Republican's fathers versus Democrat's fathers

[soleft]

In light of

a) the Tweety premise that the Republican party is the "daddy party" and the Democratic party is the "mommy party"

b) the thread about journalists when confronted with LIHOP cannot bring themselves to conceive of the adminstrative committing such a heinous act

c) the blinding faith so many Americans have, hopefully becoming less so, in this so called president and his march toward imperialism

d) the continued high numbers of Americans who believe in an anthromorphic, personal deity (ie. fundamentalists who picture the old man with the long white beard)

I'm wondering if Republican support of Bush is a pattern of behavior whereby people are in living in denial of this dysfunctional man, idealizing him as this perfect parent figure, unable to see his deep flaws and destructive tendencies. A pattern of behavior which began with them idealizing their fathers and living in denial of their flaws and human foibles.

And I'm wondering what kind of relationships Democrats have with their parents. I'm in no way suggesting Democrats can see through to the real Bush because they had dysfunctional or bad parents, therefore have long since abandoned the need for an idealized parent figure,but maybe Democrats are more able to see their own parents, particularly their fathers as human beings with weaknesses, capable of making mistakes, large and small, and therefore can see the frail and dangerously unqualified man behind the curtain.

I can tell you that my 80 year old mother says of Bush, "He's a good man" in the same voice that she talks of her own father, who I know was a verbally abusive rageaholic. As for my own father, he is a good man, but I am fully aware of his limitations and do not look to him as pillar of wisdom and Robert Youngian support. And I want to see a President who is a an elected chief executive who presides over our government, not a savior who will lead us into salvation, or damnation in Bush's case.

[Demobrat]

1. Well, I never had a father or father figure at all, ever.

No idea what that's like. And Bush is everything I hate and fear in a man. A big, dumb, drunken, violent lout with no empathy and no conscience. That's how I see him. For what it's worth.

[rwheeler31]

3. We are the Mommy and Daddy party.

We taught our kids to observe to question and to read and our kids are all Dems.

[efhmc]

4. Good answer. Balanced and thoughtful parenting.

[efhmc]

2. Just curious to know why being the female parent is considered to be

less desirable than the male. Oh, excuse me, I forgot that we live in a country that thinks the male concept of "bring it on" is one of courage and character and that the concept of diplomacy and peace to be female and therefore weak and passive. I guess I answered my own question.

[scarletwoman]

5. Liberals=nurturing family model, Conservatives=authoritarian family model

I find George Lakoff's analysis to be right on the mark.

Here's his book about this concept:
Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think

And here's an informative interview with the author from TOMPAINE.COM:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7747

TomPaine.com: When your book Moral Politics was first published in 1996, its subtitle was "What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don’t." In its latest edition, the subtitle is "How Liberals and Conservatives Think." Whether you’re focused on what they know, or how they think, your thesis is that both parties operate from a model of the family.

George Lakoff: Yes, all Americans have the basic metaphor of the nation as family, where we have Founding Fathers, and we send our sons and daughters to war, and so on.

And politics is connected with the family via this metaphor, and connected very, very deeply. There are two different ideal models of the family that I'll call a Strict Father Family and a Nurturing Parent Family.... And this metaphor maps those models of the family onto our national moral and political life. And what you get are two very, very different models of the family, and with them two very, very different models of politics.

Here’s how those differences play out. If you have the Strict Father models of the family then you’re assuming that the world is a difficult place and always will be, that children are born bad and have to be made good, that the job of the father is to be a moral authority, to protect the family, to support the family....

<snip>

On the progressive parents’ side, the idea of a nurturing family is very, very different. There it is assumed that the world should become a nurturing place, should become a safe place, a healthy place. And that children are born good and should be kept that way and developed. That the idea of a parent is to nurture children, and to raise children to be nurturers as well....

This implies many things.... First a nurturant parent has to be fair, promote fairness. You’re not empathetic toward someone if you’re not fair with them.... Protection is an important value. Think of the things that nurturing parents want to protect their children from, not just crime and drugs but also cars without seat belts, tobacco, chemicals in the environment, unscrupulous businesses, namely all the things that liberals would like the government to protect citizens from.

(much more...)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Imho, Lakoff makes total sense...

sw