New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | January 12, 2005

Jesse Walker squints hard enough to put the author of Don't Think of An Elephant! into proper perspective.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← The War on Drugs vs. the… | Main | New at Reason →

See all 11 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|1.12.05 @ 2:47PM|#

Yes------MUSH MUSH and MUSH

|1.12.05 @ 2:57PM|#

There's a typo in the post post.

|1.12.05 @ 3:17PM|#

"Libertarians are shoved under the "strict father" ethos, even though many prefer arguments that reflect Lakoff's "nurturing parent" values-and quite a few don't really fit either category at all. If there's one thing libertarians ought to agree on, after all, it's that nations and families are not analogous."

Using the government as surrogate parents is what we're talking about when we talk about the nanny state. Whether they're talking about a state that keeps the airwaves safe for children or a state that makes sure that everyone saves enough, I don't know of any libertarians for whom anything smacking of a parental role for government is appealing.

|1.12.05 @ 3:24PM|#

There's an overlabored pun contrasting the names Lakoff and Lacan in here somewhere . . . I just know it.

|1.12.05 @ 3:26PM|#

Ditto, Ken. And thanks, Jesse, for including the great quote about Dems, Repubs, and Libs; any model that posits a parental role for government ought to be, and I assume is, repugnant to those who seriously think of themselves as libertarians.

Gene Berkman|1.12.05 @ 4:27PM|#

Excellent analysis Jesse.

I had read about Mr Lakoff and his proposals to change the language of the debate in the LA Times, and it sounded like the same pro-government nonsense we have heard from the left for years.

The success of the pro-government left has often come from their use of language to make us think of government programs as a means of expanding our freedom or our choices. Mr Lakoff wants to recapture that kind of rhetorical power.

I do think Matt Yglesias is correct to refer to Bush's proposed "private accounts" as a form of forced saving. And since Bush does not propose to cut the benefits of current beneficiaries, the likely result will be a future hike in Social Security taxes along with the forced savings accounts.

I don't think that is what libertarians mean by "Privatization." Perhaps we need to recapture the language.

|1.12.05 @ 7:00PM|#

Crusader Rabbit,
I wouldn't mind a government like that cool uncle that doesn't bug you about your personal life and lets you drink, smoke and puff on a joint when you visit. :)

Kevin Carson|1.12.05 @ 10:43PM|#

Right now, the Dems seem to see the only alternatives as either splitting the difference with the GOP (ala Lieberman and the DLC), or stubbornly adhering to Ted Kennedy-style liberalism. Some diehards actually see any alternative to the latter as a deal with the Devil. There's no third way.

I'd like to see the Democrats returning to their Jeffersonian roots, and demonizing the GOP in terms of its own professed "Red State" populism. The Democratic talking points should be centered on how fucking hypocritical the GOP establishment is in terms of its own fake populism, and pointing out every sorry instance of crony capitalism and corporate welfare. Many in the Red States are genuine populists who resent big business as much as big government.

|1.12.05 @ 11:56PM|#

Really interesting and strong piece, Jesse.

"Lakoff himself notes that conservatives have learned to dress up unpopular proposals in liberal lingo"

I would ask Lakoff for some examples, and also we should note that when the liberal, Matthew Yglesias suggests that opponents of Bush's Social Security plan should reject the phrase "private accounts" in favor of "forced savings," he is trying to attack this idea with association of what is the defining trait of liberalism-force. That contemporary liberalism and force are inseparable is why Lakoff advocates so much dancing on the part of liberals. Political force has a way of eliciting strong popular resistance.

It seems that Lakoff's ten-word philosophy for liberals is even worse than mush. It's systemic of the intellectual bankruptcy of modern liberalism. "Broad prosperity" and a "better future" can be shown to be pretty much the opposite likely result of the implementation of the bigger government of liberalism. And when "mutual responsibility" comes as a result of liberalism's resort to greater government coercion, it is certainly no virtue.

Lakoffs pathetic list is also systemic of the moral bankruptcy of modern liberalism in that it is more of the Left's continued stress on the most effective way to distort the message to be consumed by the public.

Larry A|1.13.05 @ 9:28AM|#

Same-ol'Same-ol'

Democrats are lining up at the microphone floating ways to rephrase their message so voters will understand their programs and philosophies. That way more of us will vote for them next election.

There seems to be no consideration that most voters might be very clear about Democrat programs and philosophies, and that's why they voted Republican.

On the other side of the aisle Republican conservatives are lining up to say, "We won. It's time to implement all the plans that got us knocked on our ass the last time we tried them."

Major Political Party Learning Curve:
___________________________________________/_______________________________

Jesse Walker|1.13.05 @ 12:13PM|#

I would ask Lakoff for some examples

His favorite examples are the Clear Skies and Healthy Forests bills, which sound like green initiatives but were strenuously opposed by liberal environmentalists.