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.

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

[ContraEgoiste]

"these values are, more importantly, at the heart of American democracy.­”

Wholeheartedly agreed Mr. Lakoff, and great article.

And when one reads the works of the founding fathers, it is apparent that this is the dream they had for America.

But here is the rub. All you describe, which was originally proposed by our founders, is now viewed with fear and skepticism because all these ideas are now perceived to be socialism (misnomer since what they really mean is communism). And I do mean fear, because when you start to question many of these individuals, they do not really know what it is. They just know anything bearing that label is to be shunned at all cost possible. Even at the cost is their own welfare and ownership of their own country which is always the end result.

As Linguist and especially as a Cognitive Scientist you would do the country an invaluable contribution if your next project would delve into this subject. How in the world did we get here? How was it sold and so deeply engraved on us. How did they manage to turn us away from "We the people"?? But most importantly, how do we get back to this original idea of America.

Sincerely,

[GrainOSand]

I think it started, or was really sped up by the influence of the robber baron. When money interests took control through back channels, we were doomed; is it not always said to follow the money trail to get to the root? Money does not know race, gender, or morality, it only knows growth at all cost. Is that not how the market is run? Is that not what they tell us, the market knows, does, and sees all, it needs no oversight for it is perfect and self-correcting? Slavery had less to do with race and more to do with money. Racism was a manufactured way to sustain and profit from greed. The average hardworking white American citizen was told to disregard the screams and the moans you hear coming from the plantation. Those people who are doing the screaming and the moaning are not human, they are less than human and that justifies victimizing them as we would victimize a cow for its labor or meat.

Empathy is stripped out of propositions based on greed, and in place of empathy, you find plug-in justifications of a hypocritical nature.

The civil war was about money as it relates to old guard agricultural interest clashing with new horizon industrial interests. Lincoln was acting as commander-in-chief and CFO regarding emancipation. Morality was a secondary concern.

Prohibition was all about money as well and many fortunes of today can be traced to illegal profits from prohibition.

[ContraEgoiste]

GrainOSand you may be on to something. My own personal theories revolved around the Cold War and the Military-Industrial complex; Conservative's fears, specifically of change and the "other"; And a market/corporate understanding and exploitation of these, in order to create a compliant consumer-centric society that will not challenge their position at top of the food chain nor question their methods, intent, or “honesty”. I haven’t however, as of yet coalesced them into a coherent analysis. I haven’t reached that “aha!” moment. As a Cognitive Scientist, Professor Lakoff is by far better equipped and may reach conclusions that I will not which I would love to read.

And as a linguist, he can delve into the irrational fear of the label/word “socialism”, and how a word whose root is “society”, the construct which we all live under, thrive, and is necessary for human survival, has become such a pejorative that its application to an idea is enough to stop any rational consideration of it and automatically be seen as a bad one. Heck, even left leaning liberals fear it. It carries enough weight that the right uses it as an effective accusation even tho if you were to ask for an explanation they are often stumped to give you one.

[princessk]

Professor Lakoff, you've been admired in our house since your days of being "just" a linguist. We love your political analyses. Like others have said here, you've captured the sense of what Obama and Democrats are saying when they say they want change. Keep up the good work.

[Scarabus]

Great stuff, Signor Lakoff! I'm gonna save and savor them. My only teensy quibble is that I wish you had put empowerment first.

If the people are possessed of moral and political power, then they won't need Big Brother or anyone else to protect them. That's arguably the most fundamental and destructive lie the current administration has insinuated into the American sub-conscious over the past eight years: that we need Daddy George and his shadowy, unscrupulous pal "Erik the Unaccountable" Prince to protect us.

Bull shards! Americans have courage. Americans do not need to be protected by a patronizing "daddy." Americans are brave enough to take risks and make sacrifices for what's right. All we need is a leader who embodies those qualities herself/himself and is willing to help us recognize them in ourselves.

[altohone]

Thanks for reminding us what the corporate media won't cover.

So far, the convention has been a little more serious and a little less Yes We Can.
I hope we get a healthy mix.


With the problems we face, it's hard to believe what the media chooses to debate in their effort at avoiding policy discussions that may make people dangerously informed and less open to manipulation.

[MPeter]

Thanks Professor Lakoff. You have always understood Obama better than most analysts. You have written about this before and once again, have underscored the principles behind Obama's message of hope and change that the media continues to obfusicates and many in the progressive tent have not fully grasped. The sooner they do, the better off it will be for this country and the Democratic Party.

[applebutter]

It seems to me that the Democratic Party would benefit from restating the philosophy and connecting it - concretely - to Obama's policy, as you have so eloquently done here. In this age of anti-intel­lectualism we need some good, easily repeated metaphors to carry this reminder through to "Joe Six Pack". For this liberal, it's easier to define the neo-conservative, pro-war philosophy of McCain metaphorically. This is a good "think"; your words often have this effect on me.

[valleyforge]

The values Lakoff discusses here take a nation down a very diffferent path from the one we're on now, and one I would much prefer to travel.

Lakoff deserves a bigger audience. I just discovered him last year, and his work is, quite literally, mind altering. Don't Think of an Elephant, Moral Politics, and The Political Mind, are essential reading for people who want to understand politics.

[23000Days]

Excellent post, George. You have captured the essence of what most dems think and feel. We must be strong and win this year., the alternatives are anti-hope, anti-progress, anti-human.

It is puzzling to me that so many evangbelicals who profess to feel "uplifting hope" and "soaring goodwill", come down on the red side......

[ProfessorDuh]

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
— Marcus Aurelius