 |
 |
 |
|
Lakoff
My view is that Lakoff (I know the guy both professionally and personally) is interested in reframing the progressive platform. This amounts to re-languaging it, but not rethinking it. Whatever new language the Democrats used in 2004 failed to change the outcome, and at most it'll enable Democrats to eke out a few electoral victories in the coming years. It's changing the window treatment, not the view, not the perspective. What's needed, and it could come from either party, is the kind of political realignment we get once every 50 years. This pulls a sizeable majority from the vast non-ideological, sensible middle of the political spectrum, and creates a real mandate for some fundamental changes. Like those that FDR and LBJ presided over. Like the universal health care and campaign reform we need now. I sense that America is approaching another such tipping point. To actually tip, we need a core unifying idea to rally around, and equally we need a name for what it is we'll no longer put up with. For the unifying idea I suggest "Dignity For All." (The bumper sticker goes 'Dignity4All' and they're being created by a woman in Kansas.) The constellation of behaviors and practices "up with which we will not put" all fall into a basket labelled RANKISM. Rankism is defined as abuse of the power inherent in rank. It's the culprit. It's the cause of indignity. It's the source of the most vexing political problems troubling Americans, from Katrina to Abu Ghraib to corporate corruption to bought politicians and elections. But most disturbingly, it is the cause of the emergence of an entrenched class locked in permanent poverty. America without the American Dream is not America...and it is fast becoming a mirage. This must be reversed, and it's going to take once-a-generation political realignment to do it. The goal then is to build a dignity movement that supports democracy taking its next evolutionary step. In the sixties the step we needed to take was to overcome racism; in the seventies we trained our sights on sexism; now we need to target rankism-in all its guises. And they are many: bully bosses, sexually abusive clerics, research-appropriating professors, liberty-threatening politicians, condescending doctors, arrogant bureaucrats, tantram-throwing coaches. Wherever there is a hierarchy, it's susceptible to abuse by power-holders of high rank. But neither rank nor hierarchy are inherently, necessarily abusive. Actually, we admire, even love, people who earn high rank and handle it with grace and respect for those they outrank. What we cannot abide, what causes indignity, is abuse of rank. In a word, rankism. And we do need a word. It wasn't until the women's movement had the word "sexism" at its disposal that it made the gains it's now known for: equal pay for equal work; the right to choose; Title IX, etc. To bring about social change, it's not enough to know what you're for; you also have to know what you're against. The dignity movement is for a dignitarian (not an egalitarian) society and it is against rankism. That's it in a nutshell. Like any far-reaching analysis of social justice, the full story is a longer, more complex one. For a primer on the dignity movement go to its home on the web at http://www.breakingranks.net If you're in a hurry, there's a 1 minute video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_EOBvA04U
|
