The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain

Few people know enough about neuroscience to agree or disagree with Lakoff's description of its discoveries, but nearly everyone can use what this book teaches as a recipe for dealing with people who, to us, seem irrational in their political choices.

I think it is very likely that Lakoff has his science right, or at least right enough. Can anyone reasonably say that the centuries-old concepts of how mind and language work are not as obsolete as their contemporaries, the theories of phlogiston and of the Great Flood? Whether Lakoff's brain science is exactly right matters little; it is sufficient to give a scientific foundation to think more effectively about how people think. Science continually evolves, and for today it suffices to take today's preliminary results to develop a useful technology of persuasion; waiting for a perfect knowledge that may never come is a recipe for failure.

More important than the precise rightness of Lakoff's formulation is its utility. Who has not found it frustrating to lay out fact after fact, logical argument after logical argument, and still to lose in the matter of persuasion? How many times I have drawn the conclusion that the listener was insincere, deluded or stupid! And never have those conclusions been especially helpful; no-one has ever been persuaded by being called "Stupid!"

Lakoff's explanations are much more useful than simply blaming the listener. It is very likely that people who brush aside my logic are almost never being stupid; they simply have a very different frame of reference and way of thinking. And since all thinking is based in biology, there is a biological basis for that thinking. (Lakoff's description of the biology is interesting for those who like that sort of thing, and can be skipped by those who don't.)

As Lakoff notes, whether "they" are being "rational" or not is completely irrelevant. They think the way they do, and I can't magically expect them to change by mere logical argument. I can fail to respect their frame of reference, their way of thinking, the way they are built; and with that choice, I will fail. And (going beyond Lakoff) may I add that I would deserve to fail, for being disrespectful.

Or ... I can accept our differences, and work with them, gradually changing the way they think over time.

There is no magic formula for persuading people to agree with me (...and it would be frightening if there were. Think about it!) But Lakoff's recipe for action offers hope: offer alternative frames, non-authoritarian ways of thinking about the problems that matter, thus gradually getting people used to non-authoritarian conduct.

We often do this without knowing it. It's the heart of every potluck supper, neighborhood watch or other volunteer community organizing event. Really, "all" Lakoff does is give us a metaphor for thinking about what works, so we can implement the methodology effectively. But since thinking is fundamentally the use of apt metaphors, perhaps that's all Lakoff needs to do.

Putting the metaphor to use is up to us.

Lakoff is a genius at deconstructing the lies of neocon spinmeisters like Matthew Drudge and Andrew Sullivan. He carefully analyzes the fake GOP talking points of fear and masculine idolatry. I find it especially fascinating to explore the motivations of someone like Sullivan who literally adored and worshipped the masculinity of Bush/Cheney, but has turned 180deg to a scorned woman. Lakoff explains how the false bravado of the neocon frequently hides a very scared little boy inside (eg closeted Drudge).

This book was very useful in its explanation of how we think about things in terms of frames, unconsious scenarios that our minds use to help us make sense of life. That aspect of the book is something we would all benefit from understanding - a mental tool to help us properly evaluate the assorted messages thrown at us from various media and the language of the marketplace.

My problem with this volume is that there is so much technical information, I was often at risk of losing the book's messages. Despite giving it the metaphorical old college try, I found much of it too technical and of little use to me.

It's definitely a book worth reading, just don't expect it to be an easy read.

This book continues the author's argument that politics is best understood in terms of family dynamics: the strict father family where obedience and punishment are emphasized or the empathetic actions of a nurturant parent family. Based on family morality, conservatives want limited government and the discipline of the marketplace that supposedly rewards the meritorious, whereas progressives emphasize the protection and empowerment role of government, which implies intervention in the economy to combat structural problems and provide assistance where needed. In addition, conservatives are disinclined to question leaders (strict fathers), either in gov or in business, while progressives believe in equal participation in all institutions.

In this book, the emphasis is on the unconscious nature of thought, which according to the author, occurs 98 percent of the time and has tremendous influence. People respond automatically to neural pathways that have been formed in accordance with frames or metaphors. According to the author, enlightenment thinkers, including the founding fathers, were simply wrong to hold that thinking is logical, universal, value-free, and literal. Apparently, conservatives, well aware of the unconscious, have, through think tanks, talk radio, and the like, over the last thirty years made huge efforts to inculcate simplistic themes, like "war on terror" or "tax and spend liberals," to affect, or limit, political debate. Rational thinkers, on the other hand, still mistakenly rely on facts.

There is a smattering of details concerning brain functioning in the book, but it is clear that we are very far from understanding the mind, the brain, the formation of ideas, etc. Obviously, eighteenth century thinkers did not have the benefit of the scientific discoveries of the last two hundred years. But it is a huge stretch to hold that the founding fathers, and others, were not subtle thinkers. Intelligent people have always organized their speech and arguments through the use of framing and metaphors. It is extremely doubtful that conservatives have a hold on such subtleties. It may be true that "spin" and propaganda are far more prevalent in the modern era. They do impose a huge burden on the average person to find the truth.

The progress of mankind will always depend of words, ideas, willingness to stare realities in the face, etc. Furthermore, it will depend on the education and sophistication of those engaged in debates. It may well be that the author's recognition of a divide in family dynamics is most important. Perhaps strict father morality inhibits open-mindedness, the questioning of ideas, as well as commands. Those unaccustomed to challenging beliefs are undoubtedly more susceptible to simplistic arguments.

It's hard to see much benefit in launching off on a nebulous argument of the conscious versus the unconscious to explain modern politics. In a way, it justifies irresponsibility: "I vote the way I do because I'm being led around by my nose due to framing." If I'm not mistaken, energy and gas prices are out of sight, foreclosures are way up, the stock market is a speculators paradise, lives are being lost in Iraq for what purpose - the list of dysfunctionalities is long. I assume that's what people want - that's how they voted. They have another chance coming up. Stay tuned.

The author almost seems to be calling for manipulation to counter manipulation. Progressives need to counter spin and lay out the most reasoned arguments that they can. Then let the chips fall where they will.

We think in metaphors, and words describe metaphors. A metaphor is a description like "He's cold as ice." He's not cold, he's unfriendly, but we know what it means. Metaphors form neural pathways, or connections, between neurons. The more we activate the pathways, the stronger they become, and the more we accept them as true. Metaphors, words, thoughts, and language therefore have a neurological basis that result from physical transformation of brains (actual physiological change to brain cells similar to increased muscle mass that results from weight lifting).

Republicans have intuitively known this and have used language to create metaphors and neural pathways that have become dogmatic in America--example: tax relief, page 234. Relief is not normally connected to taxes (road building, social security, and armed forces result from taxes, not relief). However, tax relief has become a metaphor in the US that is identified as generally good, and puts anyone who criticizes the concept on the defensive.

The conservative Republican model society is based on Old Testament concepts: right and wrong are absolute. It is based on a strict father model (page 78) that relies on discipline. The father tells the children how to behave and punishes them if they do not heed the father. Children learn discipline so they will do the right thing without question (think of Marines who obey commands in the heat of war as described in the book Flags of Our Fathers, James Bradley and Ron Powers, 2001). Obeying authority without questioning it is paramount. That's why Republicans supported President Bush's pardon of Scooter Libby for lying to Congress - Libby was merely obeying orders. Once discipline is learned, there is no need for government since disciplined individuals don't need any outside help. Discipline leads to self-reliance, and government aid like social security is not only unnecessary, it leads to weakness because it causes citizens to lose their self reliance. Authority is absolute, and so is the requirement to obey it. That is why conservatives are so threatened when their position is criticized--it is tantamount to questioning authority, and absolute authority is fundamental to their view of the world.

Liberals, or progressives as George Lakoff prefers to call them, start from a nurturing concept. Children do not need discipline, they need nurturance. Government stands for the proposition that it permits people to flourish. Roads permit commerce, medicine protects our health, police and firemen protect us from catastrophe, the FDA protects us from corporations whose zeal for profit would lead them to sell drugs with harmful side effects, and the SEC protects us from unscrupulous traders that would manipulate markets for private gain.

People think by emotion, and progressives try to reason according to rational, Old Enlightenment, factual-based logic. Progressives need to appeal to people's emotions more. Emotions, like metaphors, are established neural pathways in mature brains, and progressives need to adopt frames that tap into voters' nurturing neural pathways.

Progressives should not permit conservatives to force them into responding (and therefore adopting) conservative frames (see page 153 regarding Obama's response to Wolf Blitzer's question on mandatory English in the US). The technique is to 1) describe the frame that the questioner has just used; 2) describe what's wrong with the frame; and 3) come up with an alternate frame.

People have natural tendencies that can be politically manipulated. See "Why Hawks Win," page 223, for an example of why it is easier to convince citizens to go to war than it is to object going to war. Again, the solution is to reframe the debate; to point out the errors in going to war. Would we have invaded Iraq if it was a prelude to endless war, rather than a war on terrorists that would soon be "Mission Accomplished?"

The book's strengths are 1) describing conservative and progressive thought processes, and 2) describing neurological and psychological research that support the biological bases for thought and linguistics.

The book's shortcomings are 1) failing to provide concrete examples of conservative frames and how to specifically counter them, and 2) failing to theorize how people become conservative or progressive over time, and whether they can be manipulated to become conservative or progressive as they mature.