A Family Affair?

I am equally put off by Republicans and Democrats alike these days. The well-orchestrated conventions of both parties were hyped and packaged to the slickest extremes so that everyone came away feeling good about their party and their candidate. Nobody seems to care about the crescendoing vitriol that is being spewed back and forth. Each side gets a rush when their guy takes a shot at the other guy, whether the shot is based on truth or not. And that’s the point, isn’t it? These days, when most folks get their information from neatly packaged sound bites on TV rather than take the time to actually read something, the message is more about presentation, not content. You can lie through your teeth, but if the setting is right, the background perfect, and the shills in the crowd fired up, anybody will buy it these days. And most of the time, those in opposition will just go "Whaaa?" without being really sure of the truth anyway. This has become an election of emotions, not facts.

Of course, I’m disinclined to buy into the conservative babble, but I’m getting fed up with what I am perceiving to be a clear lack of substance on Kerry’s side as well. I’m still in the "Anybody but Bush," category, but I am more deeply depressed than ever at the prospect of our country being led by anyone who is more into hype and politics than in making a difference in the lives of people.

There is a real difference in how liberals and conservatives function, at least in theory. George Lakoff, in his book Moral Politics, parses it out very nicely. Simply put, both sides see the nation as a family, with government as parent. Conservatives take a Strict Father stance and liberals take the Nurturant Parent stance. The Strict Father mind set posits a traditional nuclear family, the father having the primary responsibility for protecting and supporting it as well as overall policy authority. He assumes the power to set strict rules for the behavior of children and to enforce those rules. Mother has the responsibility for day-to-day care of the household, raising the children, and upholding the father’s authority. The children must respect and obey the parents and by doing so they learn self-discipline and self-reliance. Love and nurturance never outweigh parental authority, which to the conservative mind, translates to tough love. Self-discipline, self-reliance, and respect for authority are the things children must learn. Once children are mature, they are on their own and must depend on their acquired self-discipline to survive. Their self-reliance gives them authority over their own destinies and parents are not to meddle in their lives.

The liberal, Nurturant Parent model makes love, empathy, and nurturance primary, and children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant, through being cared for, respected, and caring for others within and without the family. The obedience of children comes out of their love and respect for their parents and their community, not out of fear of punishment. Questioning by children is seen as positive, even though ultimately, parents will have to make the decisions. When children are nurtured, respected, and communicated with from birth, they gradually enter into a lifetime relationship of mutual respect, communication, and caring with their parents.

The Strict Father morality assigns highest priorities to such things as moral strength (to stand up to external and internal evils), respect for and obedience to authority, the setting and following of strict guidelines and behavioral norms, and so on.

Nurturant Parent morality requires empathy for others and the helping of those who need help. To help others, one must take care of oneself and nurture social ties.

Looking at the Bush camp and the Kerry camp, you can see the fundamental moral political nature of each. But here is where the theory stops working, in my opinion, at least in this electronic day and age. I have to ask the question of both parties (and I am asking the question in different context for each, though it is the same question, because I hate the portrayed Republican mind set, and I want the Democrats to live up to theirs): While you each theoretically stand within one of these two moral models, and each serves to define your respective platforms, are you really thinking about the people you say you serve or are you posturing simply because you’re trying to get your own way? In other words, do you even care about the people you wish to govern? With Bush, I’m certain that there is little if any real knowledge of how the lives of people making less than several million a year are affected by his policies. With Kerry, intellectually, I believe he thinks about the little guy, but I wonder if he has a clue either. Time was, in the days of the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Kennedys, and others, wealthy families were raised with a sense of responsibility for the world around them. Their privilege brought responsibilities to try to make life better for those less fortunate. That mind set, I fear has been lost on Kerry. I don’t think it ever existed with Bush.

You can understand my depression, then, when I tell you, I truly believe that neither party is in touch with the needs of real people and that both parties are spouting off sound bites to appeal to the lowest common denominator voters who don’t care about anything but what they can get for themselves, too. This election has, in my opinion, little to do with the needs of humanity and the making of a better world, and more to do with each party getting what it wants: defeat of the other, and power. Unfortunately, power gotten by these means only begets greater violence on the part of the losing players to get it back. I fear we are in for a long siege of ideological mud-slinging and dirty tricks with only one goal in mind - to win at all costs for the sake of winning, and that’s all.

If I ever hear someone get up and say, "I’m running for President. Here’s what I stand for. If you don’t like it, don’t vote for me," I’ll drop everything and join the campaign in a heartbeat.

6:59:26 PM   Lay some on me []