As far as one could go as trying to interpret the minds of a nation that (at least at the time seemed relatively partisan) perhaps this is the best a great cognitive scientist could do. There's clearly a lot of thought that went into Dr. Lakoff's explanation, but afterwards I found it lacking in a few serious and central ways.Firstly, this is particular to a finite point in U.S. political history that also appears to be the end of an era. If one reads this, it most certainly rings as a classic 20th century perspective of politics. This doesn't come close to explaining the reactions and explanations of "liberals" and "conservatives" that were born digital in my experience. This is a book for old American politics.Secondly, and closely related to the first point, we are in a time of higher velocity of varying political information and methods of production. If this book is accurate, then certainly the "family" it supposes must be very small in the minds of the individuals it describes now. Certainly there could be very little reconciliation of the modern view of our family and the country at large, but yet, people are still attached to the notion of country. Perhaps there is a better metaphor that would undermine this argument as Lakoff argues in Chapter 19, but there's no indication that he would know of one that matches current circumstances.Thirdly, there is a lot of work which both assumes the rationality of American political minds while also aggregating/stereotyping them to the point that it's not clear at the level of granularity that Dr. Lakoff speaks that there could both be rational perspectives of liberal or conservative views and complications without all views being radial to a relativistic metaphor. While Lakoff claims he is no moral relativist, it seems at times that he must assume most "central radial" conservatives and liberals are.Lastly, there is a lot of assumption that this book has the ability to aggregate or merge states of mind. I don't believe this is possible. I think perhaps this simplifies Dr. Lakoff's explanation, but it seems to do great injustice to the distribution of conservative views that Lakoff later criticizes in the last part of his book as well as the liberal failure of empathy towards conservatism argument that he criticizes in the first part. From chapter 16 onwards, it reads as though Dr. Lakoff is trying to account for odd variations that he can't seem to fully explain in political opinion. He attempts Libertarianism and some strange form of pragmatism in either case, but he fails to account for more knowledgeable views of these platforms, and worse, he seems to miss a lot of views that are about small government on the left entirely. With the rise of antifa, socialistic anarchy (or libertarianism) and lesser active groups in these areas, it seems we have missed something terribly important.

Should be required reading for any liberals OR conservatives who seek to thoughtfully discuss politics with their opposite number. This clearly written and thoughtful analysis of the underlying metaphors through which we all see the world provided this committed liberal with the first coherent explanation of why conservatives take the positions they do. I also found the descriptions of metaphors associated with liberal thought reasonably accurate. Overall, quite a good and useful read.

In Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, George Lakoff uses the methods of cognitive linguistics-a field in which he has worked since its infancy-to explain the different worldviews that shape liberal and conservative thought, and why what seems like common sense to one seems like bunk to another. In doing so, he hopes to begin a national discussion of morality and politics and, more specifically, prove why the liberal viewpoint is better for America. In both attempts, he ultimately fails. But first, why cognitive linguistics? In the simplest terms, it is the study of how humans conceptualize the world, particularly through language. What most of us consider "common sense" is actually a complex series of metaphorical connections we subconsciously make between different categories of experience. For example, our Western understanding of morality is connected to our understanding of finances, where moral credits (receiving kindness) can lead to moral debts (owing a favor). One of the most common metaphors people use to think about the nation is the family. It follows that different conceptions of the "ideal" family lead to different conceptions of the "ideal" nation. According to Lakoff, these differences are at the heart of conservative and liberal thought. Understanding the logic behind his family models allows us to understand, as the title promises, how liberals and conservatives think. On its broadest level, Moral Politics is convincing. That morality has its roots in the family seems clear, as does the connection between morality and political beliefs. Lakoff's two models of the family-the "Strict Father," based on dualism, moral strength, and self-sufficiency, and the "Nurturant Parent," based on pluralism, caring, and cooperation-also explain certain sets of conservative and liberal beliefs reasonably well. However, Moral Politics ultimately overreaches in its attempt to explain all possible political and prove the superiority of the liberal model. Lakoff's models cannot explain the diversity of political opinions, nor can he prove that the liberal worldview is superior. Arguing for a particular world view isn't strange, of course. It goes on everyday in op-ed pieces and talk radio. In a book of supposedly unbiased analysis, however, it is problematic. To make his case, Lakoff oversimplifies modern political thought. Although he acknowledges that political views vary widely, Lakoff still places them on a linear scale. This is a common-sense understanding of politics, but it does little to explain a political landscape that includes ideologies, pragmatism, issue- and identity-based politics, and old-fashioned self-interest. All of these shape our political identities, but lose their meaning in Lakoff's dualistic scheme of politics and the family. More importantly, though, Moral Politics removes politics from their historical and cultural context. A conservative living in 2004 bears little resemblance to a conservative who lived in 1904, or even 1984. Differences in historical context, not to mention race, class, and gender, have a significant effect on political views, both individually and nationally, but Lakoff ignores them in favor of his more unifying theory. Sacrificing the effect of such differences in favor of a more elegant (but simple) theory is both unrealistic and dangerous. In fact, in trying to fit the entire political universe into its simple model, Moral Politics violates some of its own rules. For instance, Lakoff argues that a person need not apply the same model to their family and their politics. Despite this, he states that "[m]any elementary school teachers are women, often nurturant mothers, so nurturant they want to nurture other people's children. That is why conservatives are attacking the infrastructure of public education in the countryThey are up against an infrastructure full of nurturers." Even if his large generalizations are true, Lakoff still assumes that the nurturing women in education have nurturing, i.e., liberal politics, and that political conservatives have an equally conservative attitude toward schooling, but these aren't assumptions that cognitive linguistics allows him to make. Such an insistent attempt to fit all situations into the model indicates that Lakoff hasn't been as objective in his analysis as he claims. Even more disturbing, though, are the causal links Lakoff makes between conservatism and violence. He argues that "there is a slippery slope from one model to the other, from normal law-abiding conservatism to violent conservative vigilantism." To argue that the end product of mainstream conservatism is violence is not only reductive, it is a dangerous demonization. Plus, it ignores the violent excesses of the Left, from the Weather Underground in the 1960s to radical environmentalists today. Political violence exists among all ideologies, and Lakoff's attempts to link it strictly to conservatism hinder, rather than help, the political debate he hopes to foster. Ultimately, though, its Moral Politics' insistence on proving the superiority of a liberal world view that does it in. Although I agree with his politics, I can't agree with Lakoff's methods. Psychological studies might indicate that a Nurturant Parent family model is better for children, but this doesn't mean that a liberal world view, or the policies that go with it, are better for the country. Despite the convenient metaphor, running a country isn't raising a family, and liberals are going to have to win on the issues, not on spanking, if they want to convince the country of their world view.