Political Metaphors: Nurture, Discipline, and Deals You Can't Refuse.
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.
This week Trump is fat-shaming — and now other people are fat-shaming Trump back, pointing out his hypocrisy. Unfortunately, calling out hypocrisy doesn't undermine shame-based politics. Historically hypocrisy seems to be nearly a requirement for using shame to build political movements:
Money is handed to a charity, and the donor gets a few more minutes to talk with a politician. Money changes hands, and an investigation is called off. Which is the bigger story? Obviously, the one with Hillary Clinton in it. Why? It’s not about bias — this happens even on tv stations where the reporters’ personal biases are in her favor. What’s wrong with the Clinton campaign's messaging on corruption? What are the promises and moral foundations of each campaign, and why does corruption stick to with Clinton’s campaign more?
This is a framing exercise, exploring why PolitiFact says Clinton lies much less than typical politicians, yet she still has a terrible reputation? Part of a series looking at how lying is framed, rather than fact-checking as PolitiFact does.
Step 1: Think of 2 or 3 lies by Clinton. And half a dozen by Trump. Write them into a comment below.
Imagine that instead of this being an election, it's a sport, and they are athletes from your favorite team. Plus maybe you and they have all been drinking.
My exploration of the fairness, compassion and efficiency of a $15+ minimum wage.
I believe that employers should pay a living wage for a number of reasons:
Many Sanders supporters claim there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. As I write, Democratic Congresspeople are holding a sit-in to demand gun control while Republicans after Orlando still march under the NRA’s orders.
Today they are calling the Republicans out, demanding change, leading. Today there is no doubt there is a difference, and lives are on the line. When corporate give-aways are on the line, it’s much harder to tell the difference.
According to Moral Foundations Theory, conservatives are much more attuned to sacredness or sanctity than liberals are. When I say this to liberals, they often use nature as a counter-example.
Are they wrong? Does cutting down a forest seem to violate fairness to liberals: you didn't plant that forest, so you can't cut it down. Does a forest seem in some way alive, so cutting down a forest lacks compassion to the forest itself?
Or have we found an edge case contradiction to Moral Foundations, where liberals do see sanctity, see a natural order that should not be violated?
The Competing Frames of Clinton and Sanders
The First Rule of the Bernie Or Bust Club is never say the word "Bust."
The Democratic Party, after having a surprisingly mature start to the primary season, is about to tear itself apart. These frames aren't just angry, they are disrespectful. BernieOrBust pretends to be talking to the DNC, but a huge portion of the Sanders base including volunteers (and likely including Sanders) will be very upset if the Sanders primary plays even a small role in a Republican victory. And "Just Vote Blue" is basically saying "shut up."
What are the real messages, how could each of these movements be reframed to work?