Radical Neocons

While not writing here for several days, I have been busy with other endeavors, including following the news and thinking about it, particularly with reference to the ideas presented by the politically progressive linguistics professor, George Lakoff, in his book, “Don’t Think of an Elephant”, which I just finished reading. I mentioned this book in connection with two postings back in January, which remain relevant today: “We’ve Been Framed” and “What Kind of a Father is Best?”.

The Republican party, and the American government to some extent, have been taken over by proponents of a bogus ideology framing itself as conservative with Christian family values. The power and money to push this ideology has been provided for almost 40 years by a wealthy power elite whose domestic and foreign policy are both based on a simple, but hidden, goal - that the members of that elite should amass ever greater wealth and power at the expense of everyone else, both in America and throughout the world.

This global greed is not truly Republican, nor American, conservative, Christian, familial or valuable. It is a radical deviation from what each of these concepts has traditionally meant. Some people have tried to more accurately label the proponents of this deviation as “neocons”, or false conservatives. Economics Professor Robert Reich, who served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration, refers to them as “radcons”, or radical conservatives. I propose to combine the two terms and call them “radical neocons”.

Professor Lakoff points out how the radical neocons use the strict father metaphor to frame all aspects of their agenda. In future pieces discussing current issues here at Sense, I will integrate relevant comments on the position of the radical neocons and how they have been framing the issue under discussion using their strict father metaphor. I will also suggest ways the issue should be more honestly re-framed, using the progressive nurturing parent metaphor as Professor Lakoff suggests.

The strict father metaphor is intended to appeal to the need children have to be protected from evil by a strong father, who proclaims his values as those to be followed by his subservient family who should unquestioningly obey him or suffer the consequences. The strict father who succeeds in protecting his family and in training them to obedience is rewarded with the remunerations of success, financial and otherwise. The God of the Old Testament is his model. Radical neocons cast George W. Bush in this strict father role, with America and all the world intended as his childlike family, but people outside America knew he was miscast from the start. As his performance enters its second half, two thirds of Americans now have realized that Bush was better cast as the Prodigal Son.