Lakoff: The real differences between Obama & Clinton

[Liberty Belle]

What Counts as an “Issue” in the Clinton-Obama race?



By George Lakoff



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html


I found this excerpt to be particularly enlightening:


This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major "issues" dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about "I," I," "I" (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about "you" and "we" (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama's thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.

For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.

[Rockerdem]

1. Lakoff is a progressive to the core

The man gets it, and explains it concisely.

[Liberty Belle]

2. I agree. This is the best explanation I've seen of the real

differences between the candidates, and the best argument for supporting Obama over Clinton. I have converted many Republicans and decline to state voters recently just by explaining what progressive positions really mean.

[MeDeMax]

3. very true, very succint n/t

[DJ13]

4. He sure nails it

Anyone think the Hillary voters will understand it?

I dont.

:shrug:

[rusty_parts2001]

5. Real Difference

Obama: Dreamer

Clinton: Realist

I live in the real world.

[DJ13]

6. Real Difference

Obama: Authentic Progressive Democrat

Clinton: Right Wing Democrat

[Sara Bradi]

10. I live in the fantasy world, quite literally

making fantasies real, that's my business...

guess who's my pick ???

[XemaSab]

23. Get thee to "Don't think of an Elephant"

and you'll understand Lakoff better. :)

[elixir]

7. Inaccurate account

Lakoff categorizes HRC as "moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions". I don't see her stance on right to life, the environment and health care to be anything but liberal and far from right-wing. Lakoff also characterizes Obama as having "central progressive moral principles" when in fact he and HRC share the same moral principles but he hasn't had enough legislative experience to act on them.

Also, if Obama's going to wait for a movement to get policies through, we're going to have a loooong four years on nothing. HRC can say "I", "I", "I" because she's moved legislation whereas BO can only talk about it in figurative terms.

How many "present" votes does it take to pass legislation?

[Liberty Belle]

8. Hilary is liberal on some issues, but she and Bill stand for many conservative things.

NAFTA, CAFTA and the free trade movement which has decimated the American workforce by shifting jobs overseas started with the Clintons.

Hilary sat on Wal-Mart's board in her home state of Arkansas and never once spoke out against Wal-Mart's anti-union pracatices.

She is no friend of working people, in my view.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Hillary's stance on right-to-life and the environment is purely

Goldwater republican. For healthcare she supports the health insurance industry, not the patients. By putting all the controls in the hands of the insurance industry we will get just more of the same, but by government mandate.

Maybe you don't understand what the term 'liberal' means.

[Larkspur]

11. I love Lakoff, but what he misses is that Obama's definition of

partisanship/bipartisanship comes straight out of Joe Lieberman's play book. Holy Joe hates partisanship that hold him accountable for abusing the power entrusted in him. I fear that is what Obama believes and why I will never trust Obama.

I don't like Hillary either. I wish "None of the Above" was on the ballot.

[cali]

13. oh please. Lakioff is missing what YOU get

he explains it in precise language and he's not only a progressive, he's one of the sharpest analysts out there. The comparison to Lieberman is completely absurd. I always think it's a hoot when some DUer thinks they're smarter and more knowledgable than someone like Lakoff.

[Larkspur]

20. I'm a big supporter of Lakoff's reframing theory

Obama doesn't reframe the right wing narrative. Like clinton, he reinforces them.

[AtomicKitten]

12. K&R

[tularetom]

14. Not sure I agree with all of this

Specifically the part about Bill Clinton "triangulating" in order to get more votes. Clinton ran in 1992 as a progressive. He got elected because he did so. He started off by taking some progressive stands on issues (health care, don't ask don't tell etc) and got whomped upside the head for it. At this point he realized he wasn't going to get reelected as a liberal or progressive so he became in effect a republican.

I would describe him as an opportunist rather than a bipartisan.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. Clinton made a campaign promise to allow gays to serve in the military. Don't

ask don't tell wasn't his initial idea. It became his fall back position when his initial plan to just let gays serve openly if they so desired came under political attack.

The problem was that it satisfied no one, not the gays who wanted to be able to not hide in the closet or the homophobes who wanted all gays out of the military. So I wouldn't charicturize don't ask don't tell as progressive. And of course Clinton, as CIC, could have just ordered the military to allow gays to serve. Instead he moved to the right and triangulated in an attempt to stave of the political critisism his initial plan generated.

Hillaries healthcare plan was conducted in secret and she froze out the progressive groups who had been working for years to achieve reform. She invited in the insurance industry who helped stall the plan in the end. This didn't generate much support from the grass roots, and for good reason.

So I think Lakeoff pretty well nails it.

[rndmprsn]

15. K+R...

his book "don't think of an elephant" changed the way i think about politics and language

[Liberty Belle]

17. Voting records: Obama most Liberal Senator in 2007; more liberal than Clinton every year

Thanks for the kick and recommendation!

All, please see for yourself who has the most liberal record year after year, in this comparison of voting records:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4314980

[calmblueocean]

18. This is probably the most important political analysis of 2008, K&R this!

When people say "What kind of change is Obama going to bring?" -- THIS is the kind of change. There's nothing "kumbaya" about it. It's a fundamental shift in campaigning that connects the American people to the progressive agenda they already believe in, but vote against because of decades of right wing demonization of liberals. It's why all the flak over Obama's mention of Reagan is so profoundly wrongheaded. Obama is *using* Reagan for progressive purposes, the way he should be.

[no name no slogan]

19. It really is less about ideology than methodology and style at this point

Clinton and Obama are very close on the issues, which IMHO is why we do not discuss issues in this race anymore. Instead, we're left to debating who snubbed whose handshake.

Good piece.

[robbedvoter]

21. Lakoff was justifying Kerry's "loss" in 2004 through "lack of framing"

never trusted him since. "rebranding" sounded corporatist to me always.
And his arguments here are just as much BS.
Truth was, branding schmranding, KERRY WON in 2004 and anyone who missed that little fact has no place to tell me what to think.

[XemaSab]

22. Lakoff is my baby-daddy

:D