See this article. This exactly what Lakoff says, and why we need to understand framing to reach voters on an emotional and embodied level. The old Enlightenment paradigm of the best argument winning doesn't move voters because it's not how our minds actually work.
"As a psychotherapist who writes about politics, I have a different
issue: I can’t believe Krugman is bewildered by the fact that the
quality and quantity of our political engagement is strongly shaped by
powerful unconscious needs and fears that are relatively immune to
rational argument. Forgetting for a moment that, as others have pointed
out, he misrepresents Sanders’ view of change. Krugman’s own view
reflects a wishful fantasy that fundamental social change results
from incremental victories that reflect rational compromises between
competing interests. But the fundamental issue facing progressives today
is not one negotiated by policy wonks; it is how we can build healthy
institutions that become a base for a radical social movement. The issue
is how do we engage the passions of millions of Americans who view such
a movement as connecting to their unrequited desires and unarticulated
fears?"
"Radical social change can’t be understood as the result of technical
policy compromises between rational actors, but rather as the result of
social movements that acquire power by engaging the whole
person—including the more intimate regions of the heart and soul, as
well as the parts in which reason resides. Contrary to Krugman’s
assertion, we will need those "better angels of our nature” in order to
win the power needed to be pragmatic from a position of strength.
Otherwise, pragmatism for its own sake leaves us disengaged and makes
politics seem irrelevant, rather than a place where our deepest needs
can be expressed and fulfilled."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.