Bill Mitchell — The ‘truth sandwich’ and the impacts of neoliberalism

On June 15, 2018, the OECD released their report – A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility – which provided “new evidence on social mobility in the context of increased inequalities of income and opportunities in OECD and selected emerging economies”. If you are still wondering why the mainstream progressive political parties have lost ground in recent years, or why the Italian political landscape has shifted from a struggle between ‘progressive’ and conservative to one between anti-establishment and establishment (the latter including both the traditional progressive and conservative forces which are now virtually indistinguishable) then this evidence will help. It shows categorically that neoliberalism has failed to deliver prosperity for all. While the full employment era unambiguously created a dynamic environment where upward social mobility and declining inequalities in income, wealth, opportunity were the norm, the more recent neoliberal era has deliberately stifled those processes. It is no longer true that ‘all boats rise on a high tide’. The point is that this is a situation that our governments have allowed to arise and which they can alter if they so choose. We should be forcing them to restore the processes that deliver upward mobility. And that is where the “truth sandwich” comes in. Progressive politicians that bang on about ‘taxing the rich to deliver services to the poor’ or who ask ‘where is the money going to come from’ or who claim the ‘bond markets will rebel’ and all the rest of the neoliberal lying drivel should familiarise themselves with the way the sandwich works. It is a very tasty treat if you assemble it properly.

Progressive strategy.

Satyameva Jayate meaning, "Truth alone triumphs" (Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6). is the national motto of India. It is similar to John 8:32 (NSRV), "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
The ‘truth sandwich’ and the impacts of neoliberalism
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

George Lakoff — Understanding Trump’s Use of Language

Note: This is a follow-up to my previous piece, ‘Understanding Trump’. Please read that piece first.…

Some in the media (Washington Post, Salon, Slate, Think Progress, etc.) have called Trump’s speeches “word salad.” Some commentators have even attributed his language use to “early Alzheimer’s,” citing “erratic behavior” and “little regards for social conventions.” I don’t believe it.

I have been repeatedly asked in media interviews about such use of language by Trump. So far as I can tell, he is simply using effective discourse mechanisms to communicate what his wants to communicate to his audience. I have found that he is very careful and very strategic in his use of language. The only way I know to show this is to function as a linguist and cognitive scientist and go through details.

Complementary to Scot Adams' analysis of Trump based on persuasion.

George Lakoff's Blog

Understanding Trump’s Use of Language

George Lakoff | Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley

Randy Wray — The Answer to the Unemployment Problem Is More Jobs

Amazing that this needs to be pointed out but the monetarists think that either the real interest rate is too high and the neoclassicals think that wages are too sticky. Ten dogs and only nine bones is too much for them to see with the ideological blinders they wear. But progressives? Why don't they get it? Actually, some do. But many of them think that the country is not ready for a public works program politically and propose expanding the safety net instead. But isn't giving money away a harder sell than providing money in exchange for work? And what about the waste of real resources and human potential?

New Economic Perspectives
The Answer to the Unemployment Problem Is More Jobs
L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, University of Missouri at Kansas City
cross posted at Economonitor — Great Leap Forward

George Lakoff — Democratic Strategies Lost Big. Here's an Alternative

Democratic strategists have been segmenting the electorate and seeking individual self-interest-based issues in each electoral block. The strategists also keep suggesting a move to right. This has left no room for the Democrats to have an overriding authentic moral identity that Americans can recognize. 

Those strategists form an infrastructure that all Democrats have come to depend on; not just the candidates, but also the elected officials, Democrats in government, and citizens who either do, or might, find progressive policies morally and practically right. The strategic infrastructure includes PR firms, pollsters, consultants, researchers, trainers, communication specialists, speechwriters, and their funders. 

It is an important and powerful infrastructure and we all depend on it. I believe it is vital to separate this infrastructure from the strategies it has been using. I believe the strategies can be greatly improved so as to give a true, deep, and moral picture of what progressive politics is about - one whose content and authenticity will resonate with, and inspire, a majority of US citizens. 

I have just published a book about how to do this: The ALL NEW Don't Think of an Elephant! It is an updated and much expanded version of the original, which introduced the concept of conceptual framing, which is about ideas, not just about slogans. The present book includes what I have learned over the past decade by bringing to bear results in my academic disciple, the Brain and Cognitive Sciences..…

Truthout | Op-Ed
Democratic Strategies Lost Big. Here's an Alternative
George Lakoff | Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California

Chris Mooney — Surprise: Liberals Are Just as Morally Righteous as Conservatives

Like George Lakoff has been saying. Liberals need to lead with moral arguments as conservative do, instead of leading with reasoned argument. The heart trumps the head in persuasion. Save reasoning for justification of moral argument.

...much research has suggested that the basic moral systems of the left and the right are very different. If you follow George Lakoff, liberals have a "nurturant parent" morality, centered on caring and empathy, as opposed to conservatives' "strict father" morality, centered on rules and obedience. If you follow Jonathan Haidt, meanwhile, then liberals feel strong moral convictions about issues involving harm and fairness, whereas conservatives root their morality in authority, tribalism, and even emotions of disgust.

There's no reason to doubt that these differences are real. But the new study suggests that in spite of them, both the left and the right can get very fired up about politics. And when they let their deep-seated moral emotions drive their political views, they may do so with equal zeal.

Mother Jones
Surprise: Liberals Are Just as Morally Righteous as Conservatives
Chris Mooney

Ezra Klein — The depressing psychological theory that explains Washington

Ezra goes all in on George Lakoff without mentioning Lakorr, apparently not realizing that Lakoff has been saying this for years.

Oftentimes when we think we're engaged in reasoned policy discussion we're actually engaged in complex efforts to rationalize the direction in which our tribal affiliations are pushing us. Psychologists call this motivated reasoning. And they've shown its power in laboratory settings again and again and again….

In theory, the two parties represent distinct political philosophies, and those distinct political philosophies help shape their differing policy agendas. In recent years, there's been a lot of interesting work from psychologists arguing that the differences go even deeper than that: Democrats and Republicans intuitively respond to different underlying moral systems, and so their philosophies actually rest on something more fundamental than mere partisan affiliation.

The problem is that human beings are incredibly good at rationalizing their way to whatever conclusion their group wants them to reach. And most policies can be supported -- or opposed -- on many grounds. It's all about which parts people choose to emphasize.

The Washington Post — Wonkblog
The depressing psychological theory that explains Washington
Ezra Klein

Lambert Strether — Modern Monetary Theory Meets George Lakoff

In Mitchell and Connors’ Figure 3, Step 2 is not “?????”. Appropriate actions must be present! So perhaps there is hope for this MMT research program in political economy; the MMTers are linking metaphor to policy much more directly than Democrats do, which MMT enables them to do. (More hope than simply waiting for all the fresh- and saltwater economists to die off, which is sometimes the only way that a paradigm shift can occur.) We might also take hope from straws in the wind like Warren Mosler publishing in U.S. News, the success of #mintthecoin, and even Obama’s taking The Coin more seriously than people thought at the time. After all, you lose until you win.

So, I can see this research program getting decent traction in our famously free press, but will that translate into traction with policy makers? Time will tell, but the eternal question — Are the elites stupid or evil? — will surely have as great an effect on the outcome as proper framing. And then there’s the public, and their notion of public purpose….

NOTE *** Apparently, in Australia, it’s still possible to use the word progressive without irony. I envy them.

Naked Capitalism
Modern Monetary Theory Meets George Lakoff
Lambert Strether | Corrente

Stephanie Kelton — How to Talk About Debt and Deficits: Don’t Think of an Elephant*

Many economists (perhaps even those who agree with us) refuse to talk about the national debt and government deficits the way we do on this blog. Instead of boldly challenging the assertion that the U.S. faces a long-run debt (or deficit) problem, headline progressives typically do what Jared Bernstein did in his column today — i.e. they pay “obligatory” tribute to the Balanced Budget Gods, thereby reinforcing the case for austerity at some point in the not-so-distant future when we will be forced to to deal with this very bad thing called the government deficit. Followers of my work here and on Twitter know that I refuse to pay homage to the Balanced Budget Gods. Instead, I prefer to shift the burden of proof onto those who contend that the U.S. faces a long-term debt or deficit problem....

Charles Hayden: "God Bless our Warrior-Queen."

Amen to that.

New Economic Perspective
How to Talk About Debt and Deficits: Don’t Think of an Elephant*
Stephanie Kelton | Associate Professor of Economic and Department Chair, University of Missouri at Kansas City

Bill Mitchell — More public infrastructure means higher taxes – False, go to bottom of the class

Metaphors! They are more than a fancy way of emphasising some point – that is, their power goes beyond meagre linguistic construction. The research suggests they are part of our deep mental or neural capacity, which we draw on to sort out facts and ideas. They are conceptual devices intrinsically linked to the way we think abstractly. Metaphorical language reinforces our ideology (worldview) and so it is no surprise that political parties have become very interested in framing their messages using simple and common metaphors which resonate with the way we feel about things. George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist, considers we do not make our political choices on the basis of rational dissection of competing facts and arguments but rather respond to central (or grand) metaphors with reinforce our worldview. We thus consider facts or argument within that framework of thought. I am doing a bit of work in this area as a way of understanding why central Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) propositions (which are so patently obvious and have strong explanatory capacity) evade acceptance among people, even those who express liberal perspectives (in this context meaning – are open to new ideas).

In the 2012 book written by Anat Shenker-Osorio – Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy – we learn that language is a tool that conservatives use to limit what we might consider to be possible. They construct the “economy” in such a way as to distort the way we comprehend economics.

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
More public infrastructure means higher taxes – False, go to bottom of the class
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at the Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory, Australia

James Kwak — Liberty for Whom?

James Kwak jumps into the fray in commenting on Corey Robin's "Nietzsche’s Marginal Children: On Friedrich Hayek" at The Nation.

The Baseline Scenario
Liberty for Whom?
James Kwak
(h/t Mark Thoma at Economist's View)

Mises and Hayek's "liberalism" is really conservatism in disguise, since the basis of political liberalism is that all are created equal, while the basis of political conservatism is that some are better then others and therefore deserve the privilege they are able to garner.

Randy Wray — A New Meme For Money: the EEA presentation

We need a new meme for money.

...We need a social metaphor, a public interest alternative to the private maximization calculus. We need to focus on the positive role played by government, and its use of money to serve us well.

Economonitor — Great Leap Forward
A New Meme For Money: the EEA presentation
L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, UMKC

Daniel Little — Moral intuitions as evolutionary modules

People have moral reactions to the situations they observe around themselves -- within the work environment, in the family, on the street, or in international affairs. This is a psychological fact that is prior to moral philosophy. How should we understand this feature of ordinary human consciousness and cognition?

Jonathan Haidt is a moral psychologist who has some fairly original ideas on this subject. His most recent book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, attempts to lay out a theory of moral psychology that puts moral intuition and judgment ahead of conscious moral reasoning, and independent from the content of what we refer to as moral philosophy.

Understanding Society
Moral intuitions as evolutionary modules
Daniel Little | Chancellor, University of Michigan at Dearborn

Ethics as a branch of philosophy is usually understood as moral reasoning. Reasoning is reflection on experience. Socrates: "An unexamined life not is not worth living" (Plato, Apology 38a). Social and political philosophy are closely connected with ethics through the study of action.

Experience is not merely of factual occurrences, based on perception of events "objectively," but also involves subjective appreciation that is bound up in the experience. Understanding is gained from reflection on experience. Knowledge is the confluence of experience and understanding through a process of reasoning that yields conclusions. Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge practically.

Recent investigation in cognitive science, by Antonio Damasio in particular, shows that the reason cannot be divorced from feeling in that they are inextricably conjoined in brain functioning. There are no "facts" that are not subjectively appreciated, although some matters more appreciated than others, such as routines hardly noticed. Moral intuition and aesthetic intuition applies to those matters that are more subjectively appreciated than others.

In The Feeling of What Happens, Damasio laid the foundations of the "enchainment of precedences": the nonconscious neural signaling of an individual organism begets the protoself which permits core selfand core consciousness, which allow for an autobiographical self, which permits extended consciousness. At the end of the chain, extended consciousness permits conscience. [Wikipedia]

Conscience is the basis of moral intuition. This is captured in the creation myth:  God forbids Adam and Eve eating "the fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17). When they eat the forbidden fruit, their eyes are opened, and realizing they are naked, they are ashamed (Gen. 3:7). Here in the ancient narrative lies a teaching story that contemporary study of the brain also reveals scientifically. Moral intuition is somatic in addition to mental. In intuition feeling predominates over mind and in reasoning, mind predominates over feeling.

The explains why there are different moral types. People feel differently, and apparently early learning plays a crucial role in this. Those with a more visceral response relate to events more somatically than those accustomed to taking a more reasoned mental approach. 

George Lakoff has observed that conservative morality is more visceral and impassioned than liberal, which is more reasoned and more aloof. This is why conservatives are not swayed by liberal reasoning, and why liberals resist what they consider to be the "raw" reactions of conservatives.

In addition, some people are more empathetic than others, and those with a deficiency of feeling enabling them to mirror others feelings are sociopathic — not so much immoral as amoral. This seems to be the result of both endowment of mirror neurons and conditioning.

However important this somatic factor is, it is not the whole story of morality. But to ignore it as the foundation of morality in biology and evolutionary science is fatal to any moral theorizing.

Randy Wray — Alternative Framing of Money: Coda

Randy concluded his series on reframing "money" yesterday, but has added another post in response to comments and also a post by George Lakoff yesterday, which was linked to here at MNE.

New Economic Perspectives

Alternative Framing of Money: Coda

L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, UMKC

Randy called attention to these comments today:

Schofield | December 14, 2012 at 8:26 am

To paraphrase David Sloan Wilson in his article “The New Fable of the Bees” conservatives “demonically strive to widen their slice of the pie while remaining oblivious to the size of the pie.” Wilson calls this the fundamental problem of social life. The principal motive for MMT’s development is the recognition it can make the pie bigger and, therefore, how a society can best make the pie bigger should be a goal of “framing” arguments.
 

The New Fable Of The Bees: Multilevel Selection, Adaptive Societies, And The Concept Of Self Interest

Schofield | December 14, 2012 at 9:07 am

If David Sloan Wilson is implying that conservatives are not open to new ideas about increasing the size of the pie because they are obsessive about increasing their slice of the pie then it follows that they are unlikely to be open to expanding their understanding of a fundamental aspect of money’s nature. They will struggle to understand that money like our DNA coding mechanism is a “conceptual communication system,” that it allows labor to be instructed to use resources to produce goods and services including the social exchange of goods already produced or indeed benefit from the social effects of services already funded (e.g. improved policing). This failure leads to not seeing that a healthy economy requires an optimal of money of money for both active spending and prudent saving. Accordingly the lack of conservatives “openness” has to be framed by progressives as detrimental to advancing an economy just as obsessiveness with part of the pie rather than the whole pie is too.



LRWray | December 14, 2012 at 9:23 am


Schofield: I like the wilson point on the pie–it has always been the conservative approach to “distribution”: a fixed pie so if I get more, you get less. I also like your analogy to DNA–could be something important there for developing the alternative framing.



Schofield | December 14, 2012 at 9:47 am

The phrase “conceptual communication system” for one aspect of money’s utility is a straight lift from the following article:-http://www.toriah.org/articles/abel-2004.pdfIt seemed to fit since I was interested in exploring what we know about any rational argument concerning the origin of cooperation at the molecular and cell level of life. Precious little it would appear. But since money is a social technology that helps us to cooperate with each other to meet our needs then so is DNA coding to help cells survive and meet their objectives. 

Schofield | December 14, 2012 at 10:27 am 

To paraphrase Trevors and Abel in their article referenced about the property of “value” in money relates to the operation of a “linear digital algorithmic program.” So a simply coded program would incorporate the understanding that if too much money is injected into an economy relative to resources availability “value” will tend to fall and vice-versa. Additional coding, for example, could support Steve Keen’s observation about economic performance being related to income and the quantity of increase or decrease in private debt but it obviously also impinges on money’s “value.” A good algorithmic program would obviously help determine the parameters affecting “value” and clearly this relates to Wynne Godley’s life-time’s work on Sectoral Accounting Balances. So money is like DNA it’s subject to algorithmic programming.

George Lakoff on Michigan's Corporate Servitude Law

Language works so that the conservative name "right to work" evokes the conservative political ideology in the brains of those who hear it without wincing. The more an idea is activated in the brain the stronger it gets. Thus, the use of the conservative name strengthens the conservative ideology in the brains of the public.

The press is not being neutral in using the Republican name for the law. Journalists too, in just using the name, are supporting both the Republican framing of the law and conservative ideology. The press is not being balanced -- which is what journalists typically claim to be. Balance would be to use both the names "corporate servitude law" and "right to work law" and to explain the differences in the progressive and conservative understanding of what the law is and does.

Of course, to do so would change a false view of language that journalists too often internalize, namely, that language is neutral. To see that it isn't, just try speaking or writing of "Michigan's corporate servitude law" and listen to conservatives scream bloody murder over a truth that does fit their view of democracy. And listen to them keep screaming because it is important to keep repeating the true name of the law if the public is to understand what the law really does.

The Huffington Post
Michigan's New Corporate Servitude Law: It Takes Away Worker Rights
George Lakoff | Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley

Randy Wray — A Meme for Money, Part 3: Framing the Alternative Approach

In Part 2 we looked at the mainstream framing of discussion about money and about the economy and society more generally. Following Lakoff, my argument is that framing is important and that so far orthodoxy is winning all of the important policy debates because it has the better framing. Policy is always and everywhere a moral issue—not merely an economic issue and certainly not a technical issue. To win policy debates, we must—like orthodoxy—engage the moral issues. We can take the higher moral ground.

New Economic Perspectives
A Meme for Money, Part 3: Framing the Alternative Approach
L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, UMKC

Comment here, there, or both. Randy does use comments for input.

Randy Wray — A Meme For Money, Part 2: The Conservative Framing

Next installment in the series on framing MMT is up. Comment here, there, or both.

New Economic Perspectives
A Meme For Money, Part 2: The Conservative Framing
L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, UMKC

We need a new meme [frame] for money.

That meme would emphasize the social, not the individual. It would focus on the positive role played by the state not only in the creation and evolution of money, but also in ensuring social control over money. It would explain how money helps to promote a positive relation between citizens and the state, simultaneously promoting shared values such as liberty, democracy, and responsibility.

The conservative view emphasizes individual freedom. What's not to like about that. Opposing it is like opposing mom and apple pie. The challenge is to show that it is insufficient as an ordering principle of society which is what government provides. Conservatives are just as committed to "law and order" as they are to "liberty." In fact, when push come to shove, literally, they prefer law and order. The ongoing undermining of constitutional liberties to "fight terrorism" is a good example of this preference.

As George Lakoff observes some people are uni-conceptual but most are bi-conceptual. Uni-conceptuals have a rigid and doctrinaire conceptual framework that is defined by norms.

Lakoff posits that those who are uni-conceptional define the political extremes of right and left, while those who are bi-conceptual define the moderate center right and center left, as well as voters that self-described as independents.

Uni-conceptual people are unlikely to be converted, but they are not dominant in the voter pool on either right or left. Each side needs to capture the center, the bi-conceptuals.

Bi- (and I would say multi) conceptuals hold values belonging to both extremes, sometimes at once — and they are not always clear on which trumps the other. They can be convinced with the right narrative.

Opposing freedom with some other value is a tough sell without resorting to fear. That is not a good choice. Rather, a more nuanced approach may be more suitable, that is, showing how key values are complementary rather than antagonistic.

Most people are not anarchists. They are very suspect of arguments that reduce government beyond a certain point because they know that the likely result is disorder rather than greater freedom. It is only a small percentage of the population that thinks arming individuals is the way to increase freedom and order simultaneously and automatically.

Similarly, most people are aware that the challenge since the Enlightenment and its political manifestation in the American and then French Revolutions has been to harmonize individual freedom, social justice and fairness, and solidarity in community — Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité.

It is not a big step from there to create a social and political narrative based on both freedom and order under the rule of law in a liberal democracy as "the American way," as well the mosts successful social and political "experiment" that humanity has conducted on a vast scale. Most modern people already buy into this in one way or another.

The challenge then becomes creating an economic narrative that not only fits this framework but also is capable of delivering on its promise of distributed prosperity through an economic system that is the material life-support system and means of progress of a free people who are safe and secure in an ordered society that is dedicated to the common good and general welfare.

The basis of this narrative is in the preamble to the U. S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is amplified in the conclusion of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, where he speaks of "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

Government is about management with a view to public purpose. Management is about efficiency and effectiveness. According to Peter F. Drucker, "efficiency is doing things right, and effectiveness is doing the right things." The commonly understood goal of macroeconomic aspiration is the harmony of growth, employment, and price stability. 

Most economically significant political issues concern these goals and how best to achieve them. MMT has an answer that resolves this trifecta harmoniously, showing that the issue is real resources rather than affordability. That should be the basis of the narrative.

"If we can, why not. If not now, when?"

George Lakoff — Why It's Hard to Replace the 'Fiscal Cliff' Metaphor

Apropos Randy's lastest on framing. George Lakoff explains neural circuitry.

Writers on economics have been talking since the election about why the "fiscal cliff" metaphor is misleading. Alternative metaphors have been offered like the fiscal hill, fiscal curb, and fiscal showdown, as if one metaphor could easily be replaced by another that makes more sense of the real situation. But none of the alternatives has stuck, nor has the fiscal cliff metaphor been abandoned. Why? Why do some metaphors have far more staying power than others, even when they give a misleading picture of a crucial national issue?

The Huffington Post
Why It's Hard to Replace the 'Fiscal Cliff' Metaphor
George Lakoff | Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley

Randy Wray — A Meme for Money, Part 1: Introduction

I assume that most people here are here because they are interested in MMT and therefore keep up on the major MMT blogs, so I only link to posts on those in cases that I deem must-reads. After completing his latest book, Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems, Randy Wray is beginning a new series on framing money that qualifies as a must-read. Comment here or there. You are welcome to post your comment at both.

New Economic Perspectives
A Meme for Money, Part 1: Introduction
L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, UMKC

Of course, I am very pleased with this, since I have been harping on framing for a long time and citing cognitive science about it. As Joe Firestone and others have, too. We need a compelling narrative to deliver the compelling reasoning.

Anonymous: The Fable of “Moral Arithmetic”

Fun read. Excellent example of framing through metaphor. Definitely take a look if you are interested in a popularized and simplified presentation of a rather abstruse MMT point that works.

Read it at Naked Capitalism
Anonymous: The Fable of “Moral Arithmetic”
By Anonymous
Originally published at Global Economic Intersections
(h/t paul in the comments)

Interestingly, and predictably, many of the comments to this post at NC are about how the problem really, really is moral. Really.

I don't think that moral arguments can be dismissed out of hand. They are powerful arguments that influence the views of a whole lot of people in that they are norms that define the boundary conditions of a world view by providing criteria for evaluation.

George Lakoff makes the point that conservatives, especially, are driven by morality, and they often either ignore, deny, or misrepresent facts that contradict their moral principles. This is also true of radicals at the left extreme of the political spectrum. It is a sign of an ideologically driven mindset, along with the rejection of reasoning as decisive. Ultra-conservative rejection of the scientific enterprise is a case in point, as it the ultra-radical rejection of capitalism as having any value at all, which even Marx saw as extreme, admitting that the capitalism of his day was responsible for many people living a better life than previously in history.

According to Lakoff the center is constituted of people who are "bi-conceptual," their moral allegiance divided between left and right, holding some positions that are liberal and others conservative. People scoring toward the center of the political compass test are bi-conceptual. These are people that can be persuaded by moral arguments coupled with factual premises that argue for a moral position that fits the facts.

This is the challenge that popularizing MMT solutions presents. Many of these solutions, like a job guarantee, are deeply distastefully morally to many people, often because of conceptual biases. The challenge is to show how the solution is not only economically efficient and effective, which MMT does in terms of an operational description and the macro theory, but also the moral solution as well.

It should not be too difficult to argue against blaming people for their own unemployment for moral reasons when there are ten dogs and only nine bones, or blaming homeowners faced with default when 105 marbles are owed and there are only 100 marbles in the game. How can people be held morally responsible for circumstances beyond their control?

How the political mind works

This leads Lakoff and Haidt to strongly reject what you might call the “Enlightenment model” for thinking about reasoning and persuasion, and leads Kahan to talk about motivated reasoning, rather than rational or objective reasoning. Once again, these thinkers are essentially agreeing that because morality biases us long before consciousness and reasoning set in, factual and logical argument are not at all a good way to get us to change our behavior and how we respond. 

This is also a point I made recently, noting how Republicans become more factually wrong with higher levels of education. Facts clearly don’t change their minds—if anything, they make matters worse! Lakoff, too, emphasizes how refuting a false conservative claim can actually reinforce it. And he doesn’t merely show why the Enlightenment mode of thinking is outdated; he also stresses that liberals are more wedded to it than conservatives, and this irrational rationalism lies at the root of many political failures on the left.

Read it at AlterNet
How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives

by Chris Mooney

While this article is chiefly about conservative values, it also talks about liberal values and the science underlying understanding them. 

Although Mooney doesn't discuss the relation of value systems and economics, the implications of the scientific findings are rather obvious. This article explains the cognitive-affective rationale explaining why liberal and conservative approaches to policy including economic policy are as they are.