If Mr. or Ms. Change were a candidate for president, they would be the Democratic nominee by now. But we would not know precisely what candidate Change looks like. It’s an idea—or image—that is as ambiguous as it is popular with voters. Polling and early votes in the presidential race show that Democrats, many independents and some Republicans want a… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (6)Page 1 of 1 pages“Americans want government that will both protect and empower them, says George Lakoff, the noted political linguist from the University of California, Berkeley. He says that a democratic government is based on empathy and caring for each other.”
Agreed. Some things have not changed…
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, (sic) promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I have always considered myself to be a fiscal conservative and an independent voter. I’m in agreement with most of what the author states here. Most people, most of the time do fear change. Our experiences and dashed expectations make us wary of politicians promises and government “solutions”. No party looks good and I don’t think another party would be different for long.
At age seventy most of my life has become a series of reruns. I know (and so do the candidates) their promises will largely limited by what Congress may be able to prevent, what the lobbyists influence, and how the media forms public perception. Too much hype, too little help.
The wisdom of the goals set in the Preamble to the Constitution is plain and simple, yet too often clouded or ignored. Health care, protection of workers’ livelihood, and other issues of “general welfare” do not require distribution of money or benefits — what’s required is prevention of concentrated power. This will never be a once and for all event, but a continual vigilance and remedy process.
Kennedy’s famous, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” rings true to me more than ever. But… also, now more than ever, I believe that Reagan was right on with, “government isn’t the solution; government is the problem.”
Sure we need a health plan, tax system revision, jobs and many other things being cussed and discussed — but our country’s original goals as set out above are being overshadowed by special interests and unelected legislators.The true writers of most bills are the army of 36,000 lobbyists. My doctor told me he didn’t do a lab test because the insurance companies complain about the costs!Who is representing me?
Look at the record of the last several Congresses. What have they accomplished? How much time is spent posing before C-SPAN cameras? Investigating baseball’s drug usage??? Who said what and when? Who is to blame for (whatever)? What percentage of their time concerns genuine national problem solving?
How is the Katrina mess doing?
How soon can we expect another subprime fraud if no one is held accountable?
Is your elected Representative’s health care like yours, or is it more like a CEO’s?
How about their retirement plan — guaranteed, or in danger of underfunding and reduction like yours?
We don’t need a Constitutional convention, but a return to Constitutional goals and principles.
Can it be done?
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 14, 2008 at 8:33 AM Change, like hope, is a word in which people can make an emotional investment without requiring thought or work. Rational adults do not waste time with emotionally charged nullities.
A big chunk of our population has a child-like faith that they can wish upon a rock star, who will take care of them without effort on their part.
So, why are so many Demonicrats in a state of arrested development?
Posted by scorp on Jan 14, 2008 at 3:46 PM I want to preface this expression of frustration with some qualifications. The sense I get is that I am farther left than most. Also, being a graduate student in philosophy I am not prone to anti-intellectualism, but if I have to read one more article giving us empty headed fancily regurtitated conventional wisdom mush from Lakoff I will scream. If you want to read a linguist with interesting and informative things to say about American politics, go read some Chomsky.
The problem with American politics is not politicians getting caught in linguistic traps. It is that there are significant centers of power that are against people getting what they deserve, because right now the powerful have what ought to belong to others. Obama doesn’t present a conservative health care plan because he isn’t focusing enough on ‘care’ or ‘nurturing’ or whatever catchphrase Lakoff is trying to sell us in place of genuine critical thought. He presents the plan he does because he is funded by people who would not fund him if he actually suggested single payer health care. The thought that he is an agent of change when he is bankrolled by people who only stand to lose from change is ridiculous. And if you read Chomsky you would appreciate this, because despite being a far more important figure in the feild of linguistics (inspiring one of the major continuing research projects in linguistics, philosophy of language, neuroscience and evolutionary biology) than Lakoff will ever be, Chomsky is not arrogant enough to beleive that the feild he is good at holds all the damned answers.
Posted by Poppolphil on Jan 15, 2008 at 1:53 AM Poppolphil,
re: Lakoff
If when he says, “...democratic government is based on empathy and caring for each other,” what is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution...provide for common defense, general welfare, etc., OK. But this is certainly not enough to motivate and maintain a government or a society.Where politics goes off the tract is in using either/or solutions — Republican OR Democrat, My Plan or the bad plan — whatever.
(They should try the creative design approach article on this website. Not to be confused with Intelligent Design, which appropriated that label already.)Let’s take health care as an example.
The pitch by Republicans is anti-socialized medicine and presents downside examples of Canada, Sweden and of course, the failed 70-year Soviet experiment. They throw in the cost in tax increases and a lowering of quality/personal care. The Democrats speak to those without any or enough insurance coverage, those who must choose between care and dinner and of course KIDS. Would you buy a used car from someone only because the lot across the street is worse?What if we look at the benefits of “empathy and caring” AND the upside for the country in general (the preamble). Making or saving money is a potent incentive for all.
• We are now paying for emergency care mandated by law. National estimates put emergency room care at 30% more than regular health care.
• If people get preventive rather than “repair” care the costs are far lower overall.
• Communicable diseases, such as aides or TB, can be kept to a minimum.
• Lost working hours reduced — increasing production
• Fewer and lower claims — saving employers on health insuranceA reasoned approach, right? Who could be against this? Well, those “centers of power” you mentioned — State and Federal government which are so attached to the money offered through lobbyists and PACs.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 16, 2008 at 9:16 AM Anyone interested in learning more about the ideas about health care George Lakoff spoke of? If so, you might want to check out the Rockridge Institute report “Don’t Think of a Sick Child - Logic of the Health Care Debate.” I work with George at the Rockridge Institute and strongly recommend this report, which is co-authored with Eric Haas, Glenn Smith, and Scott Parkinson.
You can view the report and our entire health care campaign here:
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/health
Joe Brewer
Research Fellow
Rockridge Institute
Posted by Rockridge_Joe on Jan 16, 2008 at 4:42 PM Big government is often defined as the number of employees on the payroll. Thus, conservative administrations have shrunk government while expanding the budget and the reach of government regulation on individuals. Less conservative administrations have not grown government but have expanded the reach through regulation on corporations. What we need is selective government, and that does mean whoever is in office will guide the selection.
The decades of Republican and Democratic administrations pushing home ownership and penalizing renters created an unsustainable housing market. Now here comes the government trying to correct the correction. We also have higher government construction costs, and less money to repair roads, bridges, and schools, because local and federal governments were competing against wealthy homeowners and tax-free (or heavily-subsidized) developers to hire contractors and to acquire materials. This raises a question for someone older than me. Did the WPA help the public good in the work that was done, or, like the home buying frenzy, were tax breaks and other benefits given to a few select businesses to create the impression of wealth?
Picking on Obama as an example, I hold up my own life of being a community-based activist as a comparison. I’m two years older than the senator yet I knew a decade ago what my major issues were. They have been modified by demands of life and wisdom of age, but I have specific goals for America. After more than a year of campaigning, I still don’t know what Obama wants except more of the same. He supports the attitude that all children are able to learn in school, to keep a global America, and to give tax breaks to the elderly making more than $50,000 per year when there are many, many 30-60 year old Americans making less than that who could really use the tax break.
For me, I know I want a country where we do what is best for the majority while trying to encourage organizations and processes that do not harm the minorities. I mean majority/minority in terms of needs and issues, not in terms of any demographical measurement. Depending upon private cars is harmful to the majority; it requires an enormous investment for maintenance of roadways, takes up land for parking garages, spews asthmatic triggers into the air, and contributes to obesity. Producer responsibility and the precautionary principal are a couple more policies I would love to introduce into government. Economics and workforce, we need to encourage diversity, again, not on demographics, but on type of ability. We need to balance globalization, which is not going away, with small businesses that really make money and provide living wages, not just provide false hope to unhappy Americans. We need to balance college for everybody with the reality that not everybody thrives on college and not every job requires it. As a good friend said to me years ago, four years out of a 40-50 year work history is not much. I believe we need universal health care, with a single funder but that doesn’t have to mean total and complete coverage. Means tests are humiliating and favor those who know how to use the system; just as business laws favor those who know the system. We have too many different taxes and user fees and those cost money just to operate.
One lesson I have learned in the past year: Reagan did not develop the policies he advocated. Thus, when I hear women and African Americans gleefully anticipating benefits to themselves just because a woman or an African American is in the White House, I laugh. I also keep telling women and women’s groups that getting women elected to office is not good enough. We need a think tank that will develop policies that any president can run with to benefit women who want their own business, women who want good child care, women who want comfortable retirement instead of fears of poverty.
Sorry for the ramble and sloppy writing.
Posted by SillyLeftist on Jan 24, 2008 at 4:57 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Moberg
- Obama and the Union Vote
Polls suggest mandate for reform surpasses support for Obama - The View From Ohio
Will voters in the economically ravaged Buckeye State 'get over' race and support Obama? - Back for the Future
Progressives at the Democratic National Convention look to FDR as a model for an Obama presidency - Dixie Turning Blue
- Moving Obama Left
- Let Them Eat Free Markets
How deregulation fuels the global food crisis
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
