Paul, your thoughtful defense is gonna be too nuanced for many in this crowd. Good work. Lakoff's not flawless, especially "elephant's" section on foreign policy, but he's done much outstanding and useful work.
He's making asinine and superficial criticisms, such as "Lakoff is out of touch"...and he is just as attackable, and I gave some reasons why I think so. I do believe he's out of touch in my book. And you're not bright enough to figure out this distinction. It's not about raising kids....it's
And brother, you think I'm whining? You don't know how old I am. You don't know a lot of things. I've been a paid staffer on liberal political campaigns. What have you done? Huh?
forgive me if i'm misreading you, or misreading Lakoff (I haven't read latest book but have read others) but Lakoff never suggests that we should explicitly use the term or concept "nurturant parent"
he is proposing a cognitive model, not a label or branding. It's purely explanatory. it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what he writes; this happened a lot the last time.
Lakoff is great at what he does, analyze language. Nobody is suggesting he take over the
I made this criticism of Stoller because I don't think he's as sharp as HE thinks he is, though at the same time I think he does great work here on Mydd. But I do think being very young completely limits your effectiveness at understanding adult life, except in very exceptional circumstances - people who've lived through a lot, like I describe above.
Re: the article in question, every single one of the following statements is an assertion and debateable.
This is hardly a gutting of Lakoff - it's more of a disagreement, and not one I personally agree with much:
"Lakoff is wrong is almost every way here. First, his rejection of the upcoming election as being a referendum on Republican governance is simply not consistent with reality. Elections are first and foremost a moment of accountability for the government. By definition this election will be referendum on the current Republican government. Kerry's major campaign failure in 2004 was his inability to make the 2004 election a referendum on Bush. Rove successfully made Kerry one of the major issues while Bush himself was only an issue in contrast to Kerry. Lakoff further misunderstands that a referendum on the Republican government does not mean silence. It means the exact opposite. It means Democratic critique of the Republican performance.
Matt, your assertion that Lakoff is out of touch is offensive.
His work is certainly not without flaws (debateable, of course) but your blanket condemnation is absurd.
How old are you? How many kids have you raised? Have you taken care of elderly parents? Had anyone close to you die or struggle with health care issues? Struggled to pay rent or a mortgage? Put a kid into school? Had setbacks with career and jobs? Been fired? Worked for a few different people?
You haven't lived much. You need to get over your own arrogance about knowing life, and therefore knowing voters - who are mostly not sheltered intellectual early twentysomethings like you.
Stick to grassroots organizing and what you're doing here. But sometimes you reach way over your head, and it takes an anvil on your head to bring you down.
Nobody here is mentioning the obvious fact that Clinton is only implying that it's not a good idea to go after Lieberman. He also said Lieberman is a decent Democrat....which is defensible on votes (though not on the rest of his behavior and public statements).
And he played all of you. Did Bill Clinton say that he endorses Lieberman? Do you all think this was completely identical in effect to an actual endorsement? Did he say anything about Lamont?
Not much of a commitment. Slippery, yes, and smart, if conservative. He's not undercutting his wife, he's playing for the history books, and doesn't want to be on the losing side of this, whichever side that is.
If Allen loses this November, I will go out on a limb and say Huckabee will be seen as the one who can knit together all of the GOP's disparate factions. If Allen loses, and Huck performs well on the stump and attracts any level of interest on the part of donors, watch out....I think he will be the ideal compromise candidate for them.
Nevertheless, I am not afraid of running against him in the general.....I can't see him adding to their map at all, and I don't see him even matching Bush's performance in the West. And he is so uptight he makes John Kerry and Al Gore look like James Brown and Maceo Parker.
I work in PR, and I fit the demographics you mentioned.
Part of being politically active is developing an "ear" for how other people, people different than you, respond to politics and think about their lives...that means connecting with the apolitical.
It's incumbent upon any activist to sharpen their instincts and have experiences with all kinds of people. Most media representatives fail at this; they're as insular as the most idealistic activists out there.
Activism cannot just be about acting on what you believe. It must be about a choice to fight to achieve realistic goals. Activists have to gain the experiences that will enable them to connect with enough different kinds of people.
To me, it's as simple as that. Any questions about candidate X's stands/experience on issues a,b,or c are irrelevent.
Clinton had no foreign policy experience. JFK was 43. Harry Truman was considered to be not ready for prime time.
The best person to capably tell a compelling story about Democrats, liberalism, America, and the future, while encompassing the relevent issues (economic security, Iraq, etc.) is the candidate that will be most likely to win. Story, narrative, philosophy, optimism....NOT a laundry list of positions or single-issue passionate appeal.
And it's a very big plus if that candidate is also not an intellectual from the coasts.
Let the best messenger win. I'd bet big bucks it won't be the Senator from NY.
I think the real support for HRC outside the beltway is entirely overstated. A lot of it is just name ID....Lieberman led in the polls for '04 for a long while back in '02, IIRC. It's also easy to forget how unseriously non-political, non wonks take a Presidential race this far out.
I think somebody else will impress the D electorate with the right message (optimistic, future-oriented, values-driven...a narrative) plus geography and profile. This won't happen until late 2007. The only possibilities I'd bet on are Warner, Edwards, and Obama, were he to get in.
I don't see anyone else transcending narrow-issue appeal,
My take: both are good D's. Westly is "acting" more of a centrist. He has the brilliant Garry South in his corner.
Angelides is acting as his own consultant, so they say. Which makes sense, because I think message wise he's just awful. Lots of discrete policy points, lots of "fighting for you" cliches in his mail
I have no doubt that Westly, though bland and dull, would run a much more disciplined general race, and due to his personality and centrist positioning will be far, far more likely to peel off I's. Westly's history, with the exception of stock options in SV (IMO), is just fine. Smart guy. Undoubtedly good policy wise. I think the same of Phil.
Angelides was just dumb to go with taxes as the center of his positioning. He has the intellectual-liberal candidate disease of thinking that you can rationally persuade voters with arguments about policy. Saw him once in a 20 second TV bite a couple weeks ago. He crammed in 5 policies that he stands for, no narrative, nothing to take away. What a downer.... His early commercials amounted to, "I've got endorsements!". He's also a little geeky. Of course, without 2/3rds in the legislature, Angelides has no prayer of getting any his tax ideas implemented. yet why run on this? A mystery. I don't trust his political judgement.
I think Angelides had the potential to run as Spitzer. He didn't see this, and has chosen a cliched and tired route. I think Arnold might embarrass him, because Arnold is actually deft in the cut and thrust of a campaign re: messaging and discipline. Phil will be painted as the "annoying tax raiser". Can't see how Arnold attacks Westly anywhere near as easily.
Either way, I'm confident either would be a fine governor. But I think this will be a rare gubernatorial disappointment for us in the fall, though I also don't like the poll numbers for Granholm.