Scan barcode
A review by onceandfuturelaura
The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain by George Lakoff
3.0
Says that once upon a time, we reasoned our way from our hypotheses about reasonable people to our conclusions about the best way to structure government:
• Since all people have the capacity for reason, we can govern ourselves, without bowing to higher authorities like kings or popes or oligarchs.
• Reason makes us equal, and so the best form of government is a democracy.
• We use reason to serve our interests, and so an optimal government would serve the interests of all.
• Since we all have he same reason, the same laws can apply to all; this we can be governed by general, rational laws, not individual whims.
• Our inherent rational nature accords us inherent rights and freedoms.
• Government should be dedicated to the rational interests of all citizens, and must be structured so that no authority an overwhelm them.
• Reason contrasts with blind faith, and so government should be separate from, and independent of, religion.
• Science is based on reason, and so our government should recognize, honor, and develop scientific knowledge.
• Therefore, a government committed to reason will be a democratic government.
• When democratic values are violated, it is reason that must be restored.
(6). Then he explains why he doesn’t think people make decisions on this basis, which I suspect is true. Also talks about “neural binding,” which I don’t know what is.
He says a lot of things that make me feel good, like, “Behind every progressive policy lies a single moral value: empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy,” (47) and “Conservative thought . . . begins with the notion that morality is obedience to an authority – assumed to be a legitimate authority who is inherently good, knows right from wrong, functions to protect us from evil in the world, and has both the right and duty to use force to command obedience and fight evil.” (60). He equates hierarchy, punishment, discipline.
I liked it. Didn’t feel like I knew enough to judge a lot of what he was saying. The idea that metaphors are ultimately physical (he suggests we say a loving person is warm because we remember being cuddled; we say prices are rising because we saw water rising) is a little beyond my competence. But the basic notion that 18th century nation building had a certain conception of the human mind that has not stood the test of time – that seems dead on to me. That the republicans figured out how to take advantage of that before the democrats? Yeah, probably. That the reason some folks freaked out about gay marriage had to do with the threat to their own identity? I just don’t know.
Certainly he’s dead on that we fail when we accept our opponent’s framing of the case. But that’s first year lawyering.
Is he right in a deep level? Again, he might be, but he didn’t persuade me, and I’m pretty sympathetic to his politics. Glad I read it, not sure I’ll read it again.
• Since all people have the capacity for reason, we can govern ourselves, without bowing to higher authorities like kings or popes or oligarchs.
• Reason makes us equal, and so the best form of government is a democracy.
• We use reason to serve our interests, and so an optimal government would serve the interests of all.
• Since we all have he same reason, the same laws can apply to all; this we can be governed by general, rational laws, not individual whims.
• Our inherent rational nature accords us inherent rights and freedoms.
• Government should be dedicated to the rational interests of all citizens, and must be structured so that no authority an overwhelm them.
• Reason contrasts with blind faith, and so government should be separate from, and independent of, religion.
• Science is based on reason, and so our government should recognize, honor, and develop scientific knowledge.
• Therefore, a government committed to reason will be a democratic government.
• When democratic values are violated, it is reason that must be restored.
(6). Then he explains why he doesn’t think people make decisions on this basis, which I suspect is true. Also talks about “neural binding,” which I don’t know what is.
He says a lot of things that make me feel good, like, “Behind every progressive policy lies a single moral value: empathy, together with the responsibility and strength to act on that empathy,” (47) and “Conservative thought . . . begins with the notion that morality is obedience to an authority – assumed to be a legitimate authority who is inherently good, knows right from wrong, functions to protect us from evil in the world, and has both the right and duty to use force to command obedience and fight evil.” (60). He equates hierarchy, punishment, discipline.
I liked it. Didn’t feel like I knew enough to judge a lot of what he was saying. The idea that metaphors are ultimately physical (he suggests we say a loving person is warm because we remember being cuddled; we say prices are rising because we saw water rising) is a little beyond my competence. But the basic notion that 18th century nation building had a certain conception of the human mind that has not stood the test of time – that seems dead on to me. That the republicans figured out how to take advantage of that before the democrats? Yeah, probably. That the reason some folks freaked out about gay marriage had to do with the threat to their own identity? I just don’t know.
Certainly he’s dead on that we fail when we accept our opponent’s framing of the case. But that’s first year lawyering.
Is he right in a deep level? Again, he might be, but he didn’t persuade me, and I’m pretty sympathetic to his politics. Glad I read it, not sure I’ll read it again.