Replies

The "strict father" vs. "nurturing parents" paradigm proposal is actually quite a useful one, most of all in that both conservatives and liberals tend to see >themselves< well described in the category to which he assigns them.

What's interesting to me is that each tends >not< to agree with that framework's description of the >other< side. In other words, I disagree that liberalism is particularly nurturing a way to bring up children, or society, in that it tends to strand people in dependency or degeneracy, without the lodestar they need to live happily and reasonably, and thrust upon society at large the costs of dependent and degenerate conduct. Liberals, similarly, don't credit conservatives with the altruism, self-sufficiency and egalitarianism which runs through the "strict father" framework's description. They prefer to believe that conservatives are animated by xenophobia and greed, and that conservative tendencies to authority are driven by a desire to dominate rather than a desire to be a loving provider and enforcer of guidance and standards.

The best and most useful frameworks are those with 360 recognition: useful for everyone to identify both themselves and everyone else. They provide a natural common ground, or at least rationalize issues down to a clear argument.

His "framing" argument is obviously true, as well, although less original (many of his observations are staples of rhetoric), but his suggestion that the left is systematically less competent at it seems unlikely to me. Liberals have successfully defended some fairly noxious policies (affirmative action, denying school choice to poor kids, state-enforced multiculturalism) with adept framing.