George Lakoff may have made a big breakthrough -- it looks like he's finally getting the language right. His deep framing analysis was helpful for those of us who were willing to grapple with it intellectually, but until recently he hadn't found the right words to express the progressive frame. But listen to him now:
What is a progressive worldview? It's simple: You have empathy for others, and you act responsibly on that empathy, being both responsible for yourself and socially responsible as well. Progressives say, "We're all in this together," while conservatives say," You're on your own."
Lakoff goes on to say:
Progressive values-based reframing has begun to work, because it has been paired with authenticity (saying what you believe) and with framing that highlights the very real traumas affecting the nation. The Democrats who won Republican seats [in the November 2006 election] did so by running on progressive values. Swing voters, who have both sets of values, responded to their campaigns based on progressive values they authentically believed in. The party, as a party, therefore should not be moving to the right and adopting conservative positions, even if a number of party members happen to hold such positions. To move to the right is to give up any claim to a consistent moral vision at the heart of the party. At the same time, the party, as a party, need not, probably should not, and certainly will not adopt all progressive positions. The role of the progressive activists, grassroots, and netroots is to promote progressive values to biconceptuals both within and outside the Democratic Party to activate the progressive beliefs they already have, and to extend them further by speaking a progressive language and using progressive values, ideas, and arguments. The goal is not just to move the Democrats in a more progressive direction, but to move Republicans and independents in that direction as well. The idea is to benefit the nation, not just the party.
This move on Lakoff's part appears to be more harmonious with Frances Moore Lappe, who had earlier criticized Lakoff's nuclear family metaphors:
In this progressive moral vision we strive to live in strong communities -- safer and more viable than ones that rely on a strict father, who on deeper examination may turn out to be only a stubborn loner, a bully bringing on the very threats from which he claims to protect us? [...] Let's choose frames that capture what most people intuit: We all share one small -- shrinking -- planet, and our real hope therefore lies in creating strong communities.
This linguistic harmonization -- empathy + responsibility + community -- could be a big breakthrough for progressives. It's time we test out the language on some "real people" out there, not just us political junkies. We need to confirm that we're on the right track this time.