The Day of the Just, Punishing Father...

[sealchan]

With Trump's perserverence regarding the separation of children from their parents as an outgrowth of his administration's policy of zero-tolerance, we can see the very limits of the idea of that stern, but fair Father figure who we trust that if he causes harm, it is for a greater good. Each side struggles to deal with strong feelings by telling themselves and others stories of why this is and is not fair.

But none of that really matters as we are all in the grip of psychological forces which few of us understand and those few may still find it hard to transcend.

There are two strong "frames" (a oftentimes complex system of neurally reinforced metaphors for understanding reality) for understanding how a person in authority over us should treat us and for how we may tolerate some level of discomfort or even pain from those people should that occur: the Just but Punishing Father and the Compassionate but Critical Mother. It doesn't take too much to figure out which role model applies to which political party or political attitude (conversative vs liberal).

The answer, however, is clear. In any marriage of "mother" and "father" (and I do not wish to rule out same sex relationships here...consider this on an abstract, archetypal or psychological level) there is a conflict and a resolution...a struggle to maintain a partnership. But we should all know that between these two stereotypes there is a way to strike a balance and establish an active harmony (a harmony with perpetual but overall managed conflict).

This is the dialog I wish to introduce into political discourse (thanks to the inspiration of George Lakoff) and which we need to heal the breach caused currently by a most emphatically Just but Punishing Father figure that Trump so imperfectly (Just? really?) plays in the psyches of his base. But the liberals need to tone it down as well as their shrill cries of injustice go too far at times. Trump may be the closest thing to Satan we might see on the world's moral stage, but he is, after all, still a human being. Let's not make an evil martyr out of him.

So it seems that people in general treat their government as if they were, in the main, parental figures and how they interpret their governors depends on their unconscious understanding of what a parent is. We accept discomfort under certain conditions. Should we work towards a more hierarchical, authoritarian (but presumably just because morally disciplined) moral system or should we establish a more cooperative and enforced sharing (presumed just because morally compassionate) sort of morality? Or can we be mature enough to create a balance of both?

 

[Debater Slayer]

With Trump's perserverence regarding the separation of children from their parents as an outgrowth of his administration's policy of zero-tolerance, we can see the very limits of the idea of that stern, but fair Father figure who we trust that if he causes harm, it is for a greater good. Each side struggles to deal with strong feelings by telling themselves and others stories of why this is and is not fair.

But none of that really matters as we are all in the grip of psychological forces which few of us understand and those few may still find it hard to transcend.

There are two strong "frames" (a oftentimes complex system of neurally reinforced metaphors for understanding reality) for understanding how a person in authority over us should treat us and for how we may tolerate some level of discomfort or even pain from those people should that occur: the Just but Punishing Father and the Compassionate but Critical Mother. It doesn't take too much to figure out which role model applies to which political party or political attitude (conversative vs liberal).

The answer, however, is clear. In any marriage of "mother" and "father" (and I do not wish to rule out same sex relationships here...consider this on an abstract, archetypal or psychological level) there is a conflict and a resolution...a struggle to maintain a partnership. But we should all know that between these two stereotypes there is a way to strike a balance and establish an active harmony (a harmony with perpetual but overall managed conflict).

This is the dialog I wish to introduce into political discourse (thanks to the inspiration of George Lakoff) and which we need to heal the breach caused currently by a most emphatically Just but Punishing Father figure that Trump so imperfectly (Just? really?) plays in the psyches of his base. But the liberals need to tone it down as well as their shrill cries of injustice go too far at times. Trump may be the closest thing to Satan we might see on the world's moral stage, but he is, after all, still a human being. Let's not make an evil martyr out of him.

So it seems that people in general treat their government as if they were, in the main, parental figures and how they interpret their governors depends on their unconscious understanding of what a parent is. We accept discomfort under certain conditions. Should we work towards a more hierarchical, authoritarian (but presumably just because morally disciplined) moral system or should we establish a more cooperative and enforced sharing (presumed just because morally compassionate) sort of morality.

Who knew we needed a lengthy, philosophical breakdown of psychology to know that taking away children from innocent parents and locking them in cages was a bad idea?

Also, regarding this part:

With Trump's perserverence regarding the separation of children from their parents as an outgrowth of his administration's policy of zero-tolerance, we can see the very limits of the idea of that stern, but fair Father figure who we trust that if he causes harm, it is for a greater good. Each side struggles to deal with strong feelings by telling themselves and others stories of why this is and is not fair.

But none of that really matters as we are all in the grip of psychological forces which few of us understand and those few may still find it hard to transcend.

I can't emphasize just how much I loathe such hesitant, compromising, half-baked stances on moral issues. No, it really does matter whether or not we find it fair to mistreat children of innocent people for nothing more than political gains. We're not talking about some inconsequential event or a baseball game; we're talking about the lives and well-being of people, including children.

 

[sealchan]

Who knew we needed a lengthy, philosophical breakdown of psychology to know that taking away children from innocent parents and locking them in cages was a bad idea?

Also, regarding this part:



I can't emphasize just how much I loathe such hesitant, compromising, half-baked stances on moral issues. No, it really does matter whether or not we find it fair to mistreat children of innocent people for nothing more than political gains. We're not talking about some inconsequential event or a baseball game; we're talking about the lives and well-being of people, including children.

Right but how do we understand people who seem to accept that these children's suffering is acceptable? Are these people merely evil?

What Trump supporters think of family separations at the border - CNN

If you know or meet one of these people, will you just rant at them to no effect? Or maybe you might choose a little tact and recognize the value of being held accountable for breaking a rule or a law. Then and only then, might you bring them to a more balanced perspective that there are more moderate ways to implement "consequences" such as ramping up arrests of illegal workers and fining the companies that hire them.

ICE arrests more than 100 workers in surprise raid on Ohio-based meat supplier Fresh Mark - CNN

Politics is the art of knowing and influencing a wide range of people to come together to build a "more perfect union". It is hard work and it doesn't often feel good, but it is important and needs to be done responsibly. Otherwise apathy might leave us with more horrible representatives such as the one we have currently in the White House.

 

[Audie]

I loathed Trump before this, now
it has gone beyond the dictionary.

 

[sealchan]

I loathed Trump before this, now
it has gone beyond the dictionary.

This may be the first time I have ever had to give up the use of a word in the English (American) language, i.e. "trump", due to a too painful historical experience of that word in another context.

 

[Audie]

This may be the first time I have ever had to give up the use of a word in the English (American) language, i.e. "trump", due to a too painful historical experience of that word in another context.

The rules of bridge (is that the game?) may have to change.