Another Bi…. to think about
Over at TPM, George Lakoff has a few ideas about how to hear Obama’s national address this evening (2/24/09). His notion of Obama and bi-conceptualism makes some interesting claims about Republicans (and Democrats).
“The third crucial idea behind the Obama Code is biconceptualism, the knowledge that a great many people who identify themselves ideologically as conservatives, or politically as Republicans or Independents, share those fundamental American values–at least on certain issues. Most “conservatives” are not thoroughgoing movement conservatives, but are what I have called “partial progressives” sharing Obama’s American values on many issues. Where such folks agree with him on values, Obama tries, and will continue to try, to work with them on those issues if not others. And, he assumes, correctly believe, that the more they come to think in terms of those American values, the less they will think in terms of opposing conservative values.
“Biconceptualism lay behind his invitation to Rick Warren to speak at the inaugural. Warren is a biconceptual, like many younger evangelicals. He shares Obama’s views of the environment, poverty, health, and social responsibility, though he is otherwise a conservative. Biconceptualism is behind his “courting” of Republican members of Congress. The idea is not to accept conservative moral views, but to find those issues where individual Republicans already share what he sees as fundamentally American values. He has “reached across the aisle” to Richard Luger on nuclear proliferation, but not on economics.
“Biconceptualism is central to Obama’s attempts to achieve unity –a unity based on his understanding of American values. The current economic failure gives him an opening to speak about the economy in terms of those ideals: caring about all, prosperity for all, responsibility for all by all, and good jobs for all who want to work.
“I think Obama is correct about biconceptualism of this sort — at least where the overwhelming proportion of Americans is concerned. When the President spoke at the Lincoln Day dinner recently about sensible Midwestern Republicans, he meant biconceptual Republicans, who are progressive and/or pragmatic on many issues.”
Whole thing here (wonkish as Paul Krugman would say):
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/24/the_obama_code/#more
As a student of history (when I have time); this makes good sense. I have always considered myself an “Independent” – looking for the “best” person for office; someone who is pragmatic and willing to meet current needs vs. an ideologue.
Historical patterns can be interesting. In the 60, 70, 80′s historians focused on Congress vs. Imperial Presidency. Now we seem locked into the Republicans vs. Democrats or the Red vs. Blue states.
Most of these seven “codes” resonate with me…..I am tired of the partisanship; the ideological fights; etc.
The Obama Code. I must admit, the article was a little too heavily salted with linguistic theory for my taste. To add more general interest, Professor Lakoff might consider introducing into the piece a sinister albino from a secrecy-enshrouded ultra-conservative religious order …
I said it was wonky!
I’m not sure all seven points are equally illuminating. This one struck me as having its feet in reality, but I wouldn’t want to exaggerate.
Margaret, do you think this WSJ article covers some of the same terrain?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123544280120155761.html
Jim: Thanks for the piece by Matt Miller. Yes, it covers some of the same ground in a quarter of the space and without the communication theory uber-structure.
Both essays hint at what seems to me pretty clear at this point: Whatever the divisions in DC between Dems and Repubs, they are of little interest to the rest of the country. And Miller is right Left and Right means less than it used to. (After Obama’s speech last night, the Newshour wrap-up had David Brooks in a tizzy about how bad Bobby Jindal’s response was. His rocking in the chairs suggested a rather intense level of anger at Jindal’s bad performance; he certainly went at it verbally–Did he say the response was a disgrace? or something to that effect.)
It’s clear were in for some re-alignment.
Curiously neither essay goes at the military budget, which could definitely use a “marriage of equity and efficiency.”
Yes, we’ve gotten into the bad habit since the Reagan years of considering the military budget sacrosanct/exempt from scrutiny. I believe Obama has said he would like to retire some Cold War-era weapons systems? That will cause tremors to run through the Pentagon and part of the electorate, I think.
Back to Obama and his programs, though – I know this sounds un-visionary and boring, but … I’m worried about how much all of this costs. It’s not like we were starting the economic crisis from a surplus position. Perhaps I’ve been drinking chamomile with too many conservatives recently, but I continue to harbor the suspicion that the stimulus bill could have been 1/3 the size and would be equally effective in creating jobs and stirring consumer spending.
And I really would like to see healthcare extended to those without coverage, and allow people to stay in their foreclosed homes, and put social security put on a solvent footing. But how do we pay for it? It seems that if China chooses to not buy the debt we’re going to have to float to pay for this stuff, we’re up the creek without a paddle.
The size of the current deficit and its enlargement is a big worry–no doubt. Talking to an economist friend the other night, I said, I hope Tim Geithner knows what he’s doing. The economist, “So do I.” Meaning I think, he wasn’t all that sure about Tim!
I think we are in a very big realm of uncertainty. On the one hand, the decline could continue until all the excess is squeezed out of everything. Or, there will come a moment when the Masters of the Universe (hedge fund heads) will decide that it’s as low as it ought to get and they will start putting more money into the economy. I would think the Chinese (and Saudis, etc.) would follow shortly. Of course, what do I know? But at some point it will be in the interest of those with great wads of cash to decided, enough is enough.