The Strict or Nurturant Father?
We Need Them Both
Last night after Obama tried to blockade the Romney train barreling down on him, I told my girlfriend I wasn’t sure the POTUS was going to win another four years. I explained that despite my myriad concerns about his positions (or lack of positions) on most issues, Romney is looking awfully presidential theses days. “Oh, malarkey,” my friend said. “Obama is going to win. This country couldn’t possibly elect that pro-war, anti-women, slash and burn neo-con. ”
Really? How is it despite all evidence to the contrary (the polls now have them in a dead heat), I keep hearing from my liberal friends that Obama is going to win? Don’t they understand the power of conservative politics? “Conservatives are illogical,” they argue. “It makes no sense to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. It makes no sense to be for reduced government spending and then to argue for increased military build up.” All true. It doesn’t. But these inconsistent policies (and many others) are at the heart of conservative voters beliefs. In the end, George Lakoff, author of, Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t. must be right, “Liberals don’t understand the logic of conservatism.”
He says, “Liberals don’t understand how anti-abortion “right-to-life” activists can favor the death penalty and oppose reducing infant morality through prenatal care programs. They don’t understand why budget-cutting conservatives should spare no public expense to build prison after prison to house even non-violent offenders, or why they are willing to spend extra money to take children away from their mothers and put them in orphanages — in the name of family values. They don’t understand why conservatives attack violence in the media while promoting the right to own machine guns.”
It’s true. I have no idea how this inconsistent, illogical thinking can drive someone to vote in a way that is economically (and I would argue socially) harmful to them. Lakoff says it is all in the metaphor and I love a good metaphor.
Lakoff has developed a theory of politics based on parenting: the strict father model (conservative) versus the nurturant parent model (progressive). Once we understand these guiding beliefs on how our country should be run, we can then understand how the other side thinks.
In brief, he says the strict father model is inherently paternalistic and believes life is fundamentally difficult and the world as fundamentally dangerous. It is predicated on the notion that father knows best and his job is to protect the family. Women should be in service to men and children should be obedient to the father figure until they are grown, then their job is to be fully self-reliant and independent of their parents. When you apply this family system theory to government, we can see how inconsistent policies are made.
Take abortion. Women in need of one are either wanton sluts (teenagers who were swept away with lust) or overly ambitious (career women for whom a child is inconvenient). Either way, giving these women control over their own bodies would undermine the strict father’s authority.
As Lakoff points out, “It is important to understand that conservative opposition to abortion is not just an overriding respect for all life. If it were, conservatives would not favor the death penalty. Nor is it a matter of protecting the lives of innocent children waiting to be born. If it were, conservatives would be working to lower the infant mortality rate by supporting prenatal care programs. The fact the conservatives oppose such programs means that they are not simply in favor of the right-to-life for all the unborn. Instead, there is a deep and abiding, but usually unacknowledged, reason why conservatives oppose abortion, namely, that it is inconsistent with Strict Father morality. “
Consider gun control. Because the world is dangerous, the strict father must protect us. This leads conservatives to support a strong military and criminal justice system. It also leads to an opposition to gun control. “Since it is the job of the strict father to protect his family from criminals, and since criminals have guns, he too must be able to use guns if he is to do his job of protecting the family against evil people who would harm them. Although the NRA talks lot about hunting, the conservative talk shows all talk about protecting one’s family as the main motivation for opposing gun control,” according to Lakoff.
Which Will Hurt Us More?
I am beginning to get it. Conservatives want a strong daddy figure in the White House to make them feel safe. Conservatives believe in patriarchy and will make inconsistent decisions to reinforce that belief system. And who represents that better than Romney, the ultimate patriarch.
Progressives? We suffer from too much empathy. We focus on nurturance, enabling the happiness and well-being of our “children” (ie: citizens) by ensuring they have their basic needs met (can you say government entitlement programs?). We believe women are independent and co-partners with, not subservient to, the man. Abortion does not undermine the authority as women are part of the authority and therefore free to take care of their own needs and to establish their own priorities.
Feminism? Gay rights? The rights of undocumented citizens? Nurturant parents want their children to achieve their potential and would not get in the way of that. Regulation? Well, a nurturant parent must ensure there are rules set up to protect the safety of our children.
You can see where this is heading. We progressives want a government that supports us, but doesn’t constrain us. When it comes to protecting us, we don’t believe there is danger lurking everywhere and so don’t need a strong defense. We want a leader who knows how to compromise, how to use negotiations, and temperance when working with other nations. In short, we want Obama.
The funny thing is, it doesn’t surprise me that half our country wants a strict parent and the other half wants a nurturant one. In fact, I am glad we do. Much like in my own family where my husband parents differently than I do, I believe our country is actually stronger when we come from disparate points of view. By having them, we teach our children and our citizens that there is no one way to parent and no one way to govern. Checks and balances – our country is built on them, because if we only did it one way, we would no longer be a democracy, we would be a dictatorship.
I read the article, and all I have to say is how dare you use one person’s “theory” as a lump sum answer to how every Republican in America thinks? We come from a host of different backgrounds, ideologies, and experiences. The theory sounds anti-Republican as well. Most of us may actually support the traditional family unit, but that is not to say that their is an all-powerful patriarch whose word is always final law in every home. Yet isn’t it grand when there is actually a father in the home who is not afraid to govern on principles of righteousness because he lives them himself and understands their value.
And so if your adopted theory says that Republicans believe in a higher law, such as following the Patriarch or Father of us all, I for one am glad to say, “Yes, I am that kind of a Republican.” So my core beliefs that are found in the Christian-Judeo teachings certainly do influence why I think abortion is so wrong and why I think that capital punishment might actually be the least cruel sentencing in some situations. There are still a few of us in this world that believe accountability must follow choice, and it ultimately will.
As for your analogy of a father figure: I would rather choose a man who had the influence of a loving father in his life to be our president than a man without a father who is constantly trying to cover his identity crisis in silly humor that misses the mark. We do need a president that takes the concerns of this country to heart and has a valid plan for addressing them. Attacking the intelligence of the candidate, or of the Republican community as a whole, does in no way make the Democrat president or party appear superior; except, perhaps, to the few Democrats who feel security in lumping themselves into one definition. In writing this, I do not mean to make an attack or judgment, but to prove a point.
Heidi, I appreciate you pointing out we’re all individuals. Lisen was simply presenting Lakoff’s theory as an explanation that made some sense to her. I disagree with her, as do you. But we’re all trying to make sense of the “other” side’s views that seem so different than ours and often are not in line with our own personal experiences. That’s exactly why we’re doing this blog ~ to talk to each other and try to help each other understand where we’re coming from. We have to help one another, especially when emotions run high.
I think I can speak for both Lisen and I when I say thank you for being willing to enter this dialogue on such an charged topic. As you wrote, you’re not trying to attack or judge, and I know Lisen was not trying to provoke all Republicans.
At one time I certainly believed this from your blog to be true:
“I believe our country is actually stronger when we come from disparate points of view. By having them, we teach our children and our citizens that there is no one way to parent and no one way to govern. ” I now seldom believe this theory and in talking with others they have come to the same conclusion. Differences in politics and governing now seem to be dividing families, friends, neighbors and co-workers. I felt it most strongly for the first time when I was opposing sending troops in to Iraq and was made to feel un-American. I was shocked and appalled by this reaction to a simple opinion and feel it has only gotten worse since President Obama was elected. A friend thinks this divide started when members of the House and Senate stopped bringing their families with them to DC and socializing together. But I wonder, is it really that simple?
Clare,
It is for this very reason Aimee and I started this blog. We come from such different ends of the spectrum and yet one thing we can agree on is the need for civil discourse. We both refuse to give up and retreat into our own isolated worlds. We strive to understand and to inform. We know we won’t change each other’s opinions, but we will build understanding and we believe that is paramount.
I saw a NYT article not so long ago about the current divisiveness in Congress. It argued that our Congress people used to socialize together at night and then go back to their different points of view by day. This led to a greater understanding and willingness to compromise. Now there is little cross-pollinating between red and blue. The result, decreased bilateral solutions.
“They” become “them” when we don’t interact. When we engage, “they” becomes “we.” (My platitude for the day).
Thanks for engaging and to keeping the dialogue going.
Lisen
No retreating, but rather engaging. Wonderful, Lisen!
Lisen,
First of all, I love your concluding paragraph—I have heard the mother/father metaphor before (though with some downsides to the mother/nurturer figure, not just to the strict, fatherly figure), and I think you’ve applied it well here!
I would like to clarify what you refer to as “inconsistent, illogical thinking” on the part of conservatives. I understand how, when you take the ideas out of context and juxtapose them like you and Lakoff do, they can look incongruent. But as Aimee mentioned, there’s a lot more behind the thinking that, when taken IN context, are both logical and consistent. I realize I’m not going to change any minds here, but for the record, I wanted to address just a few of them:
“How can someone be pro-life and in favor of capital punishment?” It’s actually quite simple. I am fiercely protective of the helpless and *innocent* unborn. And I am in favor of capital punishment for those people who are unremorseful and proved *guilty* and of murdering another human being. (For those of us with Judeo-Christian belief systems, this is not just a personal principle but a biblical one—that we are all made in the image of God; therefore life is so precious that those who willfully and maliciously take life from another forfeit the right to their own.) In short, protect the innocent and punish the guilty, not the other way around.
“How can someone be in favor of reduced government spending but also want a beefed-up military?” To clarify, I am in favor of reduced *wasteful* government spending. (Again, I realize we would probably argue about how to define “wasteful,” but that’s another post for another day!) For conservatives, who realize that many countries would like the United States removed from the world map forever, a strong military is a non-negotiable. It is not wasteful to make sure our country and its citizens are protected. It is not overspending to make sure that members of our military are adequately armed and supported wherever they serve.
“How can we defend the right to bear arms and oppose violence in the media?” The former is actually connected to the latter. Repeated violence portrayed in the media creates among its viewers at best numbness, at worst imitation. Those who would fall in the “imitation” category are often either unstable and/or willing to break the law, and would find a way to obtain weapons even if they were banned. I sleep better at night knowing that we have (and hopefully will never have to use) protection against any crazies out there who would try to do my family harm. (And yes, they are safely locked up and inaccessible to our kids.) I realize this is not always the case; there are crazies and criminals who buy their weapons legally. And I want to make sure we’re equally matched, should we ever meet.
Like I said, these are just a few points I wanted to simply clarify, not argue or debate. My hope is that this will help us continue to understand one another better. I love what you and Aimee are doing and I deeply appreciate each one of your posts. Keep up the great work and civil dialogue!
Libby,
Remember that old commercial where the guy hits his head with his palm and says, “Duh, I could have had a V-8?” Well, I’m hitting my head right now. I get it. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. You have given one of the best detailed analysis of conservative thought on select key issues I have ever seen. I am saddened by the subtext. Fear seems to drive so much of these positions. Fear is then translated into the belief that strength is essential (strength in our national policy, strength in our homes with guns) Lakoff explains the moral underpinnings of conservative thought this way:
1) The world is divided into good and evil.
2) To remain good in the face of evil (to “stand up to” evil), one must be morally strong.
3) One becomes morally strong through self-discipline and self-denial.
4) Someone who is morally weak cannot stand up to evil and so will eventually commit evil.
5) Therefore, moral weakness is a form of immorality.
6) Lack of self-control (the lack of self-discipline) and self-indulgence (the refusal to engage in self-denial) are therefore forms of immorality.
The notion that moral strength is most important is the driver in his theory. What do you think? Does this make sense to you?
Thanks for engaging in the dialogue.
Lisen
Lisen,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply and hilarious analogy! As a matter of fact, I *just* had a V-8 not 30 minutes ago, and I absolutely remember those old commercials. I appreciate your willingness to look at my side of these issues, and as I said before, I love getting to share our viewpoints and beliefs, even when they differ.
If you read a subtext of fear in my comments, that might be your projection (or my error in wording), but it is not at all the reason for my statements and beliefs. Fear is not my motivator; reality is. Also, I wasn’t sure what you were asking in your last question—whether I think moral strength as a driver is bad, or if I think that statement is true? I think moral strength is good, yes, but moral strength as a driver in all conservative thinking is over-simplifying and also leaves out the question of how individuals define morality. So I’m going to have to delve into another area where we are likely to disagree to give the background for where I’m coming from on these issues. Bear with me, here goes:
Because I am coming from a Christian/biblical world view, I see the world as one not divided into good and evil, but fallen (broken by sin) and therefore good and evil (God’s good creation and sin and its effects) are intertwined. (As an aside: I would love to know how you would define good and evil, from a humanist point of view—feel free to jump in on that if you’re up for it!) There is evil that comes from without (other people, natural disasters, the law of entropy, etc.) and evil that comes from within (my own sins—pride, self-righteousness, desire for glory, laziness, etc.). As Christians, we believe that not only are we forgiven for our sins (past, present, and future) when we believe in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, but that according to the Bible (and my personal experience), we now have the Holy Spirit empowering us to live for Jesus (by seeking to glorify Him in all we do, including resisting sin from within and without). So “moral strength” is actually better defined (for me) as “spiritual strength”—strength to do God’s will during my time on this earth.
So with that tiny summary of my belief system, I would say that from a Biblical framework, points 2-6 in your response make sense in theory. But without a Biblical framework, they are totally subjective depending on one’s beliefs (how do you define morality? Evil? Indulgence? Self-control?).
However.
I also realize that governments are not Christian. Countries are not Christian. Businesses are not Christian (though people in each of these may be). I cannot expect my government to share my faith, but I can ask them to have their eyes wide open when it comes to human nature: that we should hope for the best while being prepared for the worst in people. Hence my stands on capital punishment, military strength, and the second amendment. And I think this is where conservative Christians intersect with conservative non-Christians. There are plenty of non-Christians (my husband was one of them, before he accepted Christ 14 years ago) who believe that people are capable of doing great evil, as well as great good, and there need to be firm boundaries set to prevent the former.
Rereading this, I wonder if I’ve fully answered your question—I think I’ve gone on a few tangents, so forgive me, and feel free to help get me back on track if I’ve missed anything. Or if this makes sense (even if you don’t agree), then mission accomplished—we can see each other’s different points of view and still find the “uncommon ground” of civil discourse!
Libby
Libby, do you want to write my post next week? Excellent.
Aimee,
Help me understand where you see him as off the mark? How is he ill-informed? It is true, all models fail when it comes down to individuals. We are all unique, as they say.
Lisen
I see your point, but I still think his model is off. It doesn’t take into account the possibility that conservatives are in fact logical in their beliefs. Plus he subscribes to sweeping, untrue generalities. Let’s take this paragraph:
He says, “Liberals don’t understand how anti-abortion “right-to-life” activists can favor the death penalty and oppose reducing infant morality through prenatal care programs. They don’t understand why budget-cutting conservatives should spare no public expense to build prison after prison to house even non-violent offenders, or why they are willing to spend extra money to take children away from their mothers and put them in orphanages — in the name of family values. They don’t understand why conservatives attack violence in the media while promoting the right to own machine guns.”
I oppose abortion because it kills babies. I don’t oppose reducing infant mortality through prenatal care programs–I have no idea where he gets that! Unless he means Planned Parenthood. I support prenatal care programs, BUT not at facilities that profit from performing abortions like Planned Parenthood. There are community and Christian organizations in every city that can step in to help if prenatal care is cost-prohibitive to expecting women.
I support families, but not crime. How is expecting criminals to do the time for their crime and building jails to house them not supporting the safety of families and society as a whole? If we don’t like the laws and think they are unfair, let’s work to change them not blame that the *bad* conservatives who want to enforce them.
I haven’t the slightest clue what he’s talking about that conservatives want to take women’s children away and put them in orphanages. You’ll have to enlighten me on that one. Unless he’s taking about adoption as an alternative to abortion, in which case I would say allowing a child to live and be adopted is hands down the more ethical choice over abortion. A life saved is well worth the money spent, and usually it’s the adoptive parents who foot the bill, not the government and not the birth parents.
The right to bear arms is the second amendment of our Constitution. Without it, we leave our citizens vulnerable, not just to criminals, but also to the possibility of that an unjust government could one day rise in this country. Violence in the media is totally unrelated, except that it desensitizes our society to violence and I think inspires desperate people to act out in ways that hurt others–through rage, rape, assault, bullying, child abuse, and yes, sometimes weapons. Here again, if we don’t like the violence in the media, let’s work to change that rather than throw out the second amendment for everyone including law-abiding citizens.
Disclaimer: I don’t speak for every conservative in America; this is simply my line of thinking about a few of the issues Lakoff mentions.
Lisen, I thought you might get a kick out of this Washington Post op-ed entitled “Obama as father figure” by Delia Lloyd. She pro-Obama and finds him to be more fatherly than Romney!: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/27/obama-as-father-figure/
Lisen, I think your author George Lakoff spins a sensational metaphor, but it shows he doesn’t understand conservative beliefs–at least not mine. His generalizations about what conservatives want and why are ill-informed. I wonder if he really talked to anyone who is pro-life, pro-military, pro-second amendment, and if he did, did he listen to their answers or just fit them into his own theory?
The motivations and beliefs of American conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between are anything but cut and dried. They are individual and complicated. That’s what makes politics so interesting at this point in our history. I agree with you, we become stronger with the checks and balances our citizens bring to the table.