[lbo-talk] FW: Lakoff article

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

> > The Post-Katrina Era
> > By George Lakoff, AlterNet
> > Posted on September 6, 2005, Printed on September 7,
> > 2005
> > http://www.alternet.org/story/25099/
> > It is impossible for me, as it is for most
> > Americans, to watch the horror and
> > suffering from Hurricane Katrina and not feel
> > physically sore, pained, bereft,
> > empty, heartbroken. And angry.
> >
> > The Katrina tragedy should become a watershed in
> > American politics. This was
> > when the usually invisible people suddenly appeared
> > in all the anguish of their
> > lives -- the impoverished, the old, the infirm, the
> > kids and the low-wage
> > workers with no cars, TVs or credit cards. They
> > showed up on America's
> > doorsteps, entered the living rooms and stayed.
> > Katrina will not go away soon,
> > and she has the power to change America.
> >
> > The moral of Katrina is mostly being missed. It is
> > not just a failure of
> > execution (William Kristol), or that bad things just
> > happen (Laura Bush). It was
> > not just indifference by the President, or a lack of
> > accountability, or a
> > failure of federal-state communication, or corrupt
> > appointments in FEMA, or the
> > cutting of budgets for fixing levees, or the
> > inexcusable absence of the National
> > Guard off in Iraq. It was all of these and more, but
> > they are the effects, not
> > the cause.
> >
> > The cause was political through and through -- a
> > matter of values and
> > principles. The progressive-liberal values are
> > America's values, and we need to
> > go back to them. The heart of progressive-liberal
> > values is simple: empathy
> > (caring about and for people) and responsibility
> > (acting responsibly on that
> > empathy). These values translate into a simple
> > principle: Use the common wealth
> > for the common good to better all our lives. In
> > short, promoting the common good
> > is the central role of government.
> >
> > The right-wing conservatives now in power have the
> > opposite values and
> > principles. Their main value is Rely on individual
> > discipline and initiative.
> > The central principle: Government has no useful
> > role. The only common good is
> > the sum of individual goods. It's the difference
> > between We're all in this
> > together and You're on your own, buddy. It's the
> > difference between Every
> > citizen is entitled to protection and You're only
> > entitled to what you can
> > afford. It's the difference between connection and
> > separation. It is this
> > difference in moral and political philosophy that
> > lies behind the tragedy of
> > Katrina.
> >
> > A lack of empathy and responsibility accounts for
> > Bush's indifference and the
> > government's delay in response, as well as the
> > failure to plan for the security
> > of the most vulnerable: the poor, the infirm, the
> > aged, the children.
> >
> > Eliminating as much as possible of the role of
> > government accounts for the
> > demotion of FEMA from cabinet rank, for Michael
> > Brown's view that FEMA was a
> > federal entitlement program to be cut, for the
> > budget cuts in levee repair, for
> > placing more responsibility on state and local
> > government than they could
> > handle, for the failure to fully employ the
> > military, and for the lax regulation
> > of toxic waste dumps contributing to a "toxic stew."
> >
> >
> > This was not just incompetence (though there was
> > plenty of it), not just a
> > natural disaster (though nature played its part),
> > not just Bush (though he is
> > accountable). This is a failure of moral and
> > political philosophy -- a deadly
> > failure. That is the deep truth behind this human
> > tragedy, humanly caused.
> >
> > It is a truth that needs to be told, starting now --
> > over and over. There can be
> > no delay. The Bush administration is busy framing it
> > in its own way: bad things
> > just happen, it's no one's fault; the federal
> > government did the best it could
> > -- the problem was at the state and local level;
> > we'll rebuild and everything
> > will be okay; the people being shipped out will have
> > better lives elsewhere, and
> > jobs in Wal-Mart!
> >
> > Unless the real truth is told starting now, the
> > American people will accept it
> > for lack of an alternative. The Democratic response
> > so far is playing right into
> > Bush's framing. By delaying a response for fear it
> > will be called "partisan,"
> > the Democratic leadership is allowing Bush to frame
> > the tragedy. And once it is
> > framed, it is hard to reframe! It is time to start
> > now.
> >
> > Hurricane Katrina should also form the context in
> > which to judge whether John
> > Roberts is fit to be chief justice of the United
> > States Supreme Court. The
> > reason is simple: The Katrina Tragedy raises the
> > most central issues of moral
> > and political principles that will govern the future
> > of this country. Katrina
> > stands to be even more traumatic to America than
> > 9/11. The failure of
> > conservative principles in the Katrina Tragedy
> > should, in the post-Katrina era,
> > invalidate those principles -- and it should
> > invalidate the right of George Bush
> > to foist them on the country for the next 30 years.
> >
> > John Roberts, as chief justice of a conservative
> > court, would have enormous
> > powers to impose on the nation those invalid
> > principles. Do not be fooled by the
> > arguments of "strict construction," "narrow
> > interpretation" and the avoidance of
> > "judicial activism" that will be brought forth in
> > the hearings. What Roberts is
> > brilliant at is the use of "narrow interpretations"
> > to have maximal causal
> > effect. Narrow interpretation, in his hands, can
> > serve the purpose of radical
> > conservative judicial activism.
> >
> > Consider a small example, the Case of the Hapless
> > Toad. The Constitution
> > empowers Congress to regulate "commerce ... among
> > the several states." This
> > clause has been interpreted by the Court to make it
> > the constitutional basis for
> > much of civil rights legislation and all major
> > environmental laws.
> >
> > Over the past decade, the Court has been diminishing
> > the powers of the federal
> > government over the environment by limiting the
> > scope of that clause, even
> > limiting the application of the Clean Water Act. A
> > completely narrow
> > interpretation could eliminate all environmental
> > laws (e.g., clean water and
> > air, habitat protection) and threaten our civil
> > rights. Roberts has written in
> > favor such a narrow interpretation.
> >
> > The case concerned a developer who wanted to build a
> > large housing tract in
> > California that would destroy one of the last
> > remaining breeding grounds of the
> > arroyo southwestern toad, threatening its continued
> > existence. The U.S. Courts
> > of Appeals on Washington, D.C., upheld the right to
> > life of the toad species
> > under the Endangered Species Act. But Roberts, in a
> > July 2003 opinion, wrote
> > that the Interstate Commerce Clause, on which the
> > Endangered Species act is
> > based, should not apply to "a hapless toad that, for
> > reasons of its own, lives
> > its entire life in California."
> >
> > Such a narrowing would threaten the legal basis of
> > the Endangered Species Act.
> > Anti-discrimination legislation is also based on the
> > Interstate Commerce Clause.
> > What about discrimination wholly within one state?
> > Were Roberts to apply a
> > similar narrowing criterion, much of
> > anti-discrimination law would go out the
> > window.
> >
> > The point is simple. Narrow interpretations can have
> > massive causal effects and
> > be a form of radical judicial activism in the
> > conservative cause. After the
> > Katrina Tragedy, we cannot afford a radically
> > activist Chief Justice with the
> > same philosophy that has failed America so badly.
> > The ultimate moral and
> > political issues apply in both cases. John Roberts
> > as Chief Justice would be a
> > danger to our democracy and possibly to our very
> > lives.
> >
> > George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an
> > Elephant: Know Your Values and
> > Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is Professor
> > of Linguistics at the
> > University of California at Berkeley and a Senior
> > Fellow of the Rockridge
> > Institute.
> >
> >
> > C 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights
> > reserved.
> > View this story online at:
> > http://www.alternet.org/story/25099/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
> http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/