As a linguist, Lakoff makes some interesting comments about the way we use language in political discourse. A relevant example he makes is his observation that both liberals and conservatives think conservatives are against big government. In reality, conservatives use the term "big government" as a marker for conservative values of the role of government. He shows how liberals and conservatives each favor government regulation for different issues (liberals for healthcare, education, and the environment, conservatives for military, intelligence, and prisons). When conservatives use the term "big government" they don't mean it in an absolute sense, but they are conveying the conservative take on the role of government with this simple term. This is a useful example of why liberalys and conservatives can have trouble communicating - they are using terminology differently - but also provides us a way to look for these differences to help people understand opposing viewpoints.
This leads me to a question. If conservatives and liberals do favor government regulations, even though they are over different issues, how have conservatives become branded as the party that opposes "big government?" This seems like a conservative success as there is often fear or mistrust of the government.
Amy Kochanowsky
Amy-
ReplyDeleteThis is a great question, and I think it has to do with semantics (something that Lakoff talks about and was briefly noted in the afternoon section of class today). The reason I appreciate viewing these issues through a linguist's lens is because the way in which words and phrases are adopted, coined and eventually owned by various causes or political parties is incredibly interesting, and important. In my opinion, a lot of this is accomplished through simple repetition. Sarah Palin was a great example of this, especially in 2008. She used phrases and words over and over again, almost like a drum beat, and while the campaign she represented was ultimately unsuccessful, terms like "Joe Six Pack" and "hockey mom" are still apart of the cultural lexicon.
A personal example comes to mind- my mom runs a non-profit that deals with issues around childcare and affordability, and about 10 years ago they decided to change names- originally, the organization was called Daycare Action Council (not very exciting). They wanted to change the name to "Action for Families," but the research on the word "Family" was that it was too politically charged- specifically, it was deemed too closely associated with conservative politics and associations. I don't have any kind of answer to your question, but I think that when we discuss symbols in politics, language is at the center of all of that.
Amy,
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the reason that conservatives (and I think by default after my last blog post I have become "the conservative" of the class) have become the party of less government is two-fold. One, they actually are the party of less government and two, that conservatives have used the term more effectively.
Lackoff used the example that conservatives are for increasing military spending and prisons and liberals are for government intervention in a whole other mess of things. If we look at this on face and compare the amount of bureaucracy that either party would create in their preferred areas, the Republican side creates far less (the military's budget - as I pointed out in my Obama post that's linked on the main page - is a fraction of what entitlements make up and jails are a drop in the bucket to that) than the Democratic side. In addition, the Republicans have stressed cutting federal government in certain areas like entitlements, the environment, the arts, etc., while the Democrats haven't necessarily come out in support of cutting the military or prisons (probably because to do so would be political suicide).
As far as part 2, coservatives have been stressing this theme of less government far, far, far more than any liberal (Clinton talked about it and was accused of being switching to the Republican agenda) and so now in the psyche of Americans, they can relate it to the Republicans (no I'm not supporting Lackoff's metaphors here, people use reason to transfer this idea).
So those are my thoughts on the topic
Oh yea, I should prolly put my name on that above comment...it was by Matt Vigeant
ReplyDelete