Review of Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't, 1996, University of Chicago Press, by George Lakoff
If you were a member of the audience during a taping of Rush Limbaugh's television show, you may have remembered him at one point claiming he could sense there was a liberal in the audience. The camera would then zoom in on some hapless, but humorously impressed, individual. As we all know, liberal bashing was a staple of each Limbaugh show, whether televised or broadcast by radio. His popularity can partly be blamed on his willingness to take on liberals, a reason many conservatives love him and have made him as popular as he is.
What exactly is a liberal? For that matter, what's a conservative? Few would sue after being called by one of these labels because they seem so broadly defined. Yet, we must attempt to define them because these labels are used in political discourse very often. Common erroneous assumptions (liberals are always for big government, conservatives are all Christian, conservatives want no government regulations) prevail.
Lakoff attempts to define and characterize both these labels in a rather unique and previously unexplored way. He sets the morals of both in a paternal setting. Conservatives have what he calls the "strict father morality." In this paradigm, the father sets the rules to live by and the mother takes care of the children. Children must not be spoiled though, and mature children "must sink or swim by themselves." Thus, children must obey the rules and then demonstrate maturity by continuing to behave by the rules and be able to "sink or swim" on their own. They need not be coddled when they are children and when they are adults. Liberals, on the other hand, embrace what Lakoff calls the "nurturant parent morality." The primary feeling behind this model is "being cared for and cared about, having one's desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from mutual interaction and care." Instead of making rules for children and adults to live by, nurturing is done to make the person happy and one is taught how the nurturing helps them. Obeying rules is not as important as nurturing.
Lakoff correctly state that a true theory like his should be able to account for the positions of liberals and conservatives. Lakoff accepts the task of testing his theory and lists some common liberal and conservative political causes. Let's take abortion for an example (there are many others). To liberals, the abortion is usually sought by teenage mothers and women who have a condition which impairs their lifestyle. Such women are "in trouble," they need help. A liberal seeks to create political causes and rules that help the woman. Perhaps she is pregnant when she prefers a career over motherhood; a liberal must nurture her and give her what she wants. To a conservative, the woman has either engaged in behavior she should not have or should not be choosing a lifestyle, like a career, over her natural childbearing role. Hence, she is wrong.
I think Lakoff has hit upon something that defines both political movements. I am a conservative because to my knowledge conservative positions are morally, scientifically, and philosophical justified. While another book may be useful in testing conservative beliefs, Lakoff's definition of conservatism and liberalism is welcome.
Jeffrey Stueber