The Philosophy Behind the Words

Political conventions are not occasions for philosophy. You'll be hearing mostly cheerleading from Denver -- more about change and hope, more Yes-we-cans, more about renewing the American dream, more about McCain's seven houses, Bush's third term, and policy. There's nothing wrong with this; it's what we expect.

But there is a guiding philosophy behind the words, and you should be looking out for it.

The Guiding Philosophy

Hope and change are not the fundamental ideas behind the Obama campaign; they make sense only if you know the content of the hope and the change. The fundamental ideas are empathy, responsibility, and aspiration.

Obama summed up his Saddleback appearance with a riff on empathy as the main impetus behind his run for the presidency, and he has spoken about it repeatedly, though pundits don't seem to have noticed. Responsibility is taken not just as personal responsibility but also social and community responsibility--action, not just thoughts and feelings.. And aspiration looks to making things better (as defined by empathy) via imagination on the one hand and pragmatism, a sense of what works, on the other.

In the Selma speech he spoke repeatedly of the empathy deficit. In the More Perfect Union speech, he spoke of the need for "more caring" right along with more freedom, fairness, and opportunity. On Anderson Cooper's 360 he defined patriotism as starting with people caring about one another--the reason for our values of freedom and equality. He spoke of all three in the Father's Day speech, as what values parents should have and teach their children. And he told Ann Curry that empathy is the most important thing he learned from his mother.

Story continues below

advertisement

As I argued in Moral Politics, these values are at the heart of progressive politics. But, as historian Lynn Hunt of UCLA has shown, these values are, more importantly, at the heart of American democracy. Obama never says these are progressive values; he says, correctly, that they are American values. They are the basis on which he intends to unite the country.

These values define the role of government in terms of freedom: protection (freedom from harm) and empowerment (freedom to fulfill your dreams). Protection is not just military or police protection, but consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, safety nets, health care, and disaster protection, and protections from the government itself. Empowerment is building infrastructure: roads, communications systems, scientific laboratories, public buildings; public education; upholding the banking system, regulating the stock market, supporting courts for corporate law and settling contract disputes. No company can make a dime in America without government empowerment. That what taxes are for: to live in a country with all these forms of protection and empowerment. There are no self-made men or women in America. And the more money you make from government protection and empowerment, the more responsibility you have to maintain them through the tax system.

I suspect that every Democrat knows all this implicitly. It is hardly controversial. But it's not said, and you won't hear much philosophy at this convention -- though program after program will be based on these ideas. Taxes will be discussed nonstop. But not our understanding of what taxes are.

These principles make sense of Obama's foreign policy. The Obama Doctrine was thoroughly aired by Spencer Ackerman in The American Prospect. The Doctrine is this: Foreign policy is not just at the level of the state, though state-level diplomacy is essential. The biggest foreign policy problems are the level of the person: hunger, poverty, public health, the global environment, women's issues, contemporary slavery. The Obama Doctrine says that these are all matters of human dignity and that human dignity throughout the world should be at the heart of our foreign policy. Empathy, responsibility, aspiration.

On economics, the same principles hold: Empathy requires that the economy work for everyone, especially those in the lower and middle classes. Markets are constructed to serve people's needs, and regulations, tax policy, and the courts are there for protection and empowerment, especially for those most in need of them. Responsibility means both social and fiscal responsibility, keeping deficits as small as possible while serving real social needs, for example, green jobs that cannot be shipped abroad. Aspiration requires the imagination to seek a bold energy and global warming policy. Cap and trade will not be a corporate giveaway; hence 100% auctions, with significant returns to the people.

In education, empathy requires ditching No Child Left Behind and designing an education policy that starts earlier, works for everyone, rewards and provides incentives for teachers, offers college for all. Responsibility will require teacher skills to be upgraded. And aspiration means using the bully pulpit to move parents to become much more involved in their children's education and for children to seek to achieve more.

In short, Obama is working from a principled base, although it may not always be obvious. Responsibility requires that the principles work as well as possible, and in most that means pragmatism, that is, maximizing principle while not being perfect, and looking for a slippery slope solution that slips in the right direction -- though in the right cases, there is a moral line to be drawn. Responsibility is not just governmental responsibility, but also individual and community responsibility. Looks for good doses of both from Obama.

For more Huffington Post coverage from the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.

Comments

[fieldingbandolier]

Dear George:
Well, the Republicans have done it again. Not only did they divert national attention from the DNC, they've goaded liberals into accepting their carefully packaged framing of Sarah Palin.

George, would you be so kind as to provide one of your trademark, eminently rational posts and explain to your well-meaning but misguided contemporaries exactly what has happened here, what motivated it, and how they can avoid falling further into this carefully laid trap? Would you mind explaining the Reaganesque appeal of such a candidate, and how important it is to provide people with an opportunity to like this insidiously likable woman whilst simultaneously acknowledging how mistaken she is on every important issue?

The party needs ya', George. The country needs ya'. Scott Rasmussen tagged Sarah Palin as McCain's best pick in July, and so did I.

I'll be awaiting your eloquent reply (preferably in article form) with anxious anticipation.

Ps. Who do you suppose planted that "babygate" story? Are we, collectively, really such rubes? I'm beginning to think the most potent threat to Obama's candidacy is that he's forced to compete with our desire to demonstrate our moral superiority without regard for potential casualties.

My, what tasty-looking bait that was...

[tudorman]

1. One person's protection is another's restriction. If you want to pursue happiness by eating a donut made with trans-fats, you should be allowed to do so. Your eating that donut does not affect anyone else, so why should you not be permitted to indulge yourself?
2. It is not the government's job to reduce personal risk. I build my house at the bottom of a hill in a flood prone area. You are smart and built your house up top. If get wiped out by a flood, is it your responsibility to provide me financial relief?
3. "Rights" differ from "wants". Constitutional rights are actions. You have the right to PURSUE happiness. You may not achieve happiness, and nobody can be forced to provide it for you. The rights enumerated in our founding documents place no burden of fulfillment upon our fellow citizens. I cannot claim to have a "right" to health care, a decent house, or a comfortable retirement (Social Security). If rights, each of these things require that I infringe upon your right to pursue happiness (via the confiscation of your wealth - taxes) to give me what I am unable or unwilling to provide for myself!
Attempts to provide broad "protections" are foolhardy, and lead to the need for protection from government. They pit the "wants" of the masses against the freedom of the individual.

[GrainOSand]

1. Agree -- empty the jails
2. Agree -- return all taxes paid for sound structures as it pertains to levees. Return tax dollars for education and law enforcement as well. I heard a quote tonight attributed to Barney Frank. He said politics are those things we decide to do together. I await the day when a mandate of love occurs because I know that will be the day America is truly great. Republicans will be happy on that day as they join with Democrats, Independents and all others who want a better nation, to face an uncertain future with the confidence that unity provides.
3. The constitution was a flawed document at origin and allowed for some heinous activity. We know that great damage was done to a great many people by seeing them as less than people in law. I have a God given right to be unrestricted by hate. I fight for that right against all the many ways that hate manifests, the many excuses that hate uses to cloak its intentions, its means¦its method. You cannot know the damage done through denial of right to exist, as a person worthy of respect, for if you did you would have saved your list, you would have realized the necessity for empathy as a method to heal and grow a nation. Civil Rights legislation solved nothing. The question remains, are we a loving society -- and it always has been the question. Not hand out -- hand up.

[calexpat]

Your comments raise some interesting points, tudorman, but as to your third comment in particular, I think it is misdirected. You seem to be arguing against a Rawls-ian, rights-based view of the government's role, but I think Mr. Lakoff's article suggests that Obama has a much more communitarian outlook, which is just what we need.
As for your first two comments, maybe you are forgetting that the first three words of the Constitution are "We the People.." Strictly speaking, it might be a confusion to talk of a "right" to health care or other protections, but the time has come when we think of these as essential components of the "general welfare," which it is absolutely the government's role to promote. When we the people act through our government, we always need to balance restrictions on freedom of action with grants of entitlements, but that's what we've done when, for instance, we passed civil rights legislation so that employers couldn't engage in racial discrimination. That was a "restriction" on freedom, but we decided that racial equality was a more fundamental value.
The problem I have with libertarian arguments is that they want to freeze certain rights at some arbitrary point in time. If we froze them at 1900, then women would have no right to vote. It is always up to us to determine what values we want our government to promote.

[tudorman]

I'm not familiar with Rawls, but I did read his entry at Wikiedia. I'll be honest, I don't see time to read his books in my schedule anytime soon.

The majority of Americans across the ideological spectrum ultimately wish the same for their fellow citizens - happiness and prosperity. The way to get there sets us apart. I've only recently become aware of Mr. Lakoff's writings and I do plan to read his books. He is one of the few liberal commentators that understand the thinking and motivation of conservative thought. Obviously, he does not come to the same conclusions regarding the path to prosperity, but his work gives me insight into how the liberal mind thinks.

You assert that the "protections" foisted upon us are thought of as legitimate functions of government by many is true. I think this view is wrong. I believe in the sanctity of private property rights, and the elevation of the individual over the group within the context of the law. (I'm not an anarchist!) Government is an inefficient vehicle for the creation of wealth. It has a role in the correction of social injustice, but frequently oversteps its bounds in that respect. A large, monolithic government is subject to the whims of the moneyed, the connected, the privileged, and as practiced by imperfect humans will infringe upon the rights of those who value personal freedom and trample the spirits of those who expect others to assume the responsibilities that this freedom demands.

[tuttlemsm]

"You'll be hearing mostly cheerleading from Denver -- more about change and hope, more Yes-we-cans, more about renewing the American dream, more about McCain's seven houses, Bush's third term, and policy."

I for one could do with hearing a little more about McCain's seven houses and Bush's third term.

[NicoloM]

George-- thank you.
How, and at what point, can the higher brain functions of "principled" "responsibility" overcome the lower brain function reactions of fear and dominance? Given the overwhelming power of the propaganda arm of wealth and power, how, and when will these values emerge in the national narrative? We are about two months from the election, and the television coverage of the convention that I have access to did not include such thoughtful discussion as yours. Besides alternative information and discussion sources such as HuffPost, and ironically the comedian Jon Stewart, where else is the dominance which is preventing these principles from emerging being challenged?

[mymatrix]

Agreed that voters want strict-father and tough defender, macho, someone who won't blow over with first wind. It is going to be tough for Obama to pull that off. He risks being the angry, scary Black man. I like Obama better, think he would be the better president but believed Hillary was more electable against McCain. She has the toughness covered, even Republicans begrudgingly give her that. The best hope is that Obama is probably smarter than Kerry or Al Gore and because he is Black and not from privelege he won't overestimate his abilities or get too confident. Kerry and Gore naturally thought they should and would win. They were each only half right.
The truth is that Clintons know what most democrats don't :how to get majority vote.

[MyNameIsJames]

Professor Lakoff

You are a brilliant leader - simply brilliant. Why won't the Democrats listen to you and take heed. You have held center court in the Progressive community for the past 4 years since the 2004 debacle, but I still don't see the Democratic Party leadership from Obama on down --really GETTING what you are saying.

Why are we pleading with them?. If Obama losses, we need to have a coup in the Democratic party and put people in that know how to talk to the American public and who would relish a good bloody fight with the Conservative movement in this nation.

[Terry Leach - Huffpost Blogger]

Professor Lakoff,

Brilliant, as usual.

In the spirit of attacking Democrats' strengths, as was done against Kerry's military service in 2004, we see now the Luntz -Schmidt talking points attacking Obama for being 'emotionally aloof.'

The trick, I believe, will be for Barack Obama, who fundamentally understands the empathy deficit, to own this space against the John McCain who can't recall how many houses he owns while record numbers of Americans are losing their homes.

I am hoping that Mr. Obama's consultants are talking with you.
Best,
Your pal Terry

[GrainOSand]

There is a bit of irony in needing to project ownership of an empathetic heart as reflected in public policy. I understood your meaning that campaigns are about branding and drawing a distinction between self and opponent. Mr. Obama is definitely the candidate who understands the need for empathy in public policy -- a wry smile formed as I considered your comment is all.

Concerning aloofness, this is the only place where race may be playing a legitimate role (nominee psychology) in this campaign. Imagine what it feels like to be Mr. Obama on the biggest stage further along than anybody thought possible -- the proverbial uncharted waters. Now add to that picture a filter of race in America historically and then specifically as it has thus far played out upon this process. People are putting superman expectations on the man and he is delivering in that he continues to stand ready, willing, and most importantly -- able to lead! However he is human and when he is in such an environment as the environment of running to lead the United States and it sometimes is evident there is no love for him what is he to do? He cannot let that deter him but do not think it does not affect him and at times he may step outside of himself and say, what the hell are you doing, with the history of this country being what it is regarding enlightened leaders? That may be deemed aloof!

[SpectCon]

Obama also has to show he's got a little of that "Strict Father" in him and I'm concerned that Lieberman's speech is being overlooked as a pitfall for Obama.

Lieberman, by speaking at the GOP convention, is "dissing" Obama. It's a real loss of face to some people. And, if Obama grabs the bull by the horns, he can actually turn it to his advantage by using the occasion to show off a little machismo in a universal and nearly risk-free rebuke of Lieberman.

I'm afraid if Obama ignores Lieberman he'll look like Kerry who appeared to some to be cowardly by not vociferously denouncing the Swift-Boaters when they questioned his military valor.

Here, Lieberman is insulting Obama and I think Obama's natural proclivity is to say, "so what?" But I think American voters looking for some Strict Father-ness in Obama will see a feminine passivity if he ignores Lieberman.

I believe Obama needs to play up the Lieberman address and highlight that he takes it as a personal offense. Offer Lieberman an ultimatum and then publicly strip him of his committee positions before Joementum speaks. (I realize Joe may not actually mean personal offense, Obama likely could care less; however, that isn't what's important--Professor Lakoff's "Strict Father" hypothesis is sound and liberal candidates do need to bare their teeth every once in a while. And, I for one, would rather it be over something trivial then having to show "Strickness" with aggressive policy.)

[CroatianCritter]

I agree with your underlying thesis on responsibility. Somewhere in the past 50 years, Americans ditched 180 years of history and became selfish creatures that feed on their young. The aspect of social responsibility disappeared. Due to this, state and federal governments started to grow to make up for this gap in responsibility. Now, we have incredibly, large inefficient governments that is just concerned about its richest clients. We have an incredible problem with greed. Plus, the checks and balances used to protect citizens have been eroded by the Reagan revolution. This is exactly how great nations fail. I have always believed that the strongest government should be at the local level with the federal government just concerned with state-to-state issues and defense. This sense of helping one another has really changed as I notice individuals being more self-centered than ever before. I remember just 20 years ago that no one had fences in my neighborhood but those days have long since past. Anyway, nice blog and hopefully, some of these things that you discuss can have some impact on the U.S. citizens.

[Think4myself]

I literally am praying that the Obama camp and the whole flippin' Dem party will wake up and take your words more to heart and be reflected in the campaign. Obama was doing such a great job following your advice in the primaries and now in the general, it's like he's falling back on the insider calculations game.

Please Obama, go to your heart and listen to what this professor has to say. Be strong and consistent in your progressive positions and you will gain bruised hearts back and then some.

Thanks again so much for your work.

[SpectCon]

Think...

Professor Lakoff doesn't delve into it here, but Americans also have issues about the "Strict Father." We want our leaders to be tough. (Speaking in generalities here where "we" means the majority needed to win a Presidential election.) So Obama is "fighting" McCain by "counter-punching" with "negative" advertisements. It's basically just to show Obama's not a push over.

Have faith in Obama. He's a brilliant man and the best politician I've ever seen. He's likely to play his cards right (a little gambling metaphor). But, I believe there is a real opportunity for Obama coming just next week.

I think Lieberman's upcoming speaking engagement gives Obama his opportunity. Lieberman is set to personally insult Obama speaking at next week's GOP convention. This offers Obama a chance to show some alpha-male--I would suggest issuing a formal ultimatum to Lieberman and then publicly stripping him of his committee positions.

If the Prof is reading the posts I wonder what he thinks about this Lieberman speech = personal insult = potential loss of face for Obama, hence requiring a response and opportunity to show he can be a Strict Father.

[peterg76]

Toughness has it's place, but actual, rational toughness becomes a liability when appearances are exchanged for substance. Reagan was "tough" because he invaded Grenada, which the rest of the planet viewed as the supreme act of cowardice and weakness. McCain is "tough" because the media keep saying he's tough, although his action and usually even his words demonstrate shameless capitulation to others.

[harveyr2]

"green jobs that cannot be shipped abroad" Yeh, right. What are these jobs?

Certainly not manufacturing jobs where Chinese workers toil in factories for $2/day.

The only green jobs that can't be shipped abroad are sales and installation. Anyone want to climb onto my roof to mount my new solar panels?

[leftcoastliberal]

So cynical! You can't ship jobs running wind power plants or waste recycling abroad. There are towns in Denmark that are net exporters of energy. The money that doesn't flow into the coffers of Saudi Arabia stays home to create jobs, both green and otherwise.

[mymatrix]

Mr. Lakoff, I saw you last night on C-spans book tv and some of your ideas were bright, explosive lights to me. I was fascinated by "mirror neurons" that show we are hard wired for empathy. The way you spelled out the Republicans understanding much better how minds are changed and thoughts are formed, from learning on the 100 years of psychology knowledge for advertising and market influence over the Progressives. And, that Progressives see reasoning from the old 18th century model of just making superior arguments.
Your thoughts on the unifying positions within the Conservatives and then the unifying positions among the Progressives, and from where they stem...amazing.
You have blown me away. You have very important things to say. Please write a piece on what Dems can do, Obama, between now and Nov. 4th to win this election so that Tom Hayden can be dead wrong (which he would love to be.)

[Skepticat]

Excellent post. There's definitely been an empathy deficit for a long time. With empathic responsibility however lots of great things can happen.

[jhw22]

As always, you put things in the proper perspective -- and so simply. You are quite the celebrity in my family so I enjoy when I see you pop up on Huff Po.

Jennifer

[GrainOSand]

Public opinion polls, political analysis, expert opinion, pundit perspective, electoral map dissection, campaign ad acceptance or rejection and still it comes down to this:

Who we are as a people is the defining question of this time. The answer will inform the quality and nature of times henceforth and unseen, those unimagined, and those unplanned. What sustains a nation is the honor and character of its people. A house divided cannot stand. America has been standing a relatively short amount of time so we would be unwise to think that a few hundreds years of existence has somehow cemented American glory or American dominance and prominence in the future.

Empathy or a concern beyond self for any given you or me is the call for us all to heed. Through collective empathy, America can address all of its needs both domestic and foreign -- the problem -- empathy is seen as weakness or not strong like warring, it is seen as boring and not containing the excitement of mass death and destruction. Empathy is a choice not a sleazy seduction brought on by hype and lies and the unwise machinations of corrupt journalist writing lying articles and spewing acidic dialogue in the public stream from satellite TV stations.

Love thy neighbor as you love yourself! If we did this America would change and hope would rain down. If we became a united family, it takes your breath away to consider the implications of such power unleashed; solutions without bound.