Conservatives win votes by hitting values hot buttons.
by George Lakoff
Britain is richer than ever. That is, the total wealth of all British corporations and individuals is enormous. Net household wealth in the UK rose from £4.3tn in 2001 to £6.6tn in 2011. That is a 55 percent rise in the past decade and it does not include corporate wealth. But that wealth is not equally distributed. At the same time, the majority of Britons are suffering economically. Many have lost jobs, savings, or even their homes.
The amount of money available to the government does reflect the wealth of the nation. If you think that Britain is poor or running out of money, you are thinking in terms of a metaphor: the wealth of the nation is the wealth of the government. But it is a metaphor that hides the reality of wealth inequality.
There is no lack of metaphor around. One of the most pernicious is that the government’s budget is a family budget. When a family is short of cash it will have to spend less on "non-essentials", excepting essentials like food and the mortgage.
But governments can raise money in various ways. The best is by investing in the economy. This requires getting money into people’s pockets by building – or, indeed, rebuilding – infrastructure, educating the young, or supporting innovative research. A government can raise money for this purpose in various ways: having the wealthy pay a fair share, printing more money and allowing inflation to rise somewhat until unemployment lessens.
But that’s just economics and logic. Economics and logic are not faring well in Britain, and reasons for this are not being discussed.
Conservatives speak in moral terms. That is what austerity talk is about.
Why is this happening? Why don’t those suffering supporters of the present policy rebel mightily? And why do we hear even progressives supporting aspects of "austerity"?
The answer has three components:
- dual moral systems,
- the social and political influence of wealth, and
- the failure of progressives to communicate effectively.
First, the dual moral systems. I will describe them both, but it should be remembered that many people have both at once – conservative on some issues, progressive on others.
In the country of the stiff upper lip, “austerity” sounds like a virtue.
In the country of the stiff upper lip, "austerity" sounds like a virtue. It is the opposite of self-fulfilment and a robust enjoyment of everyday life – both of which are commonly framed in public discourse as self-indulgence – the ultimate sin for the right wing. Why? There are two opposite moral systems at play, both of which are a reflection of ideal models of what family life should be and what makes a moral person.
In a strict father family (hardly unknown in Britain), the father has ultimate authority. He knows right from wrong, sets the rules, is supposed to protect and support the family, and disciplines the children through punishment not to break his rules, which define what is right. To be moral the children must have discipline, and if they have discipline and, when necessary, act with austerity, they can prosper. If they are not prospering, that means they lack discipline, are self-indulgent and deserve their poverty.
Austerity in this family model is purifying. It makes you stronger and a better person. Responsibility is individual responsibility. Everyone should take care of himself or herself.
Projected onto politics, this model explains why austerity seems moral, why citizens helping each other through their government should be minimised, and why the wealthy should be rewarded through proportionally low taxation and seen as inherently good, noble people.
The alternative moral model can best be understood through a family model as well. Responsible nurturing parents share parenting, which starts with empathy, understanding what children and others need, caring for both themselves and their children, teaching children empathy and both personal and social responsibility (which requires a positive, non-punitive discipline), preparing children for a fulfilled and satisfying life, gaining respect through positive action and not imposed authority.
Projected onto politics, this model explains why austerity and a "you’re-on-your-own" philosophy is seen as immoral, as well as impractical. It sees democracy as arising from citizens caring about their fellow citizens as well as themselves. Government provides protection and empowerment via "the public" – public provisions that make for maximally decent and free private lives and private enterprises.
The public provides road and bridges, education, public transport and communication systems, healthcare and disease prevention, police and firemen, energy, sewers, clean air and water, food safety, parks and the preservation of nature, free or easily accessible cultural institutions, a patent office, courts mostly for business law, and much more.
With public provisions, a free and decent private life and private businesses are possible. Without it, they are not. The private depends on the public. It is both a freedom issue and an economic issue. This is a fundamental truth that is not being said, repeated, and noticed.
The wealthy – business owners, investors, and high-level managers – do not make it on their own; they require what the public provides. The greater their wealth, the more they have made use of what the public provides. They owe the public and should be paying a reasonable amount back to keep the system going.
This is a moral issue and the two moralities come out with opposite ideas.
There is a second fundamental truth. Workers are profit-creators for the wealthy. As long as there is high unemployment and a lack of access to education, corporations can offer lower wages, worse working conditions, and low or no pensions. They can treat workers as "resources" whose cost is to be minimised if profits are to be maximised.
The accumulation of great wealth while most of Britain is suffering stifles opportunity. The wealthy, by supporting austerity rather economic rebuilding, are ensuring a divided society in which the poor increasingly lack access to education, health, and the opportunity to have a satisfying and fulfilling life – while they [the wealthy] maintain their social position and get wealthier at the expense of most citizens.
Third, this situation has been significantly caused by progressives’ innocence of how thought and communication work.
Just as the strict father’s authority must be preserved in the family, so conservative moral principles must be preserved in political life. Conservatives speak in moral terms. That is what austerity talk is about. They understand how best to market their ideas. Progressives think with classical Enlightenment reason – as if morality were universal and obvious, and as if all one had to do were state the facts (eg who is suffering) and provide lists of policies to help. If everyone thought according to logic and economics, that should be enough.
But it is not. Brains do not work that way. People think in morally based frames, using two opposed modes of moral thought. Thought is physical, carried out by frame-circuitry in the brain. The more a frame-circuit is activated, the stronger it becomes. And when you are speaking to someone who is morally complex (‘moderates’, ‘swing voters’, ‘independents’), remember that they have both moralities, perhaps varying with subject matter. You want to speak to them to activate the progressive moral system, not the conservative moral system. You want to allow them to see the deeper truths. If conservative language is dominating public discourse, you need to create language for your own values and use it non-stop. Repetition is crucial. Brains will not change without repetition, as conservatives are well aware.
Progressives already know who is benefitting and who is suffering, and what policies should be followed. What they need to learn is to understand the dual moral systems and learn to communicate their own moral principles and deep truths more effectively. It is doable.
About George Lakoff
George Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics, Don't Think of an Elephant!, Whose Freedom?, and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.