[lbo-talk] The Modern Right in Europe

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Mon Feb 13 07:01:05 PST 2006


Thomas:
> So, speaking of framing, what do you think of Lakoff's views
> as a basis for Left triangulation? As you may know, he
> argues that most people do not vote according to
> self-interest per se (ie class interest) but according to
> identity/frames. He posits two predominant frames at play in
> modern american
> politics: (1) the strict father model, which is the kernel
> worldview of all conservatives (and to which they have
> succesfully rallied) and, (2) nurturant parents worldview,
> which he estimates is the general worldview of all on the
> Left, in spite of their differences (everything from liberal
> democrates to anarchists...however the broad spectrum of the
> Left has not rallied under that banner and each component of
> the Left continues to bicker with the others).
> Even if that premise is correct though, and we were to be
> guided by that, what would it lead to?

I think it is a very good example of possible left "traingulation." However, I would go a bit further and say that triangulation is not just about "framing" (or spin as some may call it) but about political realism. I would define triangulation as the ability of being politically proactive, which involves three steps: (1) taking your opponenets and detractors seriously (instead of verbally berating and dismissing them as the left tends to do); (2) making a sound judgment about the merits of their claims and proposals as well their actual power i.e. being able to tell valid points that can be implemented from bluffing in your opponents; and (3) develop a response that addresses these valid points raised by your opponents but which is more in line with your core values or interests.

Stated differently, triangulation is about defending your core and being flexible about the boundaries, instead of defending the boundaries but sacrificing the core. I think Clinton's welfare reform was a good example of defending the core while being flexible about the boundaries, while the Left's response to it was largely protecting the boundaries while sacrificing the core. I think Clinton aptly recognized that the Repugs are raising some valid points about the welfare system amidst plenty of bluff, and that they have enough power to eventually overhaul that system to their liking. So his response was very pro-active: he acknowledged the valid criticism of his detractors, and introduced reforms that sacrificed some boundaries but protected the core - which is using the welfare system to help poor people enter into the mainstream society (e.g. by emphasizing education and skill building) instead of providing government vouchers to landlords and food producers.

Of course, the Left bashed him for sacrificing boundaries without realizing that he was actually defending their core principles. I was at ate the American Sociological Association annual meeting in NYC when Donna Shalala made an appearance to introduce the welfare reform. A few people in the crowd actually recognized that the reform was to stave off a more serious Repug assault, but most bleeding hearts decried it as a "sellout."

If we applied the same principle to, say health care reform, one possible strategy is to call for a single payer, non-governmentally administered plan that is universal for both the insured and the providers. That is to say, a hassle-free plan (no paper work required, just show your health care card and made a pre-determined co-payment) that covers every taxpayer (which avoids the thorny issue of citizenship), based on the earmarked sliding scale user fees (aka progressive tax, except that it is not called a tax), administered by a non-governmental entity overseen by elected board of governors (which would remove it from political bickering) and making reimbursements to every licensed provider of the patient's choice. Obviously, the insurance lobby will fight that tooth and nail no matter what, but such a plan can be palatable to broad array of interests, e.g. employers, doctors, hospitals, and the general public.

In the same vein, the tort reform that protects the "progressive core" may include a provision of punitive damages being awarded not to individuals but to a specially created Victim Compensation Fund that provides funding to consumer advocates, law firms representing consumers, and other public benefit agencies. This would eliminate the incentive for a "frivolous lawsuits" claimed by the right, but at the same time it would protect the core progressive principles of corporate responsibility and providing funding to progressive public benefit organizations.

In short, triangulation is about thinking outside the box and acting proactively, instead of sticking to the old tropes and mantras, and being prepared to give up something at the boundaries to protect the core.

PS. In response to Justin re. his charge of lawyer bashing - this certainly was not my position or intention. My main idea was to redirect punitive damages from private pockets to public coffers. In response to John Adams (What's Wrong with Baltimore) - I certainly do not endorse populism in any form and in my view, the current system is rigged with populism, as the jury awards tend to be influenced by the sex appeal of plaintiffs and defendants. As you probably know if you read my stuff to this point, what I proposed was "triangulation" ie. acknowledging that your opponents may have a valid point, but proposing a solution that is consistent with your rather than your opponents' interests.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list