The Other McCain

by Smitty (via Volokh)

Is it a tax or not a tax. . . shows the need both to revisit first principles and to admit when they have reached their limit. The distinction between taxes as internal to the country, and regulation of commerce is external to the border, is a good one.

Note that the tax/regulation distinction can be stated simply.

Note the general confusion concerning the funding nature of ObamaCare. Is it commerce, is it a tax, is it regulation of inactivity? The smartest guys in the room cannot, while coloring within the lines, make a simple statement of what picture ObamaCare paints and how it squares with America as we know it.

Every GOP candidate should be running on sticking a fork in ObamaCare as a first-day task.

by Smitty

Power Line catches us up on the ‘curious’ nature of the Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville, PA:

Rawls, Burnett and others have lodged additional criticisms of the design. They say that the crescent points toward Mecca and is, in fact, a traditional Islamic mihrab. They point out that one of the memorial’s most striking features (not yet constructed, I believe) is the Tower of Voices, which they describe as “a year-round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial.” It is shaped–wait for it–like a crescent, and 40 wind chimes hang inside it, representing the 40 dead passengers and crew members.

Now, if Islam is a religion of peace, and terrorism is against Islam, then where is the host of imams decrying this clear tying of an evil terrorist act to their faith?

I should think they would demand a re-design, STAT. I mean, arranging the grave markers at Srebrenica in the shape of a fish would have been roughly as tasteful. And, presumably, unintelligible to adherents of the faith whose symbol is so utilized.

by Smitty

Dear George Lakoff,

I used to think that Lefties held beliefs. Now I’m not so sure. Can you ground this argument about intimidation and framing in real history, starting with the Founders?

Reading your PuffHo post, it sounds as though you may be the heir to Chomsky. You’re making weighty-sounding pronouncements, which arrive like a flatbed load of lumber for the audience to assemble into who knows what. What are your first principles? What do you hold absolutely true? If you are one of those no-truth intellectual invertebrates, then how do you argue against anything, conservative or otherwise?

Wishing you made more clear sense,

Chris

The mechanism of intimidation is framing, not just the use of words or slogans, but rather the changing of what voters take as right as a matter of principle. Framing is much more than mere language or messaging. A frame is a conceptual structure used to think with. Frames come in hierarchies. At the top of the hierarchies are moral frames. All politics is moral. Politicians support policies because they are right, not wrong. The problem is that there is more than one conception of what is moral. Moreover, voters tend to vote their morality, since it is what defines their identity. Poor conservatives vote against their material interests, but for their moral identity.

All language activates frames in the brain. Conservative language activates conservative frames, which activate conservative moral worldviews in the brains of those who hear the language. The more those frames are activated, the stronger the conservative moral views get in people’s brains.

When Democrats are intimidated into using conservative language, they help conservatives, even if they are arguing against them. Here’s why. The main voters you want to affect are the bi-conceptuals, those who are conservative on some issues and progressive on others; that is, those who have both conservative and progressive moral worldviews, but on different issues. They are sometimes misnamed as “the center,” “independents,” or “moderates.” But they do not have any single overriding worldview. Instead they have two. Given the way brains work, the activation of one worldview will inhibit the other worldview. The more one is activated, the stronger it gets and the weaker the opposite one gets. The worldview that is most activated by the public discourse they hear will most likely govern how they will vote. What activates one worldview versus another? Framing. Conservative language activates conservative frames, which activate conservative worldviews. If Democrats use conservative language, even to argue against it, they are just helping conservatives.

To a large extent, Democrats don’t understand this. They think that language is neutral and that reason works by logic. If you just tell people the facts and reason logically, everyone should be convinced. But they aren’t, because language works by framing and by brain mechanisms. Framing is just the normal way people think and talk. Conservatives tend to understand this. They avoid using liberal language. They frame issues very carefully to fit their goals. Democrats need to do the same — avoid using conservative frames and instead frame the issues with their own values.

Maybe somebody else can RTWT and tell me if there was a point other than whining about having lost the tempo in the public discourse.

by Smitty

iOwnTheWorld:

Ulsterman: Stop right there. Did you just say that the Obama administration wants to unionize the American military?

Wall Street: Oh my – look at you now! That’s got you a bit riled does it?

Ulsterman: Are you being serious?

Wall Street: Oh yes. Absolutely serious. A bit over a year…perhaps a year-and-a-half ago. A younger gentleman who was said to be with the administration – affiliated with the DOJ actually – these people were crawling all over everything at that time. That situation itself was enough to sour many of us on the Obama White House. They would walk in as if they owned you. Wall Street had become a plantation. Ironic, isn’t it? But that’s how it felt. It’s improved somewhat, but not enough. Not nearly enough…

One might argue that the military-industrial complex, of the four branches of the DoD, or the various parochial communities within hte services exhibit some union-esque behaviors at times. Then there are all of the political lobbies championing veteran’s causes.

So what, other than creating a dues system to siphon dues money into Democrat party coffers, would this idea solve?

Hmmm, if you wanted to weaken the U.S. military, a mechanism to allow group insubordination (i.e. mutiny) would probably do the trick.

Peradventure one supposed that such existed, it would be met with derision and scorn. Like an unnatural sexual pairing.