The Public vs. The Private

Oh, how I wish progressives/liberals/Democrats would heed George Lakoff!

In his piece, "The Wisconsin Blues," he says, "The Wisconsin recall vote should be put in a larger context. What happened in Wisconsin started well before Scott Walker became governor and will continue as long as progressives let it continue."

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11880-focus-the-wisconsin-blues

In brief, Lakoff's premise is that the issue boils down to The Public vs. The Private and who's willing to put up the most dough to prevail.

Progressives believe that The Public is the mechanism "through which the government provides resources that make private life and private enterprise possible: roads, bridges and sewers, public education, a justice system, clean water and air, pure food, systems for information, energy and transportation, and protection both for and from the corporate world. No one makes it on his or her own. Private life and private enterprise are not possible without The Public. Freedom does not exist without The Public."

Regressives believe the role of democracy is to provide "maximal liberty to seek one’s self-interest without being responsible for the interests of others. The best people are those who are disciplined enough to be successful. Lack of success implies lack of discipline and character, which means you deserve your poverty. From this perspective, The Public is immoral, taking away incentives for greater discipline and personal success, and even standing in the way of maximizing private success. The truth that The Private depends upon The Public is hidden from this perspective. The Public is to be minimized or eliminated."

So, why does the regressive point of view prevail?

According to Lakoff (and I've read/heard this many times before) decades ago, wealthy regressives and corporate interests developed and financed "an extensive communication system of think tanks, framing specialists, training institutes, booking agencies and media, funded by wealthy conservatives."

Progressive counterparts, according to Lakoff, "have not funded progressive communication in the same way to bring progressive moral values into everyday public discourse." (Evoking the name of George Soros does not equate.)

"The result is that conservatives have managed to get their moral frames to dominate public discourse on virtually every issue."

According to another article I just read, "Jesus, the Radical Economist," 

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/06/11/jesus-the-radical-economist/

 in today's regressive/TPer/conservative world, Jesus, who was financially poor, would not be one of "the best people" but would "lack discipline and character" and deserve his poverty.

That is not conservatism. It's a Teflon, self-comforting rationalization of non-Christian me-ism posturing as conservatism, which to me is regressive rather than conservative principles.