George Lakoff S Theory About Family Values

Lakoff Reaction

The author of this report has been asked to review one of the recent Democrat or Republican debates in March 2016 and then compare/contrast what was covered in that debate with the words of author George Lakoff. In particular, there is to be a comparison about the rhetoric and the function of the mind when it comes to family values and how people define that term internally and externally. To be sure, the Democrat and Republican party both espouse family values but they do so in ways that are often diametrically opposed. While some may dismiss Lakoff or the words of politicians when it comes to the way the mind works when it comes to the subject, that would be a mistake because it absolutely has an effect on how people behave and react in terms of their political feelings and societal behaviors.

Analysis

Lakoff makes a number of good points when it comes to how the mind shapes political thought. Indeed, that can be the only real explanation for why people think entirely different things about the same subject. Lakoff, in an earlier chapter, makes reference to Anna Nicole Smith. The author of this report could point to other public figures and celebrities like Michael Jackson or Princess Diana. When it comes to family values, "reality" television shows like the Duggar show or Kate Plus 8 come to mind. Without seeping into politics, there are most certainly very divergent ways of thinking when it comes to family values. Some people hold that family loyalty is important no matter what the details of a situation while others place huge conditions on family bonds. Others suggest that family is more about society or what a specific person means to you rather than what society defines as family. An example would be a lesbian couple that, at least in the past, would not be able to be married legally. While many in society would not hold them to be married, the couple themselves may believe to the contrary. Some feelings and beliefs in this regard are very accepted and palatable to the American public at large while other situations are much less so (Lakoff).

One thing that was mentioned in the Democrat debate on March 8th, 2016 that is a perfect example of the latter is the specter of illegal immigration and how deportations, theoretical or actual, can split up families. Some hold that people here illegally should be deported irrespective of whether they have families in the United States or not. They further hold that the people here illegally should have known that starting a family was less than wise given their precarious status as a resident in this country. However, this is certainly not the focal point of what the Democrat candidates have to say on the matter. Hillary went on record as saying that she would absolutely not deport children in the country illegally. She also asserted that she would not deport any person technically in the country illegally so long as the person in question did not have a criminal record. Such answers are consistent with the traditional Democrat mantra on illegal immigration. It is also diametrically opposed to the words being spoken by many GOP candidates, most notably Donald Trump (Newell)

The above questions and answers posed to Hillary dovetail neatly with her prior comments when it comes to "nation as family." Rather than focus on the technical letter of the law (at least in some cases that involve compassion or hardship), Hillary actively decides to focus more on family values and so forth that relate to going easier on people that are trying to escape hardship or even oppression. Anyone who has followed Hillary long enough knows that she very much holds a "it takes a village" approach when it comes to society, family values and the raising of children. In other words, she asserts that the nation as a whole need to help and foster each other rather that engaging in behaviors or speech that denigrates people for trying to do what they feel is the right thing and/or what is best for society in general. Lakoff's words about the subject are driven home in different ways depending on who is speaking. The Democrats are more attuned to being merciful and compassionate to illegal immigrants while Republicans insist that the United States cannot take on all of the world's oppressed and that refusing to expel people with families implicitly encourages people to illegally enter the country, thus making the problem worse. As far as Lakoff's specific words about it, Democrats are very much affixed on righting past wrongs. Lakoff specifically mentioned this when he says "why do progressives feel a sense of responsibility for righting the wrongs of past generations" (Lakoff). Another quote that is relevant based on the earlier mention of gay marriage is manifested when Lakoff says "why should a conservative living in the Midwest find it personally threatening when gays get married in San Francisco or Massachusetts?" (Lakoff). Obviously, the religious values of people and the blurry line between church and state feeds into people's opinions on the subject.

As far as the popularity of the candidates, it is clear that it is very much driven by two things. The members of each party go back and forth about who the best candidate is. While Hillary is seemingly on her way to winning, Bernie Sanders has done well himself. On the other side, very strident and aggressive viewpoints seem to be driving the non-establishment candidtes, those being Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. The wider great divide between people in the United States makes for elections that have been very close. While some electoral results have been pretty distant in the past, the popular vote always seems to be within five to ten percent. Indeed, George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the Electoral College and there are still people arguing about that nearly a generation later.