Political Leaders as “Protective Fathers”: Democrats need to Contest Republican “Strength” in Warfighting

In previous posts, I’ve outlined how political dominance comes about through capturing the cultural middle and high ground and making one’s positions commonsensical through the clever use of language as well as through disseminating facts that support one’s view of the world. I brought in Gramsci’s notion of hegemony to describe how secure political leadership is achieved through not simply a focus on the “issues” but also an attunement to cultural trends and traditions. While for me as for Gramsci himself, the right seems to have intuitively understood how to achieve hegemony better than the left, there is a counterargument from the far right that the media and US cultural institutions are already successful left-wing Gramsci-esque propagandists and subversive of traditional American values as construed by the far right.

Leaving this argument aside, which will degenerate quickly into a “he says, she says” kind of dispute, it appears that political actors of any stripe are now saddled with a disastrously misconceived Middle East/Iraq/Iran policy. Current political leaders, who happen to be Republican and conservative have been able to achieve a hegemony over political discourse about security and war over the last 30 years against which the Democrats have been able to make very little headway. While George Bush did not campaign in 2000 by tapping into this perception of Republican strength in national security, post 9-11 Bush has become the embodiment, even a caricature of what Republicans think strength is and what most Americans have come to associate as acting the strong man.

Democrats, in order to succeed in the upcoming mid-term elections, (and I am thinking about Ned Lamont in particular) need to be able to come across as strong and protective of the American people in a way that is differentiated from Republicans but not purely reactive to them. In recent history, they have not been able to connect well in this category, particularly ever since the Reagan-Carter contest in 1980. When they have tried to go in this direction, they have usually selected someone who may have a resume that has national security or military credentials but have not been able to “perform” as the stronger. Rep. Jack Murtha, who has a military background, is probably an exception and his credibility in this realm is difficult to transfer to other Dems. The Republicans, on the other hand, even if they have no military experience to speak of, seem to have created a “gesture” that evinces strength independent of who is speaking.

I am going to suggest below a wholesale re-definition of strength in a networked, interdependent world that if pursued aggressively by Democrats can help turn the tide and redefine what will make us secure in an era of anti-Western sentiment within the Islamic world and beyond.

George Lakoff, whom I credit as the one Democratic strategist with a holistic vision similar in scope to that of Republican strategists like Richard Viguerie, Kevin Philips in his former form, Karl Rove, and Frank Luntz, has a major problem in his suggestions for Democrats (“Don’t think of an Elephant”) which is diagnostic of perhaps a deeper dilemma for Dems. As I have noted in an earlier post, Lakoff wants Democrats and liberals to defend, what he calls their “nurturant parent” values as contrasted to the “stern father” morality that he feels is prevalent among conservative Republicans. A lack of defense of this position, he feels, has led to Republican and conservative dominance on the political scene, even during the Clinton years. Conservative Republicans are confident in their morality and portray it as such, while Democrats seem unsure and apologetic.

I believe Democrats need to fashion a new synthesis that is not strictly nurturant parent but is also what I am calling “protective father” morality or values. I am very advised {meaning I am using this word advisedly – zoon} in using “protective father” rather than “protective parent” and I will explain. I believe Lakoff had something of a failure of nerve in explaining his system and understanding the inherent problems in the division of moralities in which he outlined. The paragon of nurturance in most families continues to be a female parent, i.e. the mother. Fathers can be and are nurturing but it is not usually their specialty and they are usually required to have the role of protector and rule maker as well, though not in all families. While I believe his “stern father” observation about the Republicans is psychologically correct, his calling the Democratic equivalent “nurturant PARENT” with no apologies or modifications was named out of political correctness. As he was naming a role or psychological construct, he could have been forgiven for calling it “nurturant MOTHER”.

Furthermore, the Republicans continue to benefit from deep anxieties that Americans have about gender roles, which the Democrats are now almost required NOT to uphold. It is not as though there are not strong, even masculine-acting, Republican women, Condi Rice for one. But programmatically, the Republicans are about reinforcing gender roles, or this has a place at least on the conservative wing of the party, even as women or gays can and may achieve high rank within the party. Gender roles are going to be around for a very long time, even as there is increasing equality of opportunity. A determinedly sex-neutral political language can further exacerbate these gender anxieties, particularly when there are physical threats, economic uncertainty, and therefore regression to more childlike states in the population. I believe it is counterproductive for Democrats to forefront an attempt to emancipate society from these roles as the fiasco with Gavin Newsom’s urge to campaign for gay marriage PRIOR TO the 2004 elections shows. The nation is currently facing graver and more pressing issues, as much as this type of statement may chagrin gay readers. Therefore, I believe it makes sense to assign positive gestural roles to the sexes at least for political purposes.

The solution, I believe is to EXPAND the gestural roles that the Democrats play and in this case, I am suggesting that “protective father” is one role that Democrats should easily be able to portray with positive effect. I believe this role is not just a bit of political stagecraft but has actual political content and suggestions for action that are authentically Democratic and liberal. I will highlight some of the advantages of the “protective father” role with regard to issues of national security below:

Protective Father: National Security

• Reinforces and Builds Friendships/Alliances
• Looks ahead to Future threats and countermoves; thinks beyond immediate situation
• Shows the world the capability for negative reciprocity (retaliation)
• Will fight valiantly for his children; even to self-sacrifice
• Will talk to enemies if it will protect family over the longer term

This sketch of the protective father role contains within it the seeds for an attack on the profligate use of our defensive resources by the Bush Administration and by Democrats who are too close to that Administration, i.e. Lieberman. The most glaring resource that the Democrats seem to have overlooked is that WE HAVE LOST MANY FRIENDS through our Iraq adventure. While I am thinking about how Ned Lamont can make the most of his primary victory, any number of other Democrats including women Democrats could potentially don the gestural role of protective father, though there are some pitfalls to being a “warlike protective mother”.

If you are dismissing what I am writing about right now as “psycho-babble” or the like, ask yourself how Republicans maintain their poll lead over the Democrats in fighting terrorism despite all the windfalls they have given Islamic radicals in reality. How is this so? It’s true, the American public is spectacularly ill-informed or not particularly interested in international politics so that might account for some of this.

It is my wager, though, that the American public has simply fallen for the gestural role of “Vengeful Father/Bully” that Bush has assumed post 9/11 and continues to re-exploit whenever the perception of danger escalates. This Vengeful Father/Bully role is rooted in old experience for most Americans because we knew someone who was the bully when we grew up. In our childish way, we thought we would be safe if we were on the side of the Bully or escaped the wrath of an angry father. I don’t think Democrats have taken seriously enough the primitive nature of the attachment to that set of schoolyard roles which Bush and his Administration re-enacts and to which they have as of yet no effective answer.

Therefore, if Democrats are able to attack the Bully role from the point of view of the protective father as outlined above, the reality portion of the Bush administration’s and its apologist’s exploits would become clearer to most people. For instance the bungling of the Iraq war can be seen as entirely an enactment of the Vengeful Father/Bully role in which there was simply no planning and violence was thought to have a magical impact upon that part of the world, suddenly yielding a liberal democratic ally. The PROFLIGATE WASTE of sympathy for the USA post 9/11 was clearly the move of an emotionally driven Vengeful Father/Bully rather than a circumspect but powerful Protective Father. The usefulness of friendships and allies against radical Islamicist networks was overlooked by the Vengeful Father/Bully, etc.

I think Democrats need to proceed aggressively and understand the psychological needs of the American public as much as they need to talk about policy differences. Luckily what I am proposing here suggests policy directions as well as a coherent, psychologically recognizable role for Democrats that is positive and productive.

Advertisement