The United States isn't fully ready for women to break the glass ceiling, to hold power. As Hillary Clinton aims for a leadership role, it is bringing out ugly speech that exposes more than name-calling.
Sanders twin goals are to build a movement bursting with enthusiasm and swing swingable voters -- without his movement's bursting enthusiasm offending those swingable voters. The primary seems to be a race against time and and isolation within his demographics.
I think the military is going to face increased threats from global warming. But I'm not right messenger to say that to someone who thinks liberals and scientists are in cahoots. Somewhere a conservative general has read the science. This is a very short blog, hoping for your comments: who are good messengers, when a liberal voice is not the right voice? Please list your favorite Christians for tolerance and charity, veterans for peace and a stable planet, conservatives opposing monopolies and crony-capitalism.
According to cognitive scientist George Lakoff, liberal and conservative politics is a struggle carried out in metaphors, the nurturing parent and the strict father. So how have conservative frames and metaphors evolved to allow Trump so much success?
Two article-variants (here and here) I'm working on. Feedback welcome. Should they be combined? Any points really catch your attention? Have metaphors to add to my lists?
In Why Trump, George Lakoff divides the Republican party into White Evangelicals, Pragmatic Conservatives, and Laissez-faire free-market proponents. All three flavors of conservatism think about government using a strict father metaphor.
One of my relatives was a Jew on the very last boat out of Europe. The xenophobia rampant today would have handed him to the Nazis; it handed other innocent people to the Nazis, and wants to push innocent people fleeing ISIS back under their control. There is a tragedy going on today. And we who care are spreading a lot of funny, cynical, often quite true Facebook memes...
Images worth sharing
I'd like to create a version of this first post that is aimed at the audience it should be aimed at, rather than just insulting them:
It appears that the Vatican Ambassador to the US, Carlo Maria Vigano, played sneaky politics with the Pope's visit, getting Kim Davis near enough to the Pope that her team could imply Papal support.
The allegation is he used the Pope as a pawn for his political views, using him to rally conservative-minded Catholics to place their religion in the service of politics.
Robert Reich looks at why there is no revolution or massive progressive reform in the US. I think this is a great list of large, systemic problems weighted against active progressive politics. But it's also missing what we're missing: chickening out on describing where liberals are failing when we could perhaps be succeeding.
Economic elites win when they create a sense of separation between ordinary people. We no longer divide according to "all politics is local," where we fight for our district, or for our economic class. Instead we separate by our psychology into groups that feel good together. One of the biggest issues has been the success of conservatives in pulling the proud, working poor into their camp: Democrats do not give underpaid workers dignity in our rhetoric.
As we consider launching missiles into Syria, perhaps sacrificing American troops in another Middle East war, perhaps letting the world see chemical weapons get used successfully without repercussions, there aren't easy answers. But one thing we can do, one thing we owe the Syrian civilians and US troops, is to engage in a serious conversation that is about the real situation in Syria and not just our political habits -- not fall into habitual liberal and conservative patterns.
Without suggesting a particular course of action, what would improve the debate?