|
Whose Freedom? The Battle over America’s Most Important Idea
by George Lakoff
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006)
ISBN: 0374158282
One
of George Lakoff’s key observations in his work on contemporary political
discourse is that “frames trump facts” -- when facts are inconsistent with
the frames and metaphors that structure a person’s worldview, the facts will
likely be ignored.
Ironically, Lakoff’s new book --
Whose Freedom? The Battle over America’s Most Important Idea --
demonstrates that problem all too well. His worldview seems to keep him from
the very critical self-reflection that he counsels for liberal/progressive
people.
Lakoff’s “frame,” simply stated is: (1) Right-wing Republicans are the cause
of our problems, and (2) progressives working through the Democratic Party
will deliver the solutions. So, out the window must go any facts or analyses
that suggest (1) the problems of an unjust and unsustainable world may be
rooted in fundamental systems, such as corporate capitalism and the
imperialism of powerful nation-states, no matter who is in power, and (2)
the Democratic Party is not only not a meaningful vehicle for
progressive politics but, as a subsidiary of that corporate system with its
own history and contemporary practice of empire-building, is part of the
problem.
To deal with those obvious and difficult challenges to his political
proposals, Lakoff fudges certain facts and ignores others. Whether he does
this unconsciously -- trapped by uncritical acceptance of his own frames and
metaphors -- or is aware of it, we cannot know. But the result is a book
that offers little to citizens who want to deepen their understanding of our
political crisis and start to strategize about a new direction that can
bring this country -- and human society more generally -- back from the
brink of the collapse we face on many fronts. Whose Freedom? also has
a sloppy, slapped-together feel which, together with its serious
intellectual and political problems, raise serious doubts about Lakoff’s
fitness to play intellectual guru to any liberal/progressive movement, a
role to which he has been elevated by many.
Lakoff, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, invites this
blunt assessment of his book by the way in which he tries to establish
himself as an expert. He asserts that his analysis deserves such serious
consideration because he writes not only as a political activist but as a
linguist and a cognitive scientist, working “in the service of a higher
rationality that the tools of cognitive science provide” (p. 15).
So, let’s hold Lakoff and his book to the standards of a higher rationality.
First, in a book on freedom by a cognitive scientist, we might expect some
measure of scientific precision in defining the term. Instead, Lakoff uses
“freedom” as a dumping-ground term for any positive value he wants to
endorse and attach to progressive politics. Near the end of the book he ties
freedom to opportunity in general, economic opportunity, health, social
security, unionization, education, and privacy. “Every progressive issue is
ultimately about freedom,” he says (p. 243).
In some superficial way that may be true, but such a laundry list hardly
advances the critical thinking needed to counter the reactionary right’s
formulations, which also are rooted in assertions about the nature of
freedom, as Lakoff points out. The advantage right-wing folks have is that
they are comfortable with intellectual simplemindedness in a complex world,
which makes for rhetoric that can soar but policies which tend to sink. It’s
not clear that an equivalent simplemindedness by progressives will pose a
successful challenge. The goal for progressives should be honest accounts of
the complexity that can be communicated clearly, not equally vapid
platitudes that will never have the same power to propagandize.
What progressives need to shape more successful rhetoric is a bit of
analytical clarity, which is nowhere to be found in the book. In academic
philosophy there is a rich, though often highly technical, literature on
freedom. Mining those insights and translating them into ordinary language
there would be a contribution, but one Lakoff doesn’t attempt. For example,
the distinction between negative freedom (simply stated, the “freedom from”
outside control) and positive freedom (the existence of conditions and
resources that create the “freedom to” pursue one’s interests) that has
developed in philosophy is directly applicable to modern political issues.
Lakoff makes no mention of it, or any other consistent and coherent
framework for understanding the concept of freedom.
The book’s analytic shortcoming are exacerbated by the haphazard writing and
non-editing. In some places, Lakoff throws out aphorisms and slogans without
bothering to develop them beyond a single sentence. Whatever organization he
had in mind for the book, it is not readily apparent. Many readers are
willing to wade through bad writing for good ideas, but the frustration
level grows quickly when no coherent ideas appear as the pages turn.
And then there’s the problem of evidence -- those fudged facts. For example,
Lakoff makes the perfectly sensible claim that religion has no special claim
to superiority in moral reasoning, and he contests conservative Christians’
attempts to define their religious morality as superior. I couldn’t agree
more. But to support his argument that this conservative position is the
minority view, he states that “only 12.7 percent of Americans claim to be
evangelical Protestants” (p, 201). Since the book has no footnotes, it’s
impossible to know where the figure comes from, but that’s considerably
lower than many surveys report.
A 2004 poll for Religion & Ethics Newsweekly and U.S. News and
World Report found that white evangelicals make up 23 percent of the
population. A 2002 ABC News/Beliefnet poll found that of the 83 percent of
Americans who identify as Christian, 37 percent consider themselves to be
born-again or evangelical, which would be about 30 percent of the general
population. Meanwhile, a 2004 study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public
Life put the percentage of white evangelical Protestants at 26.3 percent, of
which 12.6 percent were categorized as “traditional evangelical.” In that
study, black and Latino Protestants were in separate categories, and there
is a category of white Catholics labeled “traditional.” So, it’s easy to
imagine that conservative Christians are a considerable segment of the
population.
The question isn’t trivial, and in fact is crucial to Lakoff’s claim that
follows: “Most Christians are progressive.” It’s not clear that the factual
claim is accurate, unless one defines progressive so expansively that it
becomes meaningless.
The book’s second major problem comes out in this same paragraph, in which
Lakoff argues that “many evangelicals, like Jimmy Carter, are progressives.”
Jimmy Carter, a progressive? Is this the same Jimmy Carter who while
president coddled the Shah of Iran as that brutal dictatorship was
collapsing? The President Carter who ignored the pleas of human-rights
advocates like the late archbishop Oscar Romero, whose request to Carter
that the United States stop funding the brutal Salvadoran military
government and its death squads was ignored?
It’s true that Carter has been a stronger advocate for justice and peace
since leaving office, and in those endeavors he deserves support. But
meaningful social change requires that we understand how institutions shape
political decisions as much as, if not more than, individuals; ignoring the
actions of Democrats while they were in power leads progressives to
ineffective strategy and tactics.
Perhaps Lakoff understands that the unpleasant facts of Democratic leaders’
actions must be obfuscated or ignored if progressive people are to be
persuaded to spend their time and money helping to put those same folks back
in power. Some of the book’s most embarrassing material comes in this arena,
concerning Bill Clinton.
In that section on religion, Lakoff asserts that morality “is ultimately
about recognizing and responding to others’ needs -- it is about empathy.”
Again, I couldn’t agree more. That might lead us to ask questions about the
empathy underlying some of the Clinton policies that Lakoff valorizes. For
example, he gives high marks to the Democrat’s Iraq policy, “Clinton’s
military containment of Saddam Hussein inside Iraq’s no-fly zones, which
indeed succeeded in keeping Saddam Hussein from developing weapons of mass
destruction” (p. 232).
Lakoff conveniently ignores the fact that these no-fly zones were imposed
illegally by the United States and Great Britain (initially along with
France, which eventually pulled out of the deal), and the routine US/UK
bombing that occurred in those zones had no legitimacy in international or
domestic law. That is to say, they were crimes against peace. While
Republican crimes demand condemnation, apparently Democratic ones are
praiseworthy.
Legal considerations aside, a moral question pops up as well, which Lakoff
also conveniently ignores. Key to Clinton’s policy on Iraq was the continued
imposition on Iraq of the harshest economic embargo in modern history, which
virtually the whole world wanted to lift -- except the United States and its
UK ally (which was every bit as much a lapdog to Clinton as to Bush). While
Hussein shares the moral responsibility for the devastation caused by those
sanctions, that Clinton policy is directly responsible for the deaths -- by
conservative estimates -- of hundreds of thousands of civilians, maybe more
than one million. Predictably, the most vulnerable -- children and the
elderly, the sick and the poor -- suffered most from the economic sanctions.
Clinton administration officials made it clear that no matter what Iraq did
to meet the specifications of UN resolutions on weapons -- the condition for
ending the embargo -- the sanctions would remain in place until Hussein was
out of power, which effectively condemned to death those hundreds of
thousands.
Remember, according to Lakoff, morality “is about empathy.” Yet when
activists tried to build a movement in the late 1990s to change this cynical
and cruel Clinton policy, we found few Democrats willing to listen. The
longstanding US goal of controlling the politics of the Middle East --
consistent through Republican and Democratic presidents since World War II
-- trumped any empathy that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, or
other individuals in that administration might have felt.
I suppose I can empathize, in some sense, with Lakoff: If he wants to help
create the conditions for the return to power of the Democratic Party,
perhaps its sins are best ignored. But it’s difficult to see how this serves
the “higher rationality” that Lakoff invokes at the beginning and end of the
book.
Though this critique may seem harsh, it is a friendly one. I agree with many
of the policy prescriptions that Lakoff labels as “progressive,” though I
would want to push his analysis to the left and move past the predictable
and uninspiring liberal ideology. I would highlight the more fundamental
issues around illegitimate systems and structures of power, primarily the
corporation in capitalism and the nation-state in the imperial era. Such
suggestions are typically derided by those in Lakoff’s camp as unrealistic
and/or idealistic. Yet no one has ever explained how a progressive politics
that entrenches support for failed systems is a realistic option for the
future. Whatever short-term strategies we might devise to try to roll-back
the advances of the reactionary right, those tactics have to be informed by
honestly facing the depth of our problems.
If this does seem harsh, that’s good -- because it’s crucial that someone
with Lakoff’s public platform be critiqued sharply when such weakly argued
and thinly supported ideas are tossed off in this shallow a book. Being
rational -- along with being clear and honest -- are important if we are to
create the needed shift in fundamental thinking necessary to make it
possible to pull this world back from the brink of multiple disasters on
ecological, cultural, political, and economic fronts.
In his concluding call to a higher rationality, Lakoff writes, “Perhaps the
hardest reframing problem is reframing our own minds” (p. 259). Ironically,
it turns out that his book is evidence for that very claim, which may be the
value of Lakoff’s recent work. As he states at the end of Whose Freedom?,
with no apparent sense of that irony: “Transcending the ideas that we were
raised with -- growing to see more -- is the cognitive work of achieving
freedom” (p. 266).
Robert Jensen
is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board
member of the
Third Coast Activist Resource Center. He is the author of
The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and
Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (both
from City Lights Books). He can be reached at:
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
Other Recent Articles by Robert Jensen
*
Florida’s Fear of History: New Law Undermines Critical Thinking
*
Attacking Iran: Bad Policy is a Bipartisan Affair
* The Four
Fundamentalisms and the Threat to Sustainable Democracy
* Why
Leftists Mistrust Liberals
*
“Crash” and the Self-Indulgence of White America with Robert Wosnitzer
*
Why I am a Christian (sort of)
* The
Failure of Our First Amendment Success: Dealing with the Death of
Discourse
*
"Dangerous" Academics: Right-wing Distortions about Leftist Professors
* MLK Day:
Dreams and Nightmares
*
Intelligent-Design Debate Reveals Limits of Religion and Science
* The 1st
Amendment's Assembly and Petition Clauses -- Eviscerated by Big Money?
* Give
Thanks No More: It’s Time for a National Day of Atonement
* Abe
Osheroff: On the Joys and Risks of Living Authentically in the Empire
*
The Challenge of a Broken World
* TV
Images Don't Bring Change
*
From Hiroshima to Iraq and Back with Sharon Weiner
*
Demonizing News Media is Attempt to Divert Attention from Policy Failures
*
Iraq’s Non-Election
* A New
“Citizens Oath of Office” for Inauguration 2005
*
Election Day Fears
* Large
Dams in India -- Temples or Burial Grounds?
* US
Supports Anti-Democratic Forces in Venezuela Recall
* Kerry's
Hypocrisy on the Vietnam War
*
“Fahrenheit 9/11” is a Stupid White Movie
*
It’s Not
Just the Emperor Who is Naked, but the Whole Empire
*
Hunger
Strike Remembers the Victims of World Bank Policies
*
Condi Rice Wouldn't Admit Mistakes
* Former
President Bush Involved with Donation
to Group with
Terrorist Connections
*
Bush's
Nuclear Hypocrisy
*
Observe Right to Unionize by Making it Reality
*
New Purported Bush Tape Raises Fear of New Attacks
*
General Boykin’s Fundamentalist View of the Other
*
Just the (Documented) Facts, Ma'am
*
Through the Eyes of Foreigners: US Political Crisis
*
“No War” A Full-Throated Cry
*
Media Criticism of Iraq Coverage Reveals Problems with Journalists'
Conception of News
*
Embedded Reporters Viewpoint Misses Main Point Of War
*
Fighting Alienation in the USA
*
Where's The Pretext? Lack of WMD Kills Case for War
*
For Self-Determination in Iraq, The U.S. Must Leave
*
The Images They Choose, and Choose to Ignore
*
Embedded Media Give Up Independence
*
On NPR, Please Follow the Script
HOME
|
|