What Defines Progressive Ideology Pt. 1 posted by Ben

It's been an interesting week to think about the difference between progressive and conservative ideology. First, we had the release online of the Luntz Playbook, which had the temerity to articulate generally unspoken conservative agendas. Then yesterday, a reformed conservative posted this article on Daily Kos, which I will address in depth later. Also, the Principles Project–sponsored by a group called 2020 Democrats–had another round of voting on the platform of progressive principles that they have been working on articulating. And out of the overtly public sphere, leaders in the progressive movement have continued their discussions of principles and, more importantly, how to turn those principles into a call for action. All of these discussions, however, revolve around what for me are two crucial items: George Lakoff's discussion of the differences between conservative and progressive values and the call to action in Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign platform.

Let's start off with some of the core issues at work in the conservative agenda.

First, we have Lakoff's formulation (which can be found on page 7 of his book Don't Think of an Elephant.) His approach is to put the conservative model into the context of family power dynamics.

The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good.

What is needed in this kind of world is a strong, strict father who can protect the family in the dangerous world, support the family in the difficult world, and teach his children right from wrong.

What is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong. It is further assumed that the only way to teach kids obedience–that is, right from wrong–is through punishment, painful punishment, when they do wrong.

[snip]

If everyone pursues her own self-interest, then by the invisible hand, by nature, the self-interest of all will be maximized. That is, it is moral to pursue your self-interest, and there is a name for those people who do not do it. The name is do-gooder. A do-gooder is someone who is trying to help someone else rather than herself and is getting in the way of those who are pursuing their self-interest. Do-gooders screw up the system.

[snip]

A good person–a moral person– is someone who is disciplined enough to be obedient, to learn what is right, do what is right and not what is wrong, and to pursue her self-interest to prosper and become self-reliant.

So, values like obedience and self-reliance, and the expectation that everyone is out first of all to take care of themselves and their family are all deemed important. Conversely, when somebody does not prosper, the assumption made is that it is that person's fault. They weren't disciplined enough. They weren't moral enough. And it would be horribly remiss of our society if those failures were rewarded for failing. In other words, there is no room in this model for accidents.

Let's take a look at the essay, "You Liberals are Clueless," from the Daily Kos blog.

The author, a reformed conservative, writes in order to explicate the underlying, unspoken assumptions and beliefs of hard-core conservatives.

Liberals function because of a strong sense of empathy. You do; pat yourselves on the back. Conservatives don't function. Seriously, we don't. We are driven by a powerful litany of antipathies. We are driven because we hate; we hate the poor, the damaged, the turned-out, the dirty, the alien. We hate them for many reasons, but all the reasons stem from power. Make no mistake, there is power in equality- equality is utter power over the oppressor.

In other words, this author effectively says "Forget values, conservatism is really only motivated by hate." A dangerous assumption is this, says Yoda, because from it must come the conclusion that instead of living in balance with conservatism, we must all do whatever we can to counter its insidious message.

So why even take the time to discuss an articulation of the conservative agenda that in its very formulation is hateful, casting conservatives as second only to the devil in terms of their nefarious intentions and capacity for cruelty?

Let's dig a little bit deeper and compare this author's version of the conservative's core beliefs to Lakoff's model.

Power (God we love power)
is reached by
Private (our) Endeavor
accumulating
Wealth and
Control
to create and fund systems for
Motivating Work, and
Maintaining Ownership of Work
to
Own and Exploit Opportunity
for its
Wealth,
Control, and
Power
via
The Deserved (Chosen, Landed, Noble, Lordly, etc).

Once upon a time, that meant the farmer used his work ethic, farm, and sweat to make a profit and maintain his farm. He deserved it, didn't he? God told his white ass in the Bible of all places that he DESERVED it. When his great-grandson runs Krispy Kreme, by God he DESERVES that two-million-dollar-a-month jet! Why? Because he has Power. Power maintains The Deserved, and drives them to accumulate more power. The Deserved motivates others to work (fear of poverty), and own thats work (profits on doughnut sales). He enables the cycle of Power.

Now we're at a place to link this negative formulation (as seen from the left) with Lakoff's positive formulation (as seen from the right) of the conservative model. Both of these use the notion of self-reliance and hard personal work in order to become successful. "You worked hard for this, so you must deserve it!" So this author is attempting rhetorically to take us from the conservative ideals, as stated by Lakoff, to their practical application in real life.

There's this thing called the world of perception. And trust me, when you deal with as many Conservatives as I have, you realize perception and reality don't have to mirror each other. And in the world of perception, where the rules are no longer stable, Liberalism can fail.

How? Maybe it's in... someone's first experience with the ugly backside of group dynamics: exclusion. You can't be an equal playmate when you aren't even allowed in the group. [snip] Whatever it was, it was the beginning of a pattern of perception of exclusion. "These are not your people. These are not your people. These aren't people."

This pattern is made worse by selectively beginning to believe that many, many people want to take from them. It may be "those women" taking their dignity, or "those negros" trying to take their money, or "those wetbacks" for taking their jobs. Insulated from reality (remember the earlier exclusion), the mind begins to reinforce a philosophy based on sketchy and circumstantial evidence. This is sometimes called stereotyping. It's usually called bigotry.

This isn't unusual, really. As such, lone bigotry isn't the impetus of a harsh American Conservative view. But this pattern will become entrenched for some who (usually willfully) lack the empathy to pull themselves out and back into acceptance. So, with few people to relate to, we either become crazy, gun-toting loners, or we become Young Republicans (depending on your closest tax bracket).

There is one further step. True American Conservatives need to find a mentor. We are a cohesive group, not just a movement. We go by MANY names in many places, but we are all interconnected by acquaintance (we call it networking). Then, with help, we face, internalize, and accept our fears. We still fear, but we are no longer ruled by fear. We begin to rule fear.

Yep, seriously, that's about it. "NO," you cry, "It can't be just impotence! I could have told you that!" Yes, but you probably couldn't tell me why. It is really the humiliation of impotence, and we are only dangerous because we've stopped fearing it. That's what makes us rise above mere bigots and assholes.

So the author claims that exclusion leads to fear of future exclusion leads to cultivation of hatred of the "other" leads to a desire for power and control.

Is it a fair argument, to claim that hard-core conservatives are just fearful bigots?

Equality isn't zero sum- everyone can win. But we fixate on creating shortages- on a zero-sum game. Equality gives benefit to both. Inequality can give benefit to me, and humiliation to you. And that is the key. Remember, we want a two things: compensation for me, and humiliation for you. We can't accomplish that with the liberal model. We can with ours.

Perhaps that's the core question raised by the above argument: does seeking one's own self-interest go hand-in-hand with diminishing others' opportunities?

Lakoff briefly cited the powerful intellectual influence in conservatism of Adam Smith and his invisible hand. Basically, the theory is that if everyone pursues their self interest, specifically in the markets, the markets (or whatever) will regulate themselves. A corollary would be: people will recognize when it is in their self interest to act for the good of the whole society, rather than their own short-term gain.

The essayist from Daily Kos challenges that claim with the counter-claim that pure self-interest trumps acting for the greater good when that self-interest is coupled with a perception of the 'other' as inferior.

What's the worst that can happen with conservatism that lacks empathy? (I'll address liberalism's weaknesses in Part Two.) Totalitarian use of power to oppress the many and benefit the few, with the reflexive belief that holding power justifies holding power. Strictly defined laws with harsh, inflexible punishment when those laws are broken. Disdain and disregard for those who have not, purely because they have not. We have seen this pattern throughout history.

Does this mean that all conservatives are bigots? I think not, but it does illustrate conservatism's major skeleton in the closet: by enabling the powerful to become more powerful, conservatism simultaneously encourages abuse of that power among the powerful and acceptance of that abuse among the powerless, especially by stratifying society sufficiently that there is always somebody even more powerless for the mostly powerless to hate and blame for their misery.

This is the abuse that the strict father model leaves itself open to. It doesn't mean that conservatism has a monopoly on hate, nor should it imply that all conservatives are bigots. Many conservatives are honorable, moral, wonderful people who do great good in the world. But that major weakness of the conservative model still exists and, as the most ruthless element of conservatism, it generally holds the most conservative power.

It is liberalism that, effectively or not, tries to rectify this historical weakness. But is it enough just to point out injustice and to make noise about how those pesky conservatives are all wrong, or is something more substantial needed from the left?

End of Part One - Next: Breaking "The Prisoner's Dilemma," Liberalism, and an Agenda of Hope