Posts by Kirk Serpes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Saying what we actually mean on…, in reply to BenWilson,
So from what I've seen there are two different explanations for why we have only two dimensions to political ideology.
The link I had in this to the George Lakoff video gives a really good analysis of what separates the two ends of the political spectrum. He puts it down to the "nurturing parent" vs the "strict father" models of parenting. Since parenting is a frame by which we all view government, these two models are actually a pretty good explanation for why groups of people agree on how to approach seemingly unconnected issues like gender, war, poverty, taxes, etc. The Strict father model (or maybe it should be called "harden the f up" for NZ), is based on the idea that the world is fair, and that in a fair world good disciplined people succeed. If you give your kids/citizens everything they want, they won't work hard and will fail. So in that sense, having a big welfare state in inherently immoral as it spoils people and the lose discipline. Also people who are rich and successful should not be punished with higher taxes because they are good people.
The "nurturing parent" model is the opposite.. and is probably a lot more familiar to us. It's about protecting and supporting people to do well. To be fair this is based on the US extremes but it does explain why the right in NZ think it's fine to lower income taxes on the rich while raising it on GST (that hits the poor harder). It makes moral sense, before it makes economic sense.
Of course most people are biconceptuals. As in they look at some things with a 'Strict father' view but others with a 'nurturant view'. So that's where the political view diversity comes from. But it's still based on a spectrum between two points.
Now the other theory I've heard about the difference in ideology is a LOT older, and somewhat contradictory to this one. It's the Tragic vs Utopian view of humanity. Goes back to Thomas Sowell, and others like Hobbes, Burke, Smith, Alexander Hamilton & James Madison. In the Tragic model the belief is that people are selfish so any institution you build will also be flawed. The Utopian view is that the systems and institutions corrupt people and prevent them from being as good as they good be. So using govt as a tool to create a better world seems like a legit thing to do.
I don't know about this. Because I do actually have a bit of Tragic view of humanity but I come to a different conclusion...
-
Speaker: Saying what we actually mean on…, in reply to David Hood,
That is amazing! Did a fair it of complex math at Engineering school so really appreciate the geek humour in this. :-)
-
Speaker: Why we need to stop talking…, in reply to Some Stats,
Thanks for that link. Wasn't aware of that follow up study. I guess I should have been a bit more skeptical of such a simple example. It's actually consistent with a lot of what Lakoff has written about in his books. That frames run pretty deep in our brains, and you can't just change how people think like flipping a switch, especially when an issue is extremely salient and people have pre-existing knowledge and feelings about an issue. Here's a long but really good video of him talking about the deeper aspects of framing.
-
Speaker: Why we need to stop talking…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
Hmm I have a question. What metaphor or frame do you use when you think of political discourse? Do you see it as a “war of ideas” or as “dinner table discussion”? Or something else. I see political discourse (or debate) as mostly adversarial. As a war of ideas between two competing world views over people in the “middle”. Which is why Strategy as a term doesn’t at all bother me at all. In saying that I don’t think it always is, nor that it should be adversarial all the time. It’d be great to work with the other side an negotiate what works best based on evident. Unfortunately for both sides, on a lot of issues what works is subjective. This is actually a good example of the point of the whole post. The frame (or metaphor) which you and I use to view the concept “political discourse” actually determines what we see as acceptable actions. Expand that out to everything else in society, from Healthcare, to taxes, to the economy. The extremes on either side have quite different frames to use to understand the concepts, so they arrive at quite different actions they think are appropriate.
-
Speaker: Why we need to stop talking…, in reply to BenWilson,
I get where you're coming from. I really wish everything didn't turn into a binary argument because the world tbh is far more nuanced. But making things a choice between two distinct moral positions is the best way to win a campaign. It forces people to pick sides until one side wins. And it's a bloody terrible way to solve problems. There maybe a few issues where this is a "right" answer in purely objective terms (if such a thing exists). But the whole idea behind framing is that there is no such thing as a rational choice. Either choice could be right given the moral lens by which you view the world. In an ultra-right wing frame, punishing the poor with higher taxes and cutting off social services is the morally correct thing to do. And they have a whole lot of metaphors and language that in absence of an alternate emotional story, get the middle on their side. It's the whole "spoiling your kids metaphor". Works like a charm. These stories will win over evidence not every time but enough of the time to win elections and change policy. Working on my next post that goes into more detail on these deeper framing issues.
-
Speaker: Why we need to stop talking…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
You're absolutely right. Language matters but you can still lose being bad at strategy. The examples you gave actually fit into both. Labour during the Clark years was terrified about appearing to be too nice the poor and to Maori. They didn't stick up for their own values partly because the right were better at framing that debate... and let's face it manipulating the undercurrent of racism to their advantage.
-
I think the best part of this was the "became better at Maths than Keith" bit. Haha. Nice burn.
-
I think we need to be careful with looking at the polling and focus group data superficially. Especially when referring to the concept of "Unity." As Rob as said perception of disunity was a bigger issue than the lack of unity itself. And that points to a successful attack by National.
At any point in time, both parties have factions arguing over direction, etc. That's perfectly natural, and even healthy. But the real issue is that the Labour Party let the National party tell their story for them. They were simply not able to tell their own story due to a combination of factors and the National party took advantage of that. Fixing "unity" isn't going to fix the skill gap in playing the game.
Going a bit deeper I suspect that what people were actually worried about was competence. The voters that matter don't see govt the way we do, as a form of participation, they see it as an organisation to take care of all the shit they don't want to think about. A large number of voters don't even know which side is left and which is right. They just vote for who looks the most competent. And Key and his party have been better at showing competence externally. They give the impression you can trust them with the details of governing and not bother people in their daily lives.
On issues where we have managed to get people to care, they've done pretty well in diffusing the attack. Like on child poverty with their raising the benefit.
What this comes down to is a lack of strategy and skills. If not unity, people would have blamed something else for not voting Labour. There is always be problems with any given party, it's the job of the strategics to make the media and the public pay attention to the problems on the other side.
-
This "Waitakere man" caricature is a gross oversimplification of how we need to be looking at the electorate. NZ Post has done some great work in breaking up the country into unique micro-cultural niches. Look up their Genius Survey project. I think it's based on the VALS stuff done in the US.
At a basic level it's about categorising people based on where they sit in the Maslow hierarchy, because that is a stronger determinant of the decisions they would make than let's say their gender, race, or age on it's own. So while we do have some people, like the ones on this blog that care about big existential issues, there are others who simply about making ends meet. And when we talk about these big ideas (as worthy as they are) we lose relevance.
Now to be fair, those are not the only two types of people. There are a lot of subgroups each with their own motivations and values. And success at the elections and in campaigns in general is more about speaking to their emotional needs. That doesn't mean we don't talk about climate change, inequality and the death of broadcasting per se. It just means we have to take the time to really understand them and use language and stories that make it relevant.
Crosby and Key excel at this. As does Obama. They don't waste time with people they cannot convert. They throw red meat to their base to get them to generate energy and organising power. And they give a sympathetic shoulder to people in the middle who need a little coaxing to get on board.
-
Hard News: The epitome of reason, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yes! And they also have big demographic shifts in their favour. That's not to discount the hard work they've put into building progressive infrastructure and technology. They're winning the arms race, and the race race.