Lakoff On Why Trump Got The Republican Nomination: It's The Metaphors Drawing Us In
George Lakoff is a very lefty academic whose non-political work on metaphor makes sense in terms of the way we best understand concepts, which is when they are metaphorical and tied to our physical experience of the world rather than when they are abstract.
If you are not on the left, try to separate that from his being on the left as you read this. By the way Jonathan Haidt, who argues for more balance in "the academy" -- as in, more "viewpoint diversity," more conservative voices -- tweeted the link to this George Lakoff piece on "Understanding Trump."
Haidt tweeted this quote from the piece that explains the thinking in it -- "Values come first, facts & policies follow... Give up identity politics." But it doesn't just explain Trump's popularity, of course, but that of other politicians, including those on the left. (Though there are different ways they get around our rational thinking.)
Lakoff explains why he thinks Trump got the nomination and why he's so popular with conservatives.
In the 1900s, as part of my research in the cognitive and brain sciences, I undertook to answer a question in my field: How do the various policy positions of conservatives and progressives hang together? Take conservatism: What does being against abortion have to do with being for owning guns? What does owning guns have to do with denying the reality of global warming? How does being anti-government fit with wanting a stronger military? How can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? Progressives have the opposite views. How do their views hang together?The answer came from a realization that we tend to understand the nation metaphorically in family terms: We have founding fathers. We send our sons and daughters to war. We have homeland security. The conservative and progressive worldviews dividing our country can most readily be understood in terms of moral worldviews that are encapsulated in two very different common forms of family life: The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative).
What do social issues and the politics have to do with the family? We are first governed in our families, and so we grow up understanding governing institutions in terms of the governing systems of families.
In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father's authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they are in charge of. When his children disobey, it is his moral duty to punish them painfully enough so that, to avoid punishment, they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world. What if they don't prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. This reasoning shows up in conservative politics in which the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving, and the rich as deserving their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you; society has nothing to do with it. You are responsible for yourself, not for others -- who are responsible for themselves.
...Why His Lack of Policy Detail Doesn't Matter
I recently heard a brilliant and articulate Clinton surrogate argue against a group of Trump supporters that Trump has presented no policy plans for increasing jobs, increasing economics growth, improving education, gaining international respect, etc. This is the basic Clinton campaign argument. Hillary has the experience, the policy know-how, she can get things done, it's all on her website. Trump has none of this. What Hillary's campaign says is true. And it is irrelevant.
Trump supporters and other radical Republican extremists could not care less, and for a good reason. Their job is to impose their view of strict father morality in all areas of life. If they have the Congress, and the Presidency and the Supreme Court, they could achieve this. They don't need to name policies, because the Republicans already of hundreds of policies ready to go. They just need to be in complete power.
...Unconscious thought works by certain basic mechanisms. Trump uses them instinctively to turn people's brains toward what he wants: Absolute authority, money, power, celebrity.
The mechanisms are:
1. Repetition. Words ore neurally linked to the circuits the determine their meaning. The more a word is heard, the more the circuit is activated and the stronger it gets, and so the easier it is to fire again. Trump repeats. Win. Win, Win. We're gonna win so much you'll get tired of winning.
2. Framing: Crooked Hillary. Framing Hillary as purposely and knowingly committing crimes for her own benefit, which is what a crook does. Repeating makes many people unconsciously think of her that way, even though she has been found to have been honest and legal by thorough studies by the right-wing Bengazi committee (which found nothing) and the FBI (which found nothing to charge her with, except missing the mark '(C)' in the body of 3 out of 110,000 emails). Yet the framing is working.
There is a common metaphor that Immorality Is Illegality, and that acting against Strict Father Morality (the only kind off morality recognized) is being immoral. Since virtually everything Hillary Clinton has ever done has violated Strict Father Morality, that makes her immoral. The metaphor thus makes her actions immoral, and hence she is a crook. The chant "Lock her up!" activates this whole line of reasoning.
3. Well-known examples: When a well-publicized disaster happens, the coverage activates the framing of it over and over, strengthening it, and increasing the probability that the framing will occur easily with high probability. Repeating examples of shootings by Muslims, African-Americans, and Latinos raises fears that it could happen to you and your community -- despite the minuscule actual probability. Trump uses this to create fear. Fear tends to activate desire for a strong strict father -- namely, Trump.
4. Grammar: Radical Islamic terrorists: "Radical" puts Muslims on a linear scale and "terrorists" imposes a frame on the scale, suggesting that terrorism is built into the religion itself. The grammar suggests that there is something about Islam that has terrorism inherent in it. Imagine calling the Charleston gunman a "radical Republican terrorist."
Trump is aware this to at least some extent. As he said to Tony Schwartz, the ghost-writer who wrote The Art of the Deal for him, "I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration -- and it's a very effective form of promotion."
5. Conventional metaphorical thought is inherent in our largely unconscious thought. Such normal modes of metaphorical thinking that are not noticed as such.
Consider Brexit, which used the metaphor of "entering" and "leaving" the EU. There is a universal metaphor that states are locations in space: you can enter a state, be deep in some state, and come out that state. If you enter a café and then leave the café , you will be in the same location as before you entered. But that need not be true of states of being. But that was the metaphor used with Brexit; Britons believe that after leaving the EU, things would be as before when the entered the EU. They were wrong. Things changed radically while they were in the EU. That same metaphor is being used by Trump: Make America Great Again. Make America Safe Again. And so on. As if there was some past ideal state that we can go back to just by electing Trump.
6. There is also a metaphor that A Country Is a Person and a metonymy of the President Standing For the Country. Thus, Obama, via both metaphor and metonymy, can stand conceptually for America. Therefore, by saying that Obama is weak and not respected, it is communicated that America, with Obama as president, is weak and disrespected. The inference is that it is because of Obama.
7. The country as person metaphor and the metaphor that war or conflict between countries is a fistfight between people, leads the inference that just having a strong president will guarantee that America will win conflicts and wars. Trump will just throw knockout punches. In his acceptance speech at the convention, Trump repeatedly said that he would accomplish things that can only be done by the people acting with their government. After one such statement, there was a chant from the floor, "He will do it."
8. The metaphor that The nation Is a Family was used throughout the GOP convention. We heard that strong military sons are produced by strong military fathers and that "defense of country is a family affair." From Trump's love of family and commitment to their success, we are to conclude that, as president he will love America's citizens and be committed to the success of all.
9. There is a common metaphor that Identifying with your family's national heritage makes you a member of that nationality. Suppose your grandparents came from Italy and you identify with your Italian ancestors, you may proud state that you are Italian. The metaphor is natural. Literally, you have been American for two generations. Trump made use of this commonplace metaphor in attacking US District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is American, born and raised in the United States. Trump said he was a Mexican, and therefore would hate him and tend to rule against him in a case brought against Trump University for fraud.
10. Then there is the metaphor system used in the phrase "to call someone out." First the word "out." There is a general metaphor that Knowing Is Seeing as in "I see what you mean." Things that are hidden inside something cannot be seen and hence not known, while things are not hidden but out in public can be seen and hence known. To "out" someone is to made their private knowledge public. To "call someone out" is to publicly name someone's hidden misdeeds, thus allowing for public knowledge and appropriate consequences.
This is the basis for the Trumpian metaphor that Naming is Identifying. Thus naming your enemies will allow you to identify correctly who they are, get to them, and so allow you to defeat them. Hence, just saying "radical Islamic terrorists" allows you to pick them out, get at them, and annihilate them. And conversely, if you don't say it, you won't be able to pick them out and annihilate them. Thus a failure to use those words means that you are protecting those enemies -- in this case Muslims, that is, potential terrorists because of their religion.
I'll stop here, though I could go on. Here are ten uses of people's unconscious normal brain mechanisms that are manipulated by Trump and his followers for his overriding purpose: to be elected president, to be given absolute authority with a Congress and Supreme Court, and so to have his version of Strict Famer Morality govern America into the indefinite future.
These ten forms of using with people's everyday brain mechanisms for his own purposes have gotten Trump the Republican nomination. But millions more people have seen and heard Trump and company on tv and heard them on the radio. The media pundits have not described those ten mechanisms, or other brain mechanisms, that surreptitiously work on the unconscious minds of the public, even though the result is that Big Lies repeated over and over are being believed by a growing number of people.
This metaphor stuff is complicated, and some of it, I have problems with. "Knowing is Seeing" is supported by a subject group of one -- one kid named Shem. Not exactly an ideal-size subject group. However, I do find support for the way he believes metaphor works in others' research.
Try to do your best to look at this piece and his thinking objectively, if you aren't on the left. You can -- and, I hope, will -- read the whole piece at the link.
Do you think he's on to anything here?
via @jonhaidt
It's a simple decision. You look at abilities and accomplishments and the likelihood of these people being able to do what they say they will do, and you make your choice about which one will harm you and yours least.
Trump. Because the bureaucracy will fight him at every turn, the media will bother to investigate, and the political class hate him. He won't be able to do much, if any, harm. My stunningly corrupt former Senator, on the other hand...
MarkD at July 28, 2016 7:47 AM
It is hard to recall the last time I have seen so many lefty straw man arguments in a few thousand words.
We know why Donald Trump got the nomination, and it isn't because people see him as a father figure. It is because the MSM gave him a billion dollars of free publicity in a country where half the voters are so dumb, that their main criteria for their vote is name recognition or because some black dude looks good on TV.
Sadly enough, this is the real reason I think Clinton will lose. Not because she is an incompetent crook, with a rapist for a husband, but because she is a frumpy grandmother with a voice that resembles nails on a chalk board.
Her only hope is strategically stuffed ballot boxes in the swing states. Frankly, I am not even sure she will carry California any more.
Arguing that Donald Trump represents some kind of conservative values is just laughable. He is an old style democratic Populist.
Isab at July 28, 2016 7:55 AM
I'm sorry but I got hung up on his "denying the reality of global warming" bit.
The most precise interments we have ever devised show no link between continuously rising CO2 levels and temperature hikes.
Carbon output INCREASES every year, yet satellite temperature monitoring show no direct corresponding increases, or even any correlation between carbon and temperature.
Couple that with NOAA being caught repeatedly changing temperature records, not a single climate model prediction ever being close to true, and the climate science community being oddly silent on these matters while also pushing to jail anyone who ask them to show their data or for disagreeing with them.
What are reasonable people who take the time to read these things, as opposed to just trusting the consensus supposed to think?
And what are we supposed to think of the opinions and musings of someone who dismisses such a controversy in less than ten words?
What would you think of his work had he likend gun ownership to denying food science which shows fat and meat lead to obesity while grains and HFCS are good for you?
lujlp at July 28, 2016 8:13 AM
Wow, way to make an argument, throw a bunch of verbiage out to cover the fact that your whole argument boils down to "He is a fascist demagogue and you are to stupid/brainwashed to see it".
I really liked this one;
"As if there was some past ideal state that we can go back to just by electing Trump."
I suppose if you ignore 95,000,000+ people un or under employed with GDP growth under 3% for the entire Obama era (first time ever recorded) and drink the liberal kool-aid instead you might assume that America never ceased to be great (or perhaps never was per some on the left) and simply gloss over the anger, pain and desperation which informs the view of America's failed greatness.
Frankly, all I really see here is this guy calling on all us rubes in fly-over country to wake up.
Warhawke223 at July 28, 2016 8:15 AM
The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative).
And I categorically reject that as insufficiently nuanced.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Maybe I'm just an oddball, but I desire neither the Nurturant Parent, nor the Strict Father. I would be happy as a pig in a wallow if they both left me the fuck alone.
And yet...both of them are so concerned for my well being, no, just for acquiring power for themselves, that they can't do that.
Again, it comes back to We fear what Donald might be, but we know with certainty what Hillary is. I'm willing to roll the dice that The Donald will sit and listen to me. I may not change his mind, but I'll have said my piece.
I know Hillary will simply accuse me of being a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and ignore me. Then the IRS will audit me for the next 5 years. Because who lets a peon get away with questioning HRH?
I R A Darth Aggie at July 28, 2016 8:38 AM
That, and as MarkD pointed out, the bureaucracy will oppose Trump at every turn, the media will not cover for him, and he won't be able to do much with a lot of Republicans hating his guts already. And quite frankly, IRA Darth Aggie, if you and I formed the Sith Lords against Hillary committee and tried to publish videos or blogs against her positions that criticized her political views and actions, we could be thrown in jail, if it was convenient for her. See the crazy Youtube video guy that got thrown in jail as a scapegoat for Benghazi. Or, look at the actual case of Citizens United, where the item censored by the McCain Feingold Act was literally a movie criticizing Hillary.
spqr2008 at July 28, 2016 9:01 AM
Lakoff has some of the right ideas. But he is obviously so ignorant of the right he has no concept of reality. Take this for example:
"I recently heard a brilliant and articulate Clinton surrogate argue against a group of Trump supporters that Trump has presented no policy plans for increasing jobs, increasing economics growth, improving education, gaining international respect, etc. This is the basic Clinton campaign argument. Hillary has the experience, the policy know-how, she can get things done, it's all on her website. Trump has none of this. What Hillary's campaign says is true. And it is irrelevant."
Her campaign claims two things here:
1. Donald has no detailed policy plans
2. Hillary has experience and can generate policy.
Note, Hillary's campaign didn't present policy plans. They claim she could present them. So item 1 is the same between the two. On item 2 Donald's campaign says 'I'm not a politician. I don't have experience. I will be different from what came before me.' Both campaigns are in agreement. Hillary is more of the same, Donald is something different. Lakoff appears to have difficulty understanding the value of doing something different.
Ben at July 28, 2016 10:38 AM
"Hillary has the experience, the policy know-how, she can get things done, it's all on her website. Trump has none of this. What Hillary's campaign says is true. And it is irrelevant."
I stopped here. No proof. Just a statement of what's on her website. (DUH!)
If she has the know-how and can get things done why is everything so messed up and why did she enable foreign countries to hack us via her Blackberry.
Seriously, did she turn them off? disable them? or use them despite knowing that all other government employees were explicitly told not to bring them along.
Did she come up with some serious foreign policy that solved some serious world stuff? We know more about the foreign business done by the Clinton Foundation than we do about her State Department successes.
Simply marrying well and using her "name" to get elected is all she's got. (Did she do anything for New York?)
Her wage argument for women goes out the window when it comes to her daughter. How many female reporters were NOT hired due to Chelsea's $600,000 part-time job? How many female executives were denied membership because Chelsea was a better "name". Jeez. You women will vote for her?
Bob in Texas at July 28, 2016 10:43 AM
That, and as MarkD pointed out, the bureaucracy will oppose Trump at every turn, the media will not cover for him, and he won't be able to do much with a lot of Republicans hating his guts already.
Accountability and gridlock is the best reason to vote for Trump. Gridlock is feature not a bug. The less bi-partisan nonsense passed in congress the better. Its the best we can hope for in the next four years.
Shtetl G at July 28, 2016 10:50 AM
See the crazy Youtube video guy that got thrown in jail as a scapegoat for Benghazi.
Let's not get carried away, there, spqr2008. That poor sap apparently didn't examine the conditions of his parole. Apparently his internet usage would be restricted pretty heavily.
Violate your parole, get tossed back in jail. That said, I'm sure the FBI would magically find kitty pr0n on our computers and *poof* off we go to the lock up.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 28, 2016 10:59 AM
I've given this a bit more thought. (mind, not great thought. I'm on baby duty today.)
Lakoff's analysis could be applied to political subgroups. But it really doesn't apply to the major parties. What Lakoff (as well as many others) fails to recognize is that both major parties are coalition parties. There is no true unifying theme or ideology for either party. Both are made up of smaller ideological subgroups. Just to take the Republicans for example, most fiscal conservatives are Republicans but by no stretch are most Republicans fiscal conservatives. Most protestant evangelicals are Republicans and once again most Republicans are not protestant evangelicals. On the Democrat side a shocking number of blacks are virulently homophobic including black politicians and leaders but they form a party with the LGBT. That there are major differences between subgroups is irrelevant.
What really seems to drive these groups together is negative feedback. Both blacks and LGBTs hate Republican subgroups more than they hate each other. Same for evangelicals and fiscal conservatives. Opposition to an ideological group on the other side (negative feedback) is what stabilizes both parties.
Under US rules you need 50% + 1 votes to get elected. There really aren't that many unified areas where a single issue gets you that many votes. So coalitions are the only path to electoral success in the US. Other nations do it differently. But against all expectations the US system is more stable. It lets minority groups have a voice without giving them terribly outsized power. Thus limiting minority takeover through both the ballot box and the bullet.
Ben at July 28, 2016 12:14 PM
Everyone interested in why Trump has been so successful should be reading Scott Adams' blog: http://blog.dilbert.com/
Last summer, when everyone (myself included) considered Trump nothing more than an entertaining buffoon, Adams predicted that Trump would win in a landslide because of his skills as a master persuader. Some of what Adams says is echoed by Lakoff: people don't make decisions rationally, they make them emotionally; that's why policy wonkiness doesn't win elections. But Adams' take is more, well, persuasive, IMO.
Szoszolo at July 28, 2016 1:11 PM
Paragraph 2 ruined the analysis. In that paragraph, with his blithe and factually incorrect dismissal of the email scandal, he demonstrates that he is approaching the problem not from logic and reason, but from partisanship. He started with his belief system and attempted to rationalize from there. I didn't read past that. Sorry, but that's all it is.
Trump is an interesting phenomenon (I'm not yet convinced that he is a unique one), and a comprehensive analysis from someone in Lakoff's discipline would be welcome. But this isn't it.
Cousin Dave at July 28, 2016 1:18 PM
The lefty blowhard could just have said that Trump is a master of rhetoric, while Clinton is a slave to dialectic. Rhetoric wins when it comes to leading voters to the "promised land."
Jay R at July 28, 2016 2:26 PM
Lakoff has been peddling this 'theory' for nearly 20 years now. He's a minor celebrity on the left, and for a while was attempting to become a political consultant, but he's so ridiculously partisan that he's lost credibility in that arena.
His idea is superficially appealing, and does incorporate credible elements - political rhetoric does use certain consistent mechanisms and relies on metaphors. But his claim that these somehow overwhelm a person's capacity to reason about politics isn't persuasive.
Also his nurturing vs stern family models don't really bear examination - they only work if you cherry pick your examples.
norm at July 28, 2016 5:51 PM
Some of what Adams says is echoed by Lakoff: people don't make decisions rationally, they make them emotionally; that's why policy wonkiness doesn't win elections.
Starting with 1960, which candidate was more charismatic**
The only exceptions to the winner being more charismatic:
. I think Humphrey was more charismatic than Nixon. And I think the only thing that kept him from winning was his association with the Vietnam War.
. I don't see a clear charisma difference between Nixon & McGovern (although if I had to give the nod to one, it would go to McGovern.)
. I also don't see a clear difference between HW Bush and Dukakis. Both seemed pretty dull and wonky to me.
** JFK / Nixon
** LBJ / Goldwater
Nixon / ** Humphrey / Wallace
Nixon / McGovern
** Carter / Ford
** Reagan / Carter / Anderson
** Reagan / Mondale
HW Bush / Dukakis
** Clinton / Bush / Perot
** Clinton / Dole / Perot
** Bush / Gore / Nader
** Bush / Kerry
** Obama / McCain
** Obama / Romney
JD at July 28, 2016 6:50 PM
What policies has Hillary put forth? What concrete plan has she posted, anywhere? There is zero difference in this area between the 2. Dems blindly follow her "I can make policy" line.
momof4 at July 28, 2016 7:13 PM
From #4: The grammar suggests that there is something about Islam that has terrorism inherent in it.
How many posts has Amy put up explaining why Islam sure as hell does have terrorism inherent in it?
Rex Little at July 29, 2016 5:54 AM
Good analysis, JD. I think I'd put W and Gore about equal in charisma (or lack of it), but other than that, spot on.
(As for Wallace, I don't know if "charisma" is the right word to describe him. From my own memory of watching and listening to his speeches, and looking at old films, I'd describe him as being a master at pulling the strings of populism, which is not quite the same thing. Trump has some of that.)
Cousin Dave at July 29, 2016 6:58 AM
Here's a more famous lefty on why Trump is gaining ground:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html
Even some right-wing enemies of MM are agreeing with him.
But...
lenona at July 29, 2016 2:40 PM
…in a response to MM:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/28/five-j28.html
"...In reality, (his) opposition to America’s war drive—like that of many others in his upper-middle-class milieu—and his ability to make any sort of genuine popular appeal, ended with the inauguration of Barack Obama. Under the Bush administration, a relatively easy target, the filmmaker functioned as the mouthpiece for a mood of protest that never went beyond the precincts of bourgeois politics…"
I wonder how many right-wingers will agree with that one.
Check out the comments at the bottom, too.
lenona at July 29, 2016 2:44 PM
Once you remove the stupidity and the bigotry most of MM's point's are valid. To wit:
1a. Only a few states need to flip for a Republican to win - can't argue with that.
1b. The economy sucks - can't argue with that. At least not honestly.
2. Oogabooga white men - nope, pure bigotry.
3. People hate Hillary - yep, she is a very polarizing figure. Love her or hate her but very few are in the middle.
4. Berniebots aren't reliable - yep again.
5. Ooo TV, shiny - yep. A sad yep but a yep none the less.
As for your second quote Lenona, is Walsh wrong? Has Moore protested like he does under Republican presidents? I'll admit I haven't paid attention to him since he is mostly a waste of space. I wouldn't even characterize it as unprincipled so much as he had his 10 min of fame and now is washed up.
Ben at July 29, 2016 3:09 PM
I was walking in a less than pleasant neighborhood today and was thinking politics.
This guy is a well read victim of myopia.
For 40 years, Democrats have 'owned' the cities...and the cities are crap. For decades, Republicans have promised prosperity...but only give tiny tax cuts which only help if you actually PAY taxes, which the poor cannot afford to do.
The disaffected, who are tired of promises, decided to try something different. Not Hillary and her rather stale rhetoric. Not a GWB clone who did not meaningfully impact his life.
They wanted a far different character and they wanted someone with a shred of empathy (stop laughing...I know!) They want to BELIEVE that Trump might actually make a difference as much as I want to BELIEVE my lottery ticket is going to change my life. Because his 'rational choice' has a whole lot of history of doing NOTHING except soul grinding hand outs.
This does not fit into the good professor's philosophy.
FIDO at July 29, 2016 6:17 PM
Good analysis, JD. I think I'd put W and Gore about equal in charisma (or lack of it), but other than that, spot on.
Thanks, Cousin Dave. I do believe that's the first time we've ever agreed on anything (and it may be the last!)
I gave the nod to Bush over Gore, but I kinda agree with you in that I think the margin wasn't that big. I mean, personally, I always thought W sounded like a doofus (although I think he was smarter than he sounded) but I can see where a lot of people saw that as "aw-shucks folksy charm", and preferred it over Gore's more eloquent and mannered -- or, to critics, "stiff" -- style.
*
lenona, thanks to the link to Moore's article. I would still put money on Clinton but the amount I would be willing to wager is, unfortunately, shrinking.
JD at July 29, 2016 7:20 PM
Bush intentionally adopted that 'folksy charm'. Like all politicians today he is part actor. Not even 'B' film quality but it is part of the job. I think it appealed to people more in contrast to Slick Willie, a man who got into trouble over the meaning of 'is', than Gore. As for the election, you may as well have had the clone presidents Jack Johnson and John Jackson. There were differences to be sure but neither candidate wanted to emphasize them.
Ben at July 30, 2016 6:49 AM
Leave a comment