Jackson Free Press

Professor George Lakoff writes in The Nation:

We are the 55 million progressives who came together in this election, voted for Kerry and rejected the Bush agenda. We came together because of our moral values: care and responsibility, fairness and equality, freedom and courage, fulfillment in life, opportunity and community, cooperation and trust, honesty and openness. We united behind political principles: equality, equity (if you work for a living, you should earn a living) and government for the people – all the people.

These are traditional American values and principles, what we are proudest of in this country. The Democrats' failure was a failure to put forth our moral vision, celebrate our values and principles, and shout them out loud.

We must immediately convince our leaders to unite behind these values, express our common moral vision and hold the line against the Bush agenda because it is immoral! Bush will call them obstructionists. They must frame themselves as heading in the right direction, going forward not backward, defending the greatest of American ideals and moral principles, working against a radical right agenda that would lead our country to disaster and speaking for more than 55 million highly moral, patriotic Americans.

If we communicate our values clearly, most people will recognize them as their own, personally more authentic and more deeply American than those put forth by conservatives. At the very least they will see progressives as having deeply held, traditional American principles. This would be a huge step forward from the present state, in which conservatives are seen as having a monopoly on "values" and progressives are framed as the party of "if it feels good, do it," with no higher principles.

Moral values at the national level are idealized family values projected onto the nation. Progressive values are the values of a responsible nurturant family, where parents (if there are two) are equally responsible. Their job is to nurture their children and raise them to be nurturers of others. Nurturance has two aspects: empathy and responsibility – both for yourself and your children. From this, all progressive values follow, both in the family and in politics.

If you empathize with your children, you will want them to have strong protection, fair and equal treatment and fulfillment in life. Fulfillment requires freedom, freedom requires opportunity and opportunity requires prosperity. Since your family lives in, and requires, a community, community building and community service are required. Community requires cooperation, which requires trust, which requires honesty and open communication. Those are the progressive values – in politics as well as family life.

Previous Comments

ID

86260

Comment

If only they'd said that during the election, perhaps things might have been better. As it is, they spent too much time shouting profanity and not enough convincing people they actually had good ideas. The republicans won because they did the same slightly less. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2004-11-27T17:19:33-06:00

ID

86261

Comment

Who is "they"? You mean the Hollywood stars? The republicans won because they did the same slightly less. You really think so? I haven't seen evidence that that's true -- and, in fact, the opposite seemed to be the case. New lows were reached when Dick Cheney told a U.S. senator to "f*ck himself" on the floor of the Senate (and not because he insulted his wife, mind you, but his (former) company that was screwing up contracts with the government). Between Clinton's philandering on the job (and subsequent lies to cover it up) and the Bush-Cheney-Rove vulgarity and dishonest games, I can't imagine the moral tone in Washington being much worse than it is presently. I don't really care what the Hollywood crowd said; I think the honesty and integrity of our actual leaders is the most important thing. Speaking of, Barack Obama was amazing on Letterman the other night. Boy, do non-Republicans (and, hell, moderate Republicans) need a leader like that man.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-28T16:16:46-06:00

ID

86262

Comment

[quote]Speaking of, Barack Obama was amazing on Letterman the other night. Boy, do non-Republicans (and, hell, moderate Republicans) need a leader like that man. --ladd[/quote] Hell, it'd be better if the Dems would accept him as a leader and get rid of some of the talking heads on the left that talk too much and do too little. The Reps would have a hard time rallying against someone like Obama, IMO. ;-)

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-28T16:56:00-06:00

ID

86263

Comment

99Knol, I mostly appreciate your views, but a friend mentioned that the wonderful Barack (whom my daughter thinks is the greatest) did say he would , hmmm, be willing to do some pinpoint bombing. well, no one is perfect. he is almost. it's tough now. I think it was a Counterpunch article. will find . meanwhile, hurray for Cynthia McKinney and Russ Feingold, and that governor of New Mexico,, and .. there are lots of stars.

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-11-30T18:38:59-06:00

ID

86264

Comment

found it, say it's not true. http://www.counterpunch.org/selfa11022004.html found it, he's on record for missile strikes against Iran? say it's not true. he's the best, let's call him on this. ? hey, what do I know. Cynthia and Russ still rule. and sorryeverybody http://www.sorryeverybody.com/ for late night comfort. or early morning with coffee. your choice, free country.

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-11-30T19:41:00-06:00

ID

86265

Comment

There's not much context in that posting, Sunshine. Once could certainly argue that if you are going to spend all this effort on Iraq, a country that did not particularly threaten other nations, in the name of national security, that simply moral relativity would mean that you should put at least as much effort into Iran. And the nukes issue is real, and has gotten realer while the Bushies have been otherwise pre-occupied doing anything but lessening the risk of terrorism in the world. The quandaries are multiplying about as fast as the numbers in the U.S. deficit.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-01T10:57:11-06:00

ID

86266

Comment

In the next election, perhaps we can get both sides to tone down the hate. That'd help a lot. As for Nukes; the list is growing each year. I think it's up to twenty nuclear-capable countries, but only maybe three or five that keep an inventory on hand. I've been very disappointed in Bush's handling of North Korea, whom China is pushing into the nuclear age, I'm sure.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2004-12-01T11:10:32-06:00

ID

86267

Comment

Agreed on both points, Ironghost, at least largely. I don't actually think it's been a question of "hate" -- that word's been bandied about a lot without much basis. I, for instance, do not *hate* George W. Bush, but I disagree with most every policy he pushes, and I believe he is taking the country in a dangerous direction. Voicing that is not *hate*. It is participation in democracy. It was very weird for me to hear so many people accuse critics of Bush of "hate" -- by and large, most critiicsm I heard was real and had to do with his policies, not his person, although I realize there were exceptions. The word "hate" was often used to deflect and discredit actual criticism of Bush (as, it was, by the way of Clinton. I didn't hate Clinton, either, although I supported his impeachment and was glad to see him go. And I don't want to see him as First Man. But I don't "hate" him.) I don't think we can wait until the next election to try to change the tone, though, and we must acknowledge the role of the media in seeking out the most sensationalist comments of "both" sides and ignoring the stuff that doesn't raise ratiings. It's not "negative" campaigning, for instance, to question someone's record (truthfully) as a lawmaker; however, it is "negative" to continually spew personal attacks. I write about the "argument culture" this week in my editor's note (to be posted when Randy gets here): that we need to remember the difference between conversation/debate/discussion and personal attacks. I think more than anything, we need a campaign against telling lies on the campaign trail. It's weird to see how accepting Americans have become of politicians who outright lie to them on a regular basis. We don't need to live in a country where the only way you can win is to up the ante on the lies. Kerry, for instance, stretched the truth on issues that made Bush look bad when presented straightforward. Why lie?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-01T11:20:05-06:00

ID

86268

Comment

I will add that it's hard not to become bitter when so many people in the country have become so disrespectful of your views. But we must not become bitter; we must keep working to ensure that the country progresses, not regresses. Being a progressive is hard in the country right now; a multi-year campaign by the radical right to demonize the middle and the left (and even the middle-right) is paying offótemporarily, I hope and guessóand it means that being "politically incorrect" these days is saying that you're "progressive," "liberal" or even that you support public education or that you think that government should help the poor, or criticizing anything that the current administration does. Personally, I'm willing as hell to be politically incorrect to go along with Proverbs 14:30: "Be in solidarity with the poor." However, that doesn't mean, all, that we don't need to keep a stiff upper lip when folks falsely accuse us -- or, for God's sake, ridicule us for caring for people. Wow. Us getting bitter won't help anything. We should show compassion for people who have a hard time feeling compassion. They need it the most.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-01T11:30:10-06:00

ID

86269

Comment

ladd, I just see you said my posting had not much context! I'm crushed but can handle it. It does remind me of a book I've been meaning to read "Within the Context of No Context" by George Trow. Maybe that will help me .. The context I was going for was leaders we choose and are they going to lead us into even more wars or not. Of course nukes are evil, but if Israel has them, tho they won't admit, and India and Pakistan, who are we to tell Iran what to do? Just wondering. It's a sticky situation . And the sorryeverybody link was for sure not in context - just didn't know where else to put it, and it's great. and so is Russ Fiengold.

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-12-01T15:16:02-06:00

ID

86270

Comment

p.s. actually it went out of context early on, started with Lakoff's book , which I have but haven't read yet either, and then on to Barack and that's where I came in . sorry. things veer off, don't they!

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-12-01T15:23:16-06:00

ID

86271

Comment

No, no, Sunshine, I meant that the article itself that you linked didn't give context for Barack's comment! Not you! Don't be crushed, girlfriend! ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-01T15:25:52-06:00

ID

86272

Comment

ladd, thanks! whew. and you're right, it was a brief mention with no citation or followup. which now I will have to go find! ha. Meanwhile, Barack will be in the pantheon with Cynthia, Russ, and a few others. (All preferable to Hillary - ok, let's get some comments on that!)

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-12-01T15:40:30-06:00

ID

86273

Comment

Who are we to tell Iran what to do? I'm glad you brought up Pakistan and India, because we were HIGHLY annoyed with their 1998 nuclear tests - to the point that we slapped sanctions on them (lifted only after 9/11). Never mind that they threatened no country except each other. However, like Saddam-era Iraq had, Iran has a history of actively causing instability. Though not quite the open menace it was in the 80s under Khomeini, support for Hezbollah and other groups still exists. Iran's history of supporting terrorism makes confronting Teheran on the nuclear issue VERY important. (Side note: I'm not for attacking Iran though, as there is greater freedom of public assembly in MODERN Iran than in Saddam-era Iraq - therefore increasing the probabilities that a popular movement will eventually bring about democracy there. But that's a whole other topic).

Author

Philip

Date

2004-12-01T18:55:02-06:00

ID

86274

Comment

As for the rest, we do need to communicate our values more effectively, as many people seem to equate "liberal" with anti-God, anti-Southernism, and snide scarcastic remarks toward everything conservatives believe in. Conservatives are guilty of demonizing liberals too though. On the other hand, it's also vital for each person to examine what they claim THEIR OWN beliefs stand for, then reexamine their claims to make sure they aren't being hypocritical. Liberals: Openmindedness and respect toward others DEFINITELY includes "rednecks", Conservative Chrisitians, and College Greeks. Conservatives: Traditional values DEFINITELY include respecting a person who may be pagan, liberal Chrisitan, those whose definition of patriotism includes practicing their right to complain about Bush & Co., and respect for those who dress like "Art Major" types.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-12-01T19:05:57-06:00

ID

86275

Comment

Aw shucks, Philip, we don't really have to respect college Greeks, do we? Come onnnnnnnnn... Actually, a one-third of the triumvirate of folk who conceived the JFP is frat to da bone. We don't respect Stephen, though. ;-P

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-01T20:05:30-06:00

ID

86276

Comment

just wrote a long post, came back, was logged out, and it's gone. I hate when that happens! what did I say, something about conservative openmindedness being an oxymoron for starters, liberals try..fools. and look at Christoper Hitchens.. as for Iran I think I said - we would be nuts to go after them, they are way more powerful than pitiful Afghan. or Iraq (after years of being sanctioned0, we don't have the forces unless there's a draft... and they are Persian, not Arab, speak Farsi. our CIA probably doesn't . ha. and they make great movies. they are no more unstable than Pak. or Is. for that matter.

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-12-02T15:16:01-06:00

ID

86277

Comment

p.s. I did not mean to say liberals are fools, I love Hightower,Ivins,Scheer, and where is Noam these days. I was referring to the gnashing of teeth etc. by many L's about 'reaching out.' waste of time, most likely. well, we're still in mourning sort of. thrashing about still.

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-12-02T15:23:34-06:00

ID

86278

Comment

I think Iran will be easier to talk to than Iraq. Iran is further along the democratic trail than Iraq could have ever been with Saddam hanging around. As has been stated, Iran already has some "Western" style political freedoms. I'd imagine a peace movement wouldn't be hard to start there. :D

Author

Ironghost

Date

2004-12-02T16:00:57-06:00

ID

86279

Comment

Irong, let's just get a peace movement going here..! meanwhile, Iran - peacock throne Shah overthrown, US backed , Iraq - see Rummy shaking hands with Saddam, we backed them for a while also. it's Mess-o-potamia, as Jon Stewart says. and it's a mess because of US. a crying shame is what it is. I would love to see a peaceful Middle East in my lifetime, have thought that for years, and will, but it's getting to look unlikely.

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-12-05T02:37:44-06:00

ID

86280

Comment

Miss. is No. 1 again. this is on Daily Kos today. http://www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/index.php?p=146 us progressive morality folks need to get busy here.

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-12-06T20:29:26-06:00

ID

86281

Comment

Texas isn't doing much better -- it's #TWO For now, I'll surprise everyone and resist the urge to look up data, since this is beyond a data problem. Teen pregnancy is a fundamental cultural problem IMO, particularly in regard to teen sex. A big problem is that teens often take a very arrogant attitude toward those who choose not to have sex -- especially if a young male. The only way to reduce this problem substantially is to change the youth culture, and to do that, you have to teach youth critical thinking skills (In fact, I'm so passionate about adding not only this, but a whole host of other neglected topics as well that I'd favor starting a 13th grade to accommodate them all. Tax dollars well spent, IMO! But that's a whole other topic).

Author

Philip

Date

2004-12-07T09:19:20-06:00