Moral Frames Analytical Analysis
Moral Frames & 2012 Election issues
How is it that intelligent, rational, well meaning adults can look at the same set of facts on an issue and come to entirely different conclusions? The insight that George Lakoff had on this question in his book Moral Politics was that liberals and conservatives are viewing those facts through a moral framework where the facts are filtered and understood beyond rational thought. He identifies two main frameworks, related to parenting styles, for understanding the conservative / liberal divide. Strict Father Morality emphasizes authority, self-discipline, and competition. Nurturant Parent Morality emphasizes respect, empathy, and cooperation. The frameworks are extended from the family to the nation, …show more content…
where the nation is a family and the government is the parent. Politicians use the frameworks to help appeal to voters and guide the debates over issues like Iran, abortion, and the auto bailout.
The issue of Iran 's pursuit of nuclear weapons was debated several times during the 2012 presidential campaign. The conservative view holds that the United States, as the preeminent superpower, can and must act in its own self-interest, even declaring war unilaterally. The liberal view emphasizes that the United States is a member of the community of nations and should act in accordance with friends, allies, and established forums where appropriate. In the Vice Presidential Debate of Paul Ryan v Joseph Biden we saw the strategy laid out.
Ryan argued that Iran, by continuing to pursue nuclear weapons, was a bad actor and subverting the authority of the United States. This is a failure of America’s natural status as global superpower. According to Lakoff’s analysis of Strict Father Morality, authority comes with responsibility. " The authority figure sets standards of behavior and punishes those subject to authority if the standards are not met … it is immoral for the authority figure to fail to exert authority, that is, to fail to set standards of behavior and to enforce them through punishment" (Lakoff 78). To correct Iran’s behavior they would have to be punished (sanctions) and threatened with greater force (military force). Without the real threat of greater force to punish them, this bad behavior would not be corrected. Referring to the Iranian leadership Ryan said, "They are not changing their mind. That 's what we have to do, is change their mind so they stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and they 're going faster" (Ryan - VP Debate). The primary failing of the Obama Administration, in Ryan’s critique, is that they have lost credibility and demonstrated Moral Weakness by “cutting defense”, “apologizing for our values”, “sending out mixed signals”, and “walking back” the [military] “options on the table” (Ryan - VP Debate). The Obama administration has failed to identify the Iranian regime as evil. That failure has led them to reduce America’s military strength, sympathize with those who criticize the United States, and believe that negotiation is a viable option. By pointing out these errors and holding a hard line Ryan is demonstrating Moral Strength, as described by Lakoff “Evil must be fought. You do not empathize with evil, nor do you accord evil some truth of its own. You just fight it” (Lakoff 74).
Biden argued that when the United States acts in concert with the world community it is stronger. Acting alone would have had less of a substantive and moral impact. Talking about Obama Biden says, “This is a guy who 's repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. This is the guy who brought the entire world, including Russia and China, to bring about the most devastating -- the most devastating efforts on Iran to make sure that they in fact stop” (Biden - VP Debate). The Liberal view holds that disputes over real issues are not a cause to break off relationships. Lakoff says, when talking about the work that relationships require, in Morality as Social Nurturance that, “When disputes arise … social ties can be disrupted or broken ... those social ties must be constantly mended and maintained” (Lakoff 120-121). The work that was done to hold the alliance together on sanctions established a baseline of expectations for the Iranians. If they violated them they would not only be hit with the economic sanctions but the moral force of the world community. What the conservatives saw as weakness, seeking buy in from other nations, the Obama Administration saw as strength and setting up the credibility that Ryan had thought was lost. Biden remarks, “if we ever have to take action, unlike when we took office, we will have the world behind us, and that matters” (Biden VP Debate).
Abortion goes to the heart of political/social conflicts in American politics. The conservative view has been that life begins at conception and so the life of the baby needs to be protected by the government. The liberal view has been that the mother is in the best position to decide what is best for herself. In the Vice Presidential debate between Paul Ryan and Joseph Biden we saw for the first time two Catholic, ‘life begins at conception’, politicians vying for national office talk about how their faith and their politics align on the issue of abortion.
Paul Ryan said he could not separate his private life and his public life from his faith.
His personal experience and private conclusions on when life begins have informed his public policy thinking on the issue. He mentioned that his Catholic faith, “informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, about how to make sure that people have a chance in life” (Ryan - VP Debate). The focus of his care for the vulnerable is the potential human life which cannot defend itself and cannot take responsibility for its actions. He opposes abortion because embryonic human life is sacred and deserves a chance at survival. Helping him come to that conclusion Ryan recalls going to the clinic with his pregnant wife. “For our seven-week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child, Liza, ‘Bean’” (Ryan - VP Debate). Ryan personalizes his seven week old embryo, he saw it moving in the ultrasound, it had a heartbeat, and they gave it a nickname characteristic of its form. Sharing the experience of seeing his child in the ultrasound frames how Ryan, and the listener, understand the abortion debate. Even at seven weeks old the embryo had a sacred personality that carries over into the child they have today. Aborting a fetus at seven weeks old would be killing the child that could have been. Talking about the importance of terminology in setting the debate Lakoff says, “Opponents of abortion use the word baby to refer to the cluster of cells, the embryo, and the fetus alike. The very choice of the word baby imposes the idea of an independently existing human being. Whereas cluster of cells, embryo, and fetus keep discussion in the medical domain” (Lakoff 264). Talking about the policy implications of his belief on when life begins Ryan says, “If you believe that life begins at conception, that doesn 't change the definition of life. That 's a principle. The policy of a
Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother” (Ryan - VP Debate). By not differentiating his personal beliefs from his public policies and standing up for them Ryan is demonstrating the value of integrity, as described by Lakoff: “A person with integrity has consistent moral principles… The overall unity of moral principle makes someone with integrity strong-not able to be easily swayed by social or political pressures or fashions” (Lakoff 91)
Biden, as a practicing Catholic, believes that life begins at conception. But his faith and empathy allow him to separate this private belief and his public policy on abortion. Biden says, “Life begins at conception. That 's the church 's judgment. I accept it in my personal life … I just refuse to impose that on others” (Biden - VP Debate). Like Ryan, he focuses on the imperative of Catholic social doctrine, but shifts the focus of care from the potential human life to the life of the mother. Biden says, “Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can 't take care of themselves, people who need help” (Biden - VP Debate). Biden implies that women who are seriously considering getting an abortion are probably in a bad situation. Getting pregnant and having a child may negatively impact the health, education, economic, and social situation of the mother. The focus of ‘care’ for the ‘people who need help’ is on the existing life of the mother who takes priority over the potential life of the child. Biden also displays empathy towards people who disagree with the idea that life begins at conception and does not want to impose his values on others. Biden says, “I do not believe that we have a right to tell … women they can 't control their body” (Biden - VP Debate). This expression of empathy as not wanting to impose his beliefs on others is described by Lakoff, “Taking morality as empathy requires basing your actions on their values, not yours. This requires a stronger Golden Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them” (Lakoff 114).
A crisis is a unique opportunity to see how moral frameworks inform the responses of liberals and conservatives. The financial crisis of 2007 initiated a precipitous decline in the entire global economy. The American automobile industry was hit particularly hard and by the end of 2008 the Big 3 Automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) were facing bankruptcy. The question was should the government intervene and bailout the auto industry, as it had the financial industry, or let them fail on their own.
In an Op-Ed to the New York Times on November 18, 2008 titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” Governor Mitt Romney advocated forgoing a government bailout and letting the automakers go into managed bankruptcy so they could reduce costs, restructure, and come out competitive. Romney says if the Big 3 automakers accept the government bailout, “You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed. Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check” (Romney – NYTimes). Offering the bailout is immoral. The Big 3 auto makers are autonomous beings who are perfectly capable of being held responsible for their own decisions and accepting the consequences. They failed to exhibit self-discipline in controlling costs by making generous concessions on benefits to labor. They failed to compete in the marketplace by not investing in technology and product quality. Offering the government bailout at this time would not solve these problems, but would instead allow the Big 3 to continue to overlook them which will lead to their demise. In the nurturance system of the Strict Father model offering the bailout is immoral because it would encourage moral weakness. Lakoff says, "People should accept the consequences of their own irresponsibility or lack of self discipline, since they will never become responsible and self-disciplined if they don 't have to face those consequences. In such a case, helping would be immoral, since it would encourage moral weakness" (Lakoff 97). When Romney calls for rejecting a government bailout and accpeting managed banruptcy, it does not come from a place of callous disregard for the industry. Romney "love cars" and "was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive" (Romney – NYTimes). Rather he is offering a prescription of "tough love", the short term pain of bankruptcy will be mitigated by the long term gains of financial stability and competitiveness.
In a December 7, 2008 interview with Tom Brokow on NBC’s Meet the Press President-Elect Barack Obama agreed that the Big 3 would need to restructure but he believed that the government needed to intervene in order to avoid further destabilizing the economy. Obama opens with a criticism of the Big 3’s “failure to adapt to changing times”, by not focusing on smaller more energy efficient vehicles. For Obama wages and pensions aren’t the primary source of their troubles but strategic miscalculation on the part of the industry. The workers, and the greater economy, that are dependent on the auto industry, will be unduly impacted by these strategic mistakes. Obama says, “The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing. It is a huge employer across many states. Millions of people, directly or indirectly, are reliant on that industry, and so I don 't think it 's an option to simply allow it to collapse” (Obama – Meet the Press). Obama the Nurturing Parent wants to protect them and government intervention is a way to prevent catastrophe. According to Lakoff, “Protection is a form of caring, and protection from external dangers ... is the nurturant parent 's duty to ward them off" (Lakoff 109). The harm done to the workers and the industry as a whole exceeds that of any harm caused by government intervention and compels the government to act. The government action will include restructuring, requiring all stakeholders to scale back their claims. “What we have to do is to provide them with assistance, but that assistance is conditioned on them making significant adjustments. They 're going to have to restructure … Labor, management, shareholders, creditors--everybody 's going to recognize that they do not have a sustainable business model right now” (Obama – Meet the Press). Sharing the burden according to ability demonstrates Morality as Fair Distribution as described by Lakoff, “Scalar distribution of responsibility (the greater your abilities, the greater your responsibilities)"” (Lakoff 124).
Lakoff’s moral frameworks are useful tools for unpacking the messages contained within political speech and the world views that make them persuasive. These frameworks inform how our foreign policy, social policy, and economic policy are shaped and implemented. They explain how it is that liberals and conservatives can seem to be having a conversation on the same topic, and yet talking at cross purposes. How they can be looking at the same problems and come up with entirely different solutions. To have a true national conversation would require us to acknowledge the validity of both frameworks. It 's not enough to propose a solution that fits into our own model. We need to find ways to speak to the fears, concerns, values, and aspirations of both sides. Failing to do so will only continue to contribute to deepening the divide.
Works Cited
Lakoff, Geoge. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: the University of
Chicago Press, 2002. Print.
Ryan, Paul & Biden, Joe. Interview with Martha Raddatz. Vice Presidential Debate October 11, 2012
Romney, Mitt. “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” New York Times November 18, 2008
A35. Print
Obama, Barack. Interview with Tom Brokow. NBC’s Meet the Press
December 7, 2008
How is it that intelligent, rational, well meaning adults can look at the same set of facts on an issue and come to entirely different conclusions? The insight that George Lakoff had on this question in his book Moral Politics was that liberals and conservatives are viewing those facts through a moral framework where the facts are filtered and understood beyond rational thought. He identifies two main frameworks, related to parenting styles, for understanding the conservative / liberal divide. Strict Father Morality emphasizes authority, self-discipline, and competition. Nurturant Parent Morality emphasizes respect, empathy, and cooperation. The frameworks are extended from the family to the nation, …show more content…
where the nation is a family and the government is the parent. Politicians use the frameworks to help appeal to voters and guide the debates over issues like Iran, abortion, and the auto bailout.
The issue of Iran 's pursuit of nuclear weapons was debated several times during the 2012 presidential campaign. The conservative view holds that the United States, as the preeminent superpower, can and must act in its own self-interest, even declaring war unilaterally. The liberal view emphasizes that the United States is a member of the community of nations and should act in accordance with friends, allies, and established forums where appropriate. In the Vice Presidential Debate of Paul Ryan v Joseph Biden we saw the strategy laid out.
Ryan argued that Iran, by continuing to pursue nuclear weapons, was a bad actor and subverting the authority of the United States. This is a failure of America’s natural status as global superpower. According to Lakoff’s analysis of Strict Father Morality, authority comes with responsibility. " The authority figure sets standards of behavior and punishes those subject to authority if the standards are not met … it is immoral for the authority figure to fail to exert authority, that is, to fail to set standards of behavior and to enforce them through punishment" (Lakoff 78). To correct Iran’s behavior they would have to be punished (sanctions) and threatened with greater force (military force). Without the real threat of greater force to punish them, this bad behavior would not be corrected. Referring to the Iranian leadership Ryan said, "They are not changing their mind. That 's what we have to do, is change their mind so they stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and they 're going faster" (Ryan - VP Debate). The primary failing of the Obama Administration, in Ryan’s critique, is that they have lost credibility and demonstrated Moral Weakness by “cutting defense”, “apologizing for our values”, “sending out mixed signals”, and “walking back” the [military] “options on the table” (Ryan - VP Debate). The Obama administration has failed to identify the Iranian regime as evil. That failure has led them to reduce America’s military strength, sympathize with those who criticize the United States, and believe that negotiation is a viable option. By pointing out these errors and holding a hard line Ryan is demonstrating Moral Strength, as described by Lakoff “Evil must be fought. You do not empathize with evil, nor do you accord evil some truth of its own. You just fight it” (Lakoff 74).
Biden argued that when the United States acts in concert with the world community it is stronger. Acting alone would have had less of a substantive and moral impact. Talking about Obama Biden says, “This is a guy who 's repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. This is the guy who brought the entire world, including Russia and China, to bring about the most devastating -- the most devastating efforts on Iran to make sure that they in fact stop” (Biden - VP Debate). The Liberal view holds that disputes over real issues are not a cause to break off relationships. Lakoff says, when talking about the work that relationships require, in Morality as Social Nurturance that, “When disputes arise … social ties can be disrupted or broken ... those social ties must be constantly mended and maintained” (Lakoff 120-121). The work that was done to hold the alliance together on sanctions established a baseline of expectations for the Iranians. If they violated them they would not only be hit with the economic sanctions but the moral force of the world community. What the conservatives saw as weakness, seeking buy in from other nations, the Obama Administration saw as strength and setting up the credibility that Ryan had thought was lost. Biden remarks, “if we ever have to take action, unlike when we took office, we will have the world behind us, and that matters” (Biden VP Debate).
Abortion goes to the heart of political/social conflicts in American politics. The conservative view has been that life begins at conception and so the life of the baby needs to be protected by the government. The liberal view has been that the mother is in the best position to decide what is best for herself. In the Vice Presidential debate between Paul Ryan and Joseph Biden we saw for the first time two Catholic, ‘life begins at conception’, politicians vying for national office talk about how their faith and their politics align on the issue of abortion.
Paul Ryan said he could not separate his private life and his public life from his faith.
His personal experience and private conclusions on when life begins have informed his public policy thinking on the issue. He mentioned that his Catholic faith, “informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, about how to make sure that people have a chance in life” (Ryan - VP Debate). The focus of his care for the vulnerable is the potential human life which cannot defend itself and cannot take responsibility for its actions. He opposes abortion because embryonic human life is sacred and deserves a chance at survival. Helping him come to that conclusion Ryan recalls going to the clinic with his pregnant wife. “For our seven-week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child, Liza, ‘Bean’” (Ryan - VP Debate). Ryan personalizes his seven week old embryo, he saw it moving in the ultrasound, it had a heartbeat, and they gave it a nickname characteristic of its form. Sharing the experience of seeing his child in the ultrasound frames how Ryan, and the listener, understand the abortion debate. Even at seven weeks old the embryo had a sacred personality that carries over into the child they have today. Aborting a fetus at seven weeks old would be killing the child that could have been. Talking about the importance of terminology in setting the debate Lakoff says, “Opponents of abortion use the word baby to refer to the cluster of cells, the embryo, and the fetus alike. The very choice of the word baby imposes the idea of an independently existing human being. Whereas cluster of cells, embryo, and fetus keep discussion in the medical domain” (Lakoff 264). Talking about the policy implications of his belief on when life begins Ryan says, “If you believe that life begins at conception, that doesn 't change the definition of life. That 's a principle. The policy of a
Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother” (Ryan - VP Debate). By not differentiating his personal beliefs from his public policies and standing up for them Ryan is demonstrating the value of integrity, as described by Lakoff: “A person with integrity has consistent moral principles… The overall unity of moral principle makes someone with integrity strong-not able to be easily swayed by social or political pressures or fashions” (Lakoff 91)
Biden, as a practicing Catholic, believes that life begins at conception. But his faith and empathy allow him to separate this private belief and his public policy on abortion. Biden says, “Life begins at conception. That 's the church 's judgment. I accept it in my personal life … I just refuse to impose that on others” (Biden - VP Debate). Like Ryan, he focuses on the imperative of Catholic social doctrine, but shifts the focus of care from the potential human life to the life of the mother. Biden says, “Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can 't take care of themselves, people who need help” (Biden - VP Debate). Biden implies that women who are seriously considering getting an abortion are probably in a bad situation. Getting pregnant and having a child may negatively impact the health, education, economic, and social situation of the mother. The focus of ‘care’ for the ‘people who need help’ is on the existing life of the mother who takes priority over the potential life of the child. Biden also displays empathy towards people who disagree with the idea that life begins at conception and does not want to impose his values on others. Biden says, “I do not believe that we have a right to tell … women they can 't control their body” (Biden - VP Debate). This expression of empathy as not wanting to impose his beliefs on others is described by Lakoff, “Taking morality as empathy requires basing your actions on their values, not yours. This requires a stronger Golden Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them” (Lakoff 114).
A crisis is a unique opportunity to see how moral frameworks inform the responses of liberals and conservatives. The financial crisis of 2007 initiated a precipitous decline in the entire global economy. The American automobile industry was hit particularly hard and by the end of 2008 the Big 3 Automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) were facing bankruptcy. The question was should the government intervene and bailout the auto industry, as it had the financial industry, or let them fail on their own.
In an Op-Ed to the New York Times on November 18, 2008 titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” Governor Mitt Romney advocated forgoing a government bailout and letting the automakers go into managed bankruptcy so they could reduce costs, restructure, and come out competitive. Romney says if the Big 3 automakers accept the government bailout, “You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed. Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check” (Romney – NYTimes). Offering the bailout is immoral. The Big 3 auto makers are autonomous beings who are perfectly capable of being held responsible for their own decisions and accepting the consequences. They failed to exhibit self-discipline in controlling costs by making generous concessions on benefits to labor. They failed to compete in the marketplace by not investing in technology and product quality. Offering the government bailout at this time would not solve these problems, but would instead allow the Big 3 to continue to overlook them which will lead to their demise. In the nurturance system of the Strict Father model offering the bailout is immoral because it would encourage moral weakness. Lakoff says, "People should accept the consequences of their own irresponsibility or lack of self discipline, since they will never become responsible and self-disciplined if they don 't have to face those consequences. In such a case, helping would be immoral, since it would encourage moral weakness" (Lakoff 97). When Romney calls for rejecting a government bailout and accpeting managed banruptcy, it does not come from a place of callous disregard for the industry. Romney "love cars" and "was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive" (Romney – NYTimes). Rather he is offering a prescription of "tough love", the short term pain of bankruptcy will be mitigated by the long term gains of financial stability and competitiveness.
In a December 7, 2008 interview with Tom Brokow on NBC’s Meet the Press President-Elect Barack Obama agreed that the Big 3 would need to restructure but he believed that the government needed to intervene in order to avoid further destabilizing the economy. Obama opens with a criticism of the Big 3’s “failure to adapt to changing times”, by not focusing on smaller more energy efficient vehicles. For Obama wages and pensions aren’t the primary source of their troubles but strategic miscalculation on the part of the industry. The workers, and the greater economy, that are dependent on the auto industry, will be unduly impacted by these strategic mistakes. Obama says, “The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing. It is a huge employer across many states. Millions of people, directly or indirectly, are reliant on that industry, and so I don 't think it 's an option to simply allow it to collapse” (Obama – Meet the Press). Obama the Nurturing Parent wants to protect them and government intervention is a way to prevent catastrophe. According to Lakoff, “Protection is a form of caring, and protection from external dangers ... is the nurturant parent 's duty to ward them off" (Lakoff 109). The harm done to the workers and the industry as a whole exceeds that of any harm caused by government intervention and compels the government to act. The government action will include restructuring, requiring all stakeholders to scale back their claims. “What we have to do is to provide them with assistance, but that assistance is conditioned on them making significant adjustments. They 're going to have to restructure … Labor, management, shareholders, creditors--everybody 's going to recognize that they do not have a sustainable business model right now” (Obama – Meet the Press). Sharing the burden according to ability demonstrates Morality as Fair Distribution as described by Lakoff, “Scalar distribution of responsibility (the greater your abilities, the greater your responsibilities)"” (Lakoff 124).
Lakoff’s moral frameworks are useful tools for unpacking the messages contained within political speech and the world views that make them persuasive. These frameworks inform how our foreign policy, social policy, and economic policy are shaped and implemented. They explain how it is that liberals and conservatives can seem to be having a conversation on the same topic, and yet talking at cross purposes. How they can be looking at the same problems and come up with entirely different solutions. To have a true national conversation would require us to acknowledge the validity of both frameworks. It 's not enough to propose a solution that fits into our own model. We need to find ways to speak to the fears, concerns, values, and aspirations of both sides. Failing to do so will only continue to contribute to deepening the divide.
Works Cited
Lakoff, Geoge. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: the University of
Chicago Press, 2002. Print.
Ryan, Paul & Biden, Joe. Interview with Martha Raddatz. Vice Presidential Debate October 11, 2012
Romney, Mitt. “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” New York Times November 18, 2008
A35. Print
Obama, Barack. Interview with Tom Brokow. NBC’s Meet the Press
December 7, 2008