Amidst all the mistakes and casting blame, there were some things done well this election. During the general election, I heard one big ask over and over:
What Hillary Clinton Needs to Say to Beat Donald Trump by Julie Sedivy is an detailed plan of how the Clinton campaign could be framing its message to reach across the partisan divide. Twelve years after George Lakoff wrote Don't Think of an Elephant, the Democrats still don't bother to frame their message, they still don't put their core values front and center. Why not?
In Why Trump, George Lakoff divides the Republican party into White Evangelicals, Pragmatic Conservatives, and Laissez-faire free-market proponents. All three flavors of conservatism think about government using a strict father metaphor.
This week Trump is fat-shaming — and now other people are fat-shaming Trump back, pointing out his hypocrisy. Unfortunately, calling out hypocrisy doesn't undermine shame-based politics. Historically hypocrisy seems to be nearly a requirement for using shame to build political movements:
Money is handed to a charity, and the donor gets a few more minutes to talk with a politician. Money changes hands, and an investigation is called off. Which is the bigger story? Obviously, the one with Hillary Clinton in it. Why? It’s not about bias — this happens even on tv stations where the reporters’ personal biases are in her favor. What’s wrong with the Clinton campaign's messaging on corruption? What are the promises and moral foundations of each campaign, and why does corruption stick to with Clinton’s campaign more?
This is a framing exercise, exploring why PolitiFact says Clinton lies much less than typical politicians, yet she still has a terrible reputation? Part of a series looking at how lying is framed, rather than fact-checking as PolitiFact does.
Step 1: Think of 2 or 3 lies by Clinton. And half a dozen by Trump. Write them into a comment below.
Imagine that instead of this being an election, it's a sport, and they are athletes from your favorite team. Plus maybe you and they have all been drinking.
My exploration of the fairness, compassion and efficiency of a $15+ minimum wage.
...
I believe that employers should pay a living wage for a number of reasons:
Many Sanders supporters claim there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. As I write, Democratic Congresspeople are holding a sit-in to demand gun control while Republicans after Orlando still march under the NRA’s orders.
Today they are calling the Republicans out, demanding change, leading. Today there is no doubt there is a difference, and lives are on the line. When corporate give-aways are on the line, it’s much harder to tell the difference.
According to Moral Foundations Theory, conservatives are much more attuned to sacredness or sanctity than liberals are. When I say this to liberals, they often use nature as a counter-example.
Are they wrong? Does cutting down a forest seem to violate fairness to liberals: you didn't plant that forest, so you can't cut it down. Does a forest seem in some way alive, so cutting down a forest lacks compassion to the forest itself?
Or have we found an edge case contradiction to Moral Foundations, where liberals do see sanctity, see a natural order that should not be violated?
