Nice summary. I have not read Moral Politics, but it looks consistent with what I understand from Whose Freedom, the revised edition of Don't Think of an Elephant, and the discussions I've heard over the years as the books have been released.
I agree that Lakoff falls short in his application sometimes. At times he sounds too dismissive of reason and too willing to accept that frames are immutable and have to be worked through rather than worked on. And some of those alternative frames are real groaners.
People complain (or gloat) all the time about how easy it is to manipulate public opinion. It's easy because most people don't think about how they think. Explaining how frames work on us educates people about the ways they can be manipulated and empowers them to be more critical of the messages they're getting. Rove and Co. get away with what they do partly because nobody talks about it.
Granted, making the audience smarter makes working through frames harder, but I think that's just an incentive for them to be stronger, more honest messages based on broader community interests. In the long run I think the result would be a bigger, better-thinking tribe capable of enlightened introspection and good judgment. That's sounds better to me than two cliques fighting for control of deluded crowd.
As for resistance to the "nuturing parent" metaphor, it's always worth considering the possibility that it's daddy's fault.
cheers,
I think the problem is more that I'm not convinced that the family metaphor is the only, or best, one to use. And while I can understand the whole "well, we shouldn't abandon the parent metaphor" idea that seems to underlie the "nurturant parent" comment, the problem is that the very term itself uses what most Americans would consider weak, ineffective terminology, especially compared to the simplicity and strength of "strong father".
"Strong father" conjures up powerful imagery. "Nurturant" never conjures up anything but vague annoyance. You'd think Lakoff would have picked up on that.
(Honestly, his description of the government better fits Doctor Who than anything else. He doesn't try to control everybody and everything, he isn't the Master, but he is very smart and is trying to protect humanity and help humanity reach their potential.)
(Just like a good government.)
I'm not very well versed in Who lore, doesn't it take humanity a few thousand more years to reach that potential in that scenario? The Doctor has the advantage of knowing that it's all supposed to turn out all right in the end, so he doesn't have to interfere with the nuts and bolts of the process, just step in when something's gone "wrong." That is a nice bit of certainty he has that we don't, and he's pretty willing to accept a lot of collateral damage along the way even then. Maybe it would help to think of Lakoff as more of a coach to The Doctor's referee, laying out ground rules and drills for getting there ourselves as a team (family, tribe, species) without depending on the team captain (daddy, chief, Decider) to take responsibility for the tough choices but then turn around and blame the team's weakness when it turns to shit in his hands.
The family metaphor is one tool among many, but it is so foundational in our thinking that its effects are hard to notice (or even describe with objective language, sometimes). The scienceblogs link describes how easily people can fall into using Strict Father Morality when thinking about the model itself. The objections you raised in your comment are consistent with that interpretation. I don't know you but for the blogging, is it possible you're letting your own Strict Father frame dominate your perception of the model?
cheers,
Without getting personal, for obvious reasons:
No.
And, actually, going by current Who lore, it doesn't turn out well in the end. But he keeps trying, since things can change. (And do. It's weird. And complicated.)
Commenting by HaloScan
