In 2004, a little book appeared that made quite a splash among dispirited Democrats: George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant. In it, Lakoff argued that Republicans and Democrats worked out of two different "framing" stories--frames are "mental structures that shape the way we see the world." Republicans frame their politics in the terms of "a strict father family," while Democrats frame theirs on the ideal of a "nurturant parent family." According to Lakoff, the party with the most compelling storyline often "wins" in public discourse.
Yesterday, in the dueling national security speeches of former Vice-President Cheney and President Obama, the two storylines stood in stark contrast--a visible demonstration of the difference between political approaches.
On one hand, Vice-President Cheney enacted the part of the strict father. He chided Obama as a parent might correct an erring child--delivering a verbal conservative spanking to the young upstart who (according to Cheney) doesn't understand the ways of the real world. He protected the traditions of the older generation, applauding himself for his own wisdom and insight--all the while reassuring the rest of the fearful family that his way is the right way. Stay on the course of the Fathers (Cheney and Bush) and all will be well.
And it was implicitly religious in the style of a Puritan jeremiad. Cheney chastised the new administration for the sin of departing from the true path and threatened hellfire and damnation would result. He insisted Obama repent and return. Only then can the nation be saved. It was a narrative masterwork of the old Republican frame--brilliant, scary, intimidating, and bizarrely reassuring all at the same time.
In contrast, President Obama's speech embodied many of the characteristics of nurturing parent politics--he empathized with people's worries about terrorism, and reiterated his commitment to national security (thus allowing for maximum human happiness). He brought themes of freedom, fairness, community-building, trust, and open communication to the discussion--all of which are the nurturing values of progressive politics.
However, Obama turned the prism of nurturing parent politics in an interesting and unexpected way. Historically, progressives have said, "I empathize with you" (as did Bill Clinton), "These policies empathize with you" (as did Jimmy Carter), or "The government empathizes with you" (as did FDR). But President Obama essentially said, "The law empathizes with you." The entire speech, delivered at the National Archives (the building that houses our most cherished legal documents), argued that the closest possible attention to the traditions of the law would both protect us from harm and save our national soul. The nurturing parent is not an individual, policies, or government. In Obama's progressive politics, the law nurtures the American family with its hopes for happiness, fairness, community, and justice.
This emphasis on the law-as-nurturing parent helps explain Obama's own coolheaded and dispassionate nature--he is able to stand alongside an issue and analyze it through the lens of legal traditions. And it also explains his remark on wanting an "empathetic" Supreme Court justice. He wants someone who shares this vision of the nurturant law as his legacy on the Court.
It is also a profoundly Judeo-Christian vision. The law--as summed up in the injunction to love God and love one's neighbor--saves. The law is not a set of rules to be adhered to in every circumstance (as some people misinterpret it); rather, the law is a summary of divine wisdom of how to shape a community in both devotion and ethics. As rabbis, ministers, and theologians know, the law both instructs and empathizes. According to Jewish and Christian scriptures, the law delights; the law forms the soul; the law teaches; the law nourishes; the law guides; the law frees; the law protects. The law establishes Israel; Jesus reaffirmed the grace-filled power of the law in his own teaching: The law is life.
Obama isn't trying to mediate between liberals and conservatives as Dick Cheney charged. The President is trying to create an entirely new vision of progressive politics--one based deeply in American law, and one anchored in the wisdom traditions of Judaism and Christianity. A progressive revival--both secular and sacred--of American community through the Law.
Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they meditate day and night. They are like trees planted by streams of water, which yield their fruit in its season, and their leaves do not wither. In all that they do, they prosper. Psalms 1:1-3.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
These two kinds of parent figures represent the two main ways for people to relate. Diana's insight applies in our personal lives. Are our families and nations pyramid-like structures of proper authority, or networks of relationships? Do we try to influence people through intimidating them, or by building a better friendship? The two views of life are what Rians Eisler describes as the "partnership" and the "dominator" models of human relations.
Sorry, I misspelled Riane Eisler's name.
I think of Dick Cheney as our 21st century Screwtape, admonishing his Republican cohorts as to how to undermine the divine work of carrying out the Great Commandment.
I tell people that I am way more non-conservative than many of my longtime friends and family, but still probalby more conservative than my church tradition. Reading posts like this one, truly speaks to me in terms I can not only postively relate to, but with your permission-- can take out into the world in which I live. Thank you.
May 24, 2009
Strict Father/ Nurturing Parent
Diana, I think things may be a little more nuanced than you suggest.
Dick Chaney was not “spanking” anyone, nor did he accuse anyone of “sin”, and he certainly did not ask anyone to “repent”. He was expressing his opinion. An opinion based on a considerable amount of first hand experience with the subject matter. We would be wise to give some consideration to the content of his statements. It would be dangerous to ignore and dismiss him. Nor would we be wise, or fair, or nurturing to reduce the very difficult questions and complex issues we are now facing to the simplistic and well worn paradigm of the contrasting political styles of different generations and political parties.
While pappy Chaney and young Obama do have widely disparate views of the nature of the world and how best to make it a better place, neither view is without merit. Probably, neither is without fault. The previous administration worked very hard to protect us from some very real evil that does exist in the world, the evil deeds of those who have submitted to religious fanaticism. These are people who want to kill Americans, Christians, and Jews for the sin of being Americans, Christians, and Jews. They have said so and they have demonstrated so. This is not fear-mongering; this is the way it is. The traditional approach of dealing with the problem as a law enforcement matter was not working. If we are to be honest, we have to recognize that the Bush approach appears to have worked remarkably well. We have not had a terrorist attack on American soil since 2001. This is a truly remarkable fact given the large number of attempts that have been made and thwarted. We should be thanking the previous administration for their efforts, not demonizing them. Diana, I am not accusing you of demonizing them, but others, many of us really, certainly have.
The manner and efficacy of the Obama approach is to be determined, but there are reasons for concern. It is highly unlikely that those bent on killing Americans and Jews will change their views just because Obama has declared that the United States is not a Christian nation and that we are not at war with Islam? These things have been said before, they are nothing new. Neither are Presidents Osama’s political views something new. They are based on the collectivist political thought of Karl Marx and before (one of the two general economic theories that developed following the fall of feudalism), they have been tried before in many areas of the world, and the results have often been quite “strict” and far from “nurturing”.
With Christ’s Love,
John R. Wriston
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.