On Demand
Irrational Voters
Why do people vote against their own interests? Linguist and professor George Lakoff, author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain, says it's all about language. Moreover, he argues, if political progressives want to put a Democrat in the White House, they need to employ the latest in cognitive science.
Event: George Lakoff will be reading tonight at 7pm at McNally Robinson, 52 Prince Street, New York, NY.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
I was struck by the difference in how the candidates addressed the nation last night. Both used "we" 24 times in their speechs. However Mrs. Clinton used "I" 64 times and "me" 18 times, whereas Obama said "I" 30 times and "me" only twice.
Is this rhetoric evidence of how Obama projected a persona of humility and greater emphasis on collective participation? Is this one reason why someone like Obama who lacked the brand recognition of a Clinton was able to draw people into his believing his vision for a unified America?
Man where cn I get some of this Kool iad...not the rhetoric of the speech!...thats all it is!...nothing of substance!Brian this guy is embarrassing...so now we have a leader that teaches us human kindness....stop the bus I wanna get off
How much of this is generational? has the death of the soundbyte online turned us all into activists?
"Joe Corrao"
completely agree. I want some of the "yes we can" "change" kool-aid it must be good and smooth on its way down, but i wonder how it feels when it has to come out?
"Why do people vote against their own interests?"
This assumes Democrats represent their interests.
Please point to Democratic initiatives that demonstrate this.
Yes, 17th century thinking is involved here as it has since the 17th century. Phew, I am finally being vindicated, I'm not just crazy. .... Alright, maybe I am crazy but I am being vindicated too.
Oy! I like the Obama ideal of foreign policy this guy put out but the definition of bi-partisan - gie me a break. Successful bi-partisanship is finding common ground with people on the other side and working with them. McCain, Clinton and Obama have done this. This notion that Obama is somehow post-partisan is a fantasy.
I love you George Lakoff ... !
I hope your wisdom will help Obama lead the nation towards a more compassionate America .
#3 & #5
Your cynicism is tedious and myopic.
Have fun staying that way.
I agree with #6. I keep hearing people saying that the middle/lower class vote against their interest by voting Republican, but no one ever really explains how.
bh 6
minimum wage for one. the list is long
#3
Underestimating the "rhetoric of speech" is why the dems always lose. It's important in our media driven politics, plain and simple.
I've long felt that political discourse in the US is a mess because of linguistic confusion: Current Republicans are not conservative but reactionary/utopian (reactionary because they want to take us back to some idealized version of the 1950s, utopian because the 1950s were not nearly as idyllic as they would have us believe). Democrats are not liberal (the British Economist is liberal) but, um, not sure what they are, social democrats perhaps? Caucasians are not all white (as a matter of fact, the very term "Caucasian" is an outdated, unscientific classification that ought to be retired), and an entree is not a main course. (End of rant)
#2
Yes
Lakoff is suggesting that Obama's empathy is his strength, when I believe it is actually a great weakness. I am not saying that empathy itself is a weakness, but when empathy is seen as your campaign's strong point--and not actual policies--that can be dangerous. Empathy is great, but voters who support a candidate because he can use this quality to shape policies are somewhat illusioned. We don't need someone who has empathy. We need someone who can stop thinking about the best way to approach a problem, and to attack it. This is a softness in thinking that can't survive politics, and anyone who believes so is veiled from real problems.
I'm enjoying your radio program online. "The Enlightenment View" may be a boogeyman here. Clearly there were numerous views during the Enlightenment, not all compatible. This milieu formed only a part of the context into which the American political experience was born. That too has evolved.
In fact, the family of views of the Enlightenment derived from the traditions of the Reformation, the instututions underlying them, and indeed the fabric of Greco-Roman meta-culture.
Lakoff implies that somehow Obama's 'empathy' makes him different - and that his concept of bipartisanship is different from the other candidates. Not true: Obama's position on universal health care is a typical example of 'Clintonian' triangulation. There are many other examples. Lakoff should do his research better.
AWN...when did someone running for president NOT say they were gonna chnage the way washington works yada yada yada...c'mon I've been around this block a few times...It bothers me to no end that Obama has reached cult status on NOTHING more than words instead of deeds. When he gives his speech and says we are gonna do everything for everyone and solve all the problems (I'm dumbing it down of course)...i say ya sure...health Care for all, ,protect Israel and pull out of Iraq...sounds to me like he is feeding us the standard lines. I think its because I don't think we need a "spiritual" leader, and his strongest supporters have bought into his messiah-ness and the old "yes we can" mentality, w/o how figuring out "how we do."...
as far as being a cynic u are dead wrong... i get up everyday early and attack the problems and jobs ahead of me and don't worry about what others will do for me...I don't need a nanny
#8
What he described was working with the other side by finding common ground without comprimising one's own beliefs (something that appropriately has been called "waffling")
That seems much more like true bi-partisanship" than the Hillary/McCain way of adopting whatever is politically convenient at the moment i.e. Hillary adopting Republican beliefs when appropriate, as he described-- That's NOT bi-partisanship...that's just being an opportunist..that's having no core beliefs...that's just plain ol' selling out and why people are so cynical of politicians in the first place!
Finding common ground without compromising your beliefs seems a much better way to strive for, sorry.
#19
If you don't think that the rhetoric that the repubs have been using contrasted with that of the dems for the last 20 years or so matters...then you have not been paying attention
#21..it's ALL rhetoric...we have allowed it to be nothing more...
Sincerity: if you can fake it, you've got it made. ---Daniel Schorr
Sen. Obama sounds very sincere when he speaks about compassion. However, when he voted for tariffs to protect domestic corn-based ethanol production, he showed little compassion for the hungry in developing countries, or even in the U.S. This is but one example. He's a Chicago politician who has been described as a rank-and-file Democrat. Can he believed when he talks about change?
Joe #19
I understand your perspective on Obama's speeches. As transcendent, hopeful and inclusive as they are, they're being made within a presidential campaign after all.
But to insult people who are inspired by him is pompous, unnecessary and self serving. What have these people done besides vote for, work hard for, and become politically engaged by their candidate of choice.
AWN good call...but where did I exactly insult anyone...and off point why do so few people use there names...whats wrong with people knowing who says waht on this board?
and as if you didn't know I am a Ron Paul supporter...I'VE been insulted a few times because of that over the last year
Joe #25
I took your "kool iad" statement as a digg at Obama supporters, it is often used to do so. If I was wrong, I apologize.
When I was in university, I took a War in Western Society class taught by a grizzled old Korean War veteran. One day, he told us how he got his gold star. He said, he drew out his whole battle plan before hand in pencil on a map. Then they fought the battle, and once it was over, he erased everything he'd drawn in and drew in what actually happened.
The point is that saying exactly what you're going to do and lay out a complete road to accomplish a particular objective, you're going to end up throwing out the plan. Obama's been as specific as anybody else, but he's been held to a higher standard by many in terms of the details he's expected to provide. This is partly due to the fact that the media focuses on those inspirational soundbytes.
Mr. Lakoff is delusional if he thinks Obama will be able to win the presidency with a message of caring. The Republicans will force the entire debate to be about “national security” and will paint Democrats as weak on security and terrorism. Unless Obama meets this head-on and argues eloquently that our presence in Iraq wastes security resources and creates a focal point for terrorists to rally around, all the red states will again vote based on fear, as they always do. The caring message is just preaching to the already converted. It has to be a small, ancillary part of the campaign.
Sorry ab #20 but Alvin #23 said it for me. I'm just not buying the "different" thing. He looks like a very ordinary, careful partisan when I look at his voting record. There is nothing wrong with that. That is how you win (also by throwing your opponents off the ballot). It just means he is not different.
Race is one reason, why people vote against
their interest.
Some of my co-workers are spending
$400.00 a month on gasoline, just to
get back and forth to work from Orange County.
They are staying home during their vacation.
One of my co-workers, told me yesterday,
that he is stockpiling can foods, vegatebles and
such.
They are worried about health insurance,
social security, college money for their
kids, yet they will not vote for
Obama because he is black and will not
vote for Hillary because she is a woman.
They hate the Iraq war, even though the majority were gung ho for the invasion of
Iraq, watching it on television, cheering
for Our Troops.
Some of them have been in Iraq themselves,
or have had kids in Iraq and they no longer
believe in the Iraq war.
Not at all.
They know McCain wants to attack Iran.
They don't like it.
But they will still vote for him,
because he is the only white candidate.
These are regular working people,
yet they are entrenched in their views.
One of them carpools with a black male,
from Orange County, because gasoline has
become so expensive.
They are friends, but they do not talk
politics.
The black guy does, but the white guy
just nods, give short answers.
He tells me, I will never vote for Obama.
I don't understand the attitude,
how deep it is, but it is there.
I am leaning towards Obama myself.
alvin
how does voting for tariffs to protect domestic corn-based ethanol production, show little compassion for the hungry. i don't want the rainforests cut down in brazil & indonesia so people of the sprawl can drive down the NJ turnpike in their SUVs alone.
#33,
you lived through 7 years of bushisms and you're concerned about differences in the candidate between "myself and I"
sorry, but that's insane
you can't even type "not" correctly.
hjs,
Re your post [32]: By voting for tariffs to protect corn-based ethanol, more of America's agricultural output is diverted to fuel production. Many food experts, including some at the UN, say that this has contributed significantly to the runup in grain prices. It's one thing to worry about land use issues in Brazil, and quite another to cause mass hunger or even starvation. Also, note that corn-based ethanol may use more fossil to produce than it replaces.
My point is that Sen. Obama voted for farm interests, not higher humanitarian goals. In this respect, he's closer to Sen. Bob Dole, who was called the Senator from Archer Daniels Midland.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.