the first place new debt must be created.

Originally, SSI was set up using actuarial tables, of income, working years, and life span.  It’s involved, but insurance companies began refining the art starting in the early 1700’s when annuities began to proliferate.  Social security is no different, except in one important way; funding comes one-half from employees, and one-half from employers.  Employers deduct this as an expense of doing business, employees do not.  We get to pay tax on the tax.  In addition our “benefit” is taxed again when we “withdraw” it.  And to think there is a provision somewhere about double taxation – don’t get me started.

The tax rate has not changed since 1983 and is capped for high-income folks.  It would have been simple years ago to remedy this, but efforts to raise the rate have been resisted stubbornly by various moneyed and business interests and their appointed and elected agents. This recession has eliminated more jobs in the $15-35 dollar per hour range than any other, and created more jobs in the $8-$19 dollar range than any other.  Just dig through the latest jobs reports – it’s there.  Another wrinkle is that we do not have a decrease in compensation to Americans.  The problem is that SSA cannot collect from total compensation, because the increases which offset the losses to the lower wage earners are all bunched at the top where they are capped out.

So, it chafes me to hear about the woes of Social Security, and all the other support programs that are funded from SSA revenues.  It is a red herring, a smoke screen and, I believe, a deception.  WE DO NOT HAVE A FUNDING PROBLEM!  WE HAVE A TRUST PROBLEM!  AND, WE HAVE NO INCOME PROBLEM! WE HAVE A DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME PROBLEM!

Bruce Dearborn

Vashon Island

What You See Depends on What You're Looking For

Is any other mind filled with this stuff? The brain is a fascinating organ. It wastes lots of energy thinking. It sets expectations and offers tidbits of insight. On the same day it will toss out depressing vibes and positives answers.

Today's theme goes something like this; "if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything." (Attribute the origin of these words and the title of this post to Anonymous sources.) What brings it forward is the opportunity presented by the work of the UCSD Autsim grant team. There are so many aspects of the work; in the Lab breaking down video and observing behavior. In the field, spending hours on simple connections and seeking and finding avenues into the minds and souls of Austictic kids with altered realities.

Stand back and realize this is big work. Literally millions of humans behind the curtain of a brain that is processing differently. Not knowing anything about the truth of this reality and certainly having no experience one on one with Autism, this morning my brain sees the words of Michel de Montaigne: "I know well what I am fleeing from, but not what I am in search of."

How to help reach beneath the surface of a brain functioning so differently? It doesn't matter why a brain is operating in any particular way. Just realizing their are thousands of families seeking ways, pathways into the minds, hearts, and spirits of someone they love. Love brings the desire to nurture, help, embrace, and search for a solutions to a productive life for everyone in your life. What an incredible mountain to climb. What great work to be part of the solution.

Today the task is to help find words, titles, catch phrases, new roads in the a land of the unknown. What you find doesn't depend on what you are looking for; what I am in search of is motivated by what I am fleeing. The brain is an incredibly complicated organ at its best. If some wires are crossed it is a maze with no entrance and even worse, no exit.

Everyone should have toys, tools, stimulation ..... these UCSD Lab people are thinking outside the box (xoq upside down) to find new ways into the brain and soul of an Autistic child. BRAVO!