DOCSLIB.ORG

George Lakoff Manifesto

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
George Lakoff Manifesto ChangeThis Y Save to disk Hide/Show menus GEORGE LAKOFF MANIFESTO continued > by George Lakoff | iss. 5.01 | i | U | X | + | Not using Adobe Acrobat? Please go to http://changethis.com/content/reader ChangeThis UNDERSTANDING THE CONSERVATIVES’ MOST POWERFUL WEAPON For the most part, liberals and progressives still donʼt understand what conservatives are doing to them. There have been major articles written recently on conservative think tanks (New York Times Sunday Magazine, July 25, 2004 and Harper’s, September 1, 2004 ), but no discussion at all of the mechanism conservatives use to confound liberals and forever have them on the defensive. framing That mechanism is called . Conservatives have managed to frame public debate on just about every issue. They have framed regulation as government interference in the free market, which is in turn framed as natureʼs way of optimizing wealth for all. Conservatives have framed poor people as undisciplined and to blame for their own poverty, environmentalists as tree huggers who care more about owls than people, criticism of government foreign policy as support for the enemy, and the Iraq War as part of a War on Terror. Yet, as much as liberals discuss politics, they still have not yet learned enough about framing to see how conservatives have won—and how liberals This manifesto is and progressives can become more effective in contributing to public discourse. from George Lakoffʼs Framing is the conservativesʼ most important weapon. Framing is critical because a book, Donʼt Think of frame, once established in the mind of the reader (or listener, viewer, etc.) leads that an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the person almost inevitably to the conclusion desired by the framer, and it blocks con- Debate. To learn more sideration of other possible facts and interpretations. about this book, GO George Bushʼs frame around tax cuts as “relief” illustrates this: When conservatives click here. discuss tax reduction, the phrase “tax relief” is repeated over and over. For there to | iss. 5.01 | i | U | X | + | 2/25 ChangeThis be “relief” there must be an affliction, an afflicted party harmed by the affliction, a reliever who takes the affliction away and is therefore a hero. And if anybody tries to stop the reliever, heʼs a villain wanting the suffering to go on. Add “tax” and you have a metaphorical frame: Taxation is an affliction. The taxpayer is the afflicted party, the conservatives are heroes and the liberals are villains. The only sensible thing to do with taxes (as with any affliction) is to get rid of them. Entirely. If the facts don’t fit the frames, the frames stay and the facts are ignored. Any time you hear the words “tax relief,” all of this is called up. The words are then repeated day after day, quoted in every newspaper, on every TV and radio station. The term becomes the way TV commentators and journalists talk about taxes. Pretty soon the liberals are talking about their “tax relief,” only for the middle class. By adopting the conservativesʼ language, they have adopted one of their central ideas. Every time they use the words, they reinforce the idea. The reason is that once phrases become part of everyday language, their frames become physically fixed in peopleʼs brains. Once this happens, mere facts donʼt mat- ter. If the facts donʼt fit the frames, the frames stay and the facts are ignored. Once the conservatives see their frames accepted, they have an overwhelming advantage in every debate. Their frames become the new common sense, because frames define what common sense is. | iss. 5.01 | i | U | X | + | 3/25 ChangeThis These properties of frames have consequences. If you negate a frame, you just re- inforce the frame. When Nixon, during Watergate, said on TV, “I am not a crook,” everyone thought of him as a crook. Denying a claim reinforces the claim. Another example, “There hasnʼt been any tax relief for most people” reinforces the idea of taxation as an affliction. By using the other sideʼs words, you reinforce their frames. Itʼs a trap liberals continuously fall into. By using the other side’s words, you reinforce their frames. It’s a trap liberals continuously fall into. Another trap is the assumption that all you have to do is set the facts straight and people will reason to the right conclusion. Wrong! If the facts contradict the common- place frames, the frames will stay and the facts will be ignored. The 9-11 Commission Report argued that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with al Qaeda and the 9-11 attack. But speaker after speaker at the Republican convention referred to the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror, and it went by unquestioned by most commentators and millions of viewers. The frame is constantly being reinforced and has remained in the brains of a great many Americans. The facts wonʼt register—unless they are presented as part of a successful reframing of the issues. The media seem unaware of how framing works. The conservativesʼ most powerful weapon is barely discussed, because it is barely comprehended. As a cognitive linguist, | iss. 5.01 | i | U | X | + | 4/25 ChangeThis whose profession includes the scientific study of framing, Iʼve decided to stop cursing the papers and television, and to do something about it. Some colleagues and I have started a progressive think tank dedicated to refram- ing (the Rockridge Institute http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org) and Iʼve written a new book, called Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (Chelsea Green Publishing). Framing matters. You need to know how it works. Here are some helpful excerpts from the new book, which is available in Don’t Think of an Elephant! WHAT UNITES PROGRESSIVES To approach what unites progressives, we must first ask what divides them. Here are some of the common parameters that divide progressives from one another: » Local interests » Idealism versus pragmatism » Radical change versus moderate change » Militant versus moderate advocacy » Types of thought processes: socioeconomic, identity politics, environmentalist, civil libertarian, spiritual, and antiauthoritarian. Click on any underlined hyperlink to visit that Programs are a major problem for attempts at unity. As soon as a program is made site. For other tips, specific, the differences must be addressed. Progressives tend to talk about programs. i GO go to [ ]. But programs are not what most Americans want to know about. Most Americans | iss. 5.01 | i | U | X | + | 5/25 ChangeThis want to know what you stand for, whether your values are their values, what your principles are, what direction you want to take the country in. In public discourse, val- ues trump programs, principles trump programs, policy directions trump programs. I believe that values, principles, and policy directions are exactly the things that can unite progressives, if they are crafted properly. The reason that they can unite us is that they stand conceptually above all the things that divide us. IDEAS THAT MAKE US PROGRESSIVES What follows is a detailed explication of each of those unifying ideas. 1 values . First, coming out of a basic progressive vision 2 principles . Second, that realize progressive values 3 policy directions . Third, that fit the values and principles 4 brief ten-word philosophy . And fourth, a that encapsulates all the above THE BASIC PROGRESSIVE VISION The basic progressive vision is of community—of America as family, a caring, respon- sible family. We envision an America where people care about each other, not just themselves, and act responsibly with strength and effectiveness for each other. We are all in the same boat. Red states and blue states, progressives and conserva- tives, Republicans and Democrats. United, as we were for a brief, beautiful moment just after September 11, not divided by a despicable culture war. | iss. 5.01 | i | U | X | + | 6/25 ChangeThis THE LOGIC OF PROGRESSIVE VALUES The progressive core values are family values—those of the responsible, caring family. Caring and responsibility, carried out with strength: These core values imply the full range of progressive values. Here are those progressive values, together with the logic that links them to the core values. 1 Protection, fulfillment in life, fairness. When you care about someone, you want them to be protected from harm, you want their dreams to come true, and you want them to be treated fairly. 2 Freedom, opportunity, prosperity. There is no fulfillment without freedom, no freedom without opportunity, and no opportunity without prosperity. 3 Community, service, cooperation. Children are shaped by their communities. Responsibility requires serving and helping to shape your community. That requires cooperation. 4 Trust, honesty, open communication. There is no cooperation without trust, no trust without honesty, and no cooperation without open communication. Just as these values follow from caring and responsibility, so every other progressive value follows from these. Equality follows from fairness, empathy is part of caring, diversity is from empathy and equality. | iss. 5.01 | i | U | X | + | 7/25 ChangeThis Progressives not only share these values, but also share political principles that arise from these values. PROGRESSIVE PRINCIPLES EQUITY. What citizens and the nation owe each other. If you work hard, play by the rules, and serve your family, community, and nation, then the nation should provide a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity. EQUALITY. Do everything possible to guarantee political equality and avoid imbalances of political power. DEMOCRACY. Maximize citizen participation; minimize concentrations of political, cor- porate, and media power. Maximize journalistic standards. Establish publicly financed elections. Invest in public education. Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not just stockholder control.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SHOULD WE TAX UNHEALTHY FOODS and DRINKS? Donald Marron, Maeve Gearing, and John Iselin December 2015
    SHOULD WE TAX UNHEALTHY FOODS AND DRINKS? Donald Marron, Maeve Gearing, and John Iselin December 2015 Donald Marron is director of economic policy initiatives and Institute fellow at the Urban Institute, Maeve Gearing is a research associate at the Urban Institute, and John Iselin is a research assistant at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The authors thank Laudan Aron, Kyle Caswell, Philip Cook, Stan Dorn, Lisa Dubay, William Gale, Genevieve Kenney, Adele Morris, Eric Toder, and Elaine Waxman for helpful comments and conversations; Joseph Rosenberg for running the Tax Policy Center model; Cindy Zheng for research assistance; Elizabeth Forney for editing; and Joanna Teitelbaum for formatting. This report was funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. We thank our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to our funders, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the Urban Institute, or its trustees. Funders do not determine our research findings or the insights and recommendations of our experts. For more information on our funding principles, go to urban.org/support. TAX POLICY CENTER | URBAN INSTITUTE & BROOKINGS INSTITUTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A healthy diet is essential to a long and vibrant life. But there is increasing evidence that our diets are not as healthy as we would like. Obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions linked to what we eat and drink are major challenges globally. By some estimates, obesity alone may be responsible for almost 3 million deaths each year and some $2 trillion in medical costs and lost productivity (Dobbs et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art and Science of Framing an Issue
    MAPThe Art and Science of Framing an Issue Authors Contributing Editors © January 2008, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Movement Advancement Project (MAP). All rights reserved. “Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money, votes and guns. … Ideas are at the center of all political conflict.” —Deborah Stone, Policy Process Scholar, 2002 The Art and Science of 1 Framing an Issue an Issue and Science of Framing Art The The Battle Over Ideas 2 Understanding How People Think 2 What Is Framing? 4 Levels of Framing 5 Tying to Values 6 Why Should I Spend Resources on Framing? 6 How Do I Frame My Issue? 7 Step 1. Understand the Mindset of Your Target Audience 7 Step 2. Know When Your Current Frames Aren’t Working 7 Step 3. Know the Elements of a Frame 7 Step 4. Speak to People’s Core Values 9 Step 5. Avoid Using Opponents’ Frames, Even to Dispute Them 9 Step 6. Keep Your Tone Reasonable 10 Step 7. Avoid Partisan Cues 10 Step 8. Build a New Frame 10 Step 9. Stick With Your Message 11 “Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money, votes and guns. … Ideas are at the center of all political conflict.” —Deborah Stone, Policy Process Scholar, 2002 2 The Battle Over Ideas Are we exploring for oil that’s desperately needed to drive our economy and sustain our nation? Or are we Think back to when you were 10 years old, staring at destroying delicate ecological systems and natural your dinner plate, empty except for a pile of soggy– lands that are a legacy to our grandchildren? These looking green vegetables.
    [Show full text]
  • Lakoff's Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in Communication Studies Communication Studies, Department of 11-2013 Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012 Damien S. Pfister University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Jessy J. Ohl University of Mary Washington, [email protected] Marty Nader Nebraska Wesleyan University, [email protected] Dana Griffin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons Pfister, Damien S.; Ohl, Jessy J.; Nader, Marty; and Griffin,a D na, "Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012" (2013). Papers in Communication Studies. 53. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers/53 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Communication Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Communication Studies 64:5 (November-December 2013; Special Issue: Consistency and Change in Political Campaign Communication: Ana- lyzing the 2012 Elections), pages 488-507; doi: 10.1080/10510974.2013.832340 Copyright © 2013 Central States Communication Association; published by Tay- digitalcommons.unl.edu lor & Francis Group. Used by permission. Published online October 18, 2013. Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012 Jessy J. Ohl,1 Damien S. Pfister,1 Martin Nader,2 and Dana Griffin 1 Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2 Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Corresponding author — Jessy J.
    [Show full text]
  • IDENTITY and PERSUASION How Nations Remember Their Pasts and Make Their Futures
    IDENTITY AND PERSUASION How Nations Remember Their Pasts and Make Their Futures By CONSUELO CRUZ* DENTITY politics now occupies center stage. It is on explosive dis- Iplay in a wide range of settings, from Africa to the Balkans. And it is more subtly at work in the democracies of the West: NATO leaders must reexamine their own guiding principles in the face of multiple human- itarian disasters brought about by tribal, ethnic, and religious hatreds, while simultaneously dealing with increasingly heterogenous popula- tions at home and ceaseless migrant flows from east and south. It is no surprise, then, that identity should figure prominently in scholarly debates about conflict resolution, migration, citizenship, transnational alliances, democratization, nation and state building, and even globalization. Nor is it a puzzle that long-standing debates about identity should have produced the two clearly defined camps that we know as primordialists and constructivists.1 What is perplexing is the current failure to investigate systematically the complex linkages be- tween identity formation and the expressive practices of political actors. After all, we approach reality rhetorically—that is, with an intent to convince.2 This is why persuasion is the hallmark of effective leader- ship. Short of pure coercion, it is the most direct way to mobilize or paralyze a group. And this is why rhetorical power—recognized as cen- * I would like to thank Peter Hall, Jeffrey Legro, Sheri Berman, and Mehmet Tabak for their in- sightful suggestions on a previous version of this article. I am also grateful to Deborah Yashar, Anna Seleny, Paola Cesarini, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the present ver- sion.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainably Sourced Junk Food? Big Food and the Challenge of Sustainable Diets • Caitlin Scott*
    Sustainably Sourced Junk Food? Big Food and the Challenge of Sustainable Diets • Caitlin Scott* Abstract Sustainable diets are an increasingly debated policy concept to address many of the environmental, social, and economic issues in the food system. The role of ultraprocessed foods in sustainable diets has received less attention than meat, dairy, and eggs but is deserving of examination given the high environmental impacts and negative health outcomes resulting from consumption of these foods. Big Food companies that make ultraprocessed foods have focused their attention on sustainable sourcing as a significant sustainability strategy. This article argues that sustainable sourcing as a central strategy for Big Food firms has implications for the achievement of sustainable diets. First, sustainable sourcing lends legitimacy to specific discourses of sustainability that align with a growth imperative. Second, it perpetuates weak and fragmented governance, which can enhance the legitimacy of Big Food when participating in coordination efforts. These dynamics of sustainable sourcing are important for consideration given the legitimacy claims of these companies, which situate them as a key part of the solution in working toward food security and sustainability. Increasing environmental pressures on the food system have made sustain- ability the focus in a variety of policy venues on the future of food. However, there is much debate on the best way forward, with diverse visions of sustain- ability that do not always align. Furthermore, exactly how to get to a sustainable food system is debated, with some advocating certifications to ensure compli- ance by companies and large agricultural operations and others advocating for a complete overhaul to small-scale, locally supported agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • George Lakoff and Mark Johnsen (2003) Metaphors We Live By
    George Lakoff and Mark Johnsen (2003) Metaphors we live by. London: The university of Chicago press. Noter om layout: - Sidetall øverst - Et par figurer slettet - Referanser til slutt Innholdsfortegnelse i Word: George Lakoff and Mark Johnsen (2003) Metaphors we live by. London: The university of Chicago press. ......................................................................................................................1 Noter om layout:...................................................................................................................1 Innholdsfortegnelse i Word:.................................................................................................1 Contents................................................................................................................................4 Acknowledgments................................................................................................................6 1. Concepts We Live By .....................................................................................................8 2. The Systematicity of Metaphorical Concepts ...............................................................11 3. Metaphorical Systematicity: Highlighting and Hiding.................................................13 4. Orientational Metaphors.................................................................................................16 5. Metaphor and Cultural Coherence .................................................................................21 6 Ontological
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Hacktivism by Tennille W
    Ethics of Hacktivism by Tennille W. Scott and O. Shawn Cupp Introduction Do hacktivists have ethics? Some would say yes and others suggest that no, they do not. Are there rules that those who engage in hacking follow or abide by during the conduct of their activities? Does the hacktivist maintain any semblance of actions described under the just war theory? If so, it would seem to be only in jus in bello1 or the just conduct in war, due to the perpetual nature of hacker activities and hacktivist operations. First, what is a hacktivist?2 They are defined as those who through the nonviolent use for political ends of “illegal or legally ambiguous digital tools” like website defacements, information theft, website parodies, denial-of-service attacks, virtual sit-ins, and virtual sabotage.3 This provides the basis for understanding more about where hacktivists’ motivations come from and what kinds of ideologies they may exhibit. Nevertheless, hacktivists must conform to some sort of norm. Based upon the nature of hacktivist activities, there must be a way to categorize or identify their overarching ethic. Understanding the motivation of this group is a huge undertaking because of the great variance and diversity of the people who make up the hacktivist collective. Unlike cyberterrorists, who typically belong to a hierarchical group structure and have a common cause, hacktivists are not bound in the same way, which makes them more dynamic and difficult to analyze. A prime example is the hacktivist group known as Anonymous and its spinoff group, Lulz Security (LulzSec), who eventually participated in different activities with different motives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Democratization of Artificial Intelligence
    Metaphors We Live By1 Three Commentaries on Artificial Intelligence and the Human Condition Anne Dippel Prelude In the following essay, I want to bring together three stand-alone commentaries, each dealing with a different facet of artificial intelligence, and each revolving around a different underlying metaphor: intelligence, evolution, and play. The first commentary constitutes an auto-ethnographic vignette, which provides a framework for the reflection on artificial “intelligence” and the alleged capacity of machines to “think”; both very problematic metaphors from the feminist per- spective on (predominantly) female labour of bearing and rearing intelligent hu- man beings. The second one is an insight into my current ethnographic fieldwork amongst high-energy physicists who use machine-learning methods in their daily work and succumb to a Darwinist metaphor in imagining the significance of evo- lutionary algorithms for the future of humanity. The third commentary looks into “playing” algorithms and brings into the conversation the much-debated anthro- pological category of an “alien” which, as I argue, is much more relevant in order to understand AI than a direct personification, bringing a non-human entity to life. A New Non-artificial Intelligent Life is Born I am looking at a newly born human being. Day by day I keep him company, as he practices increasingly complex bodily movements, senses the inner emotions of other bodies around him or reacts to a sea of indistinguishable voices, despite not being able to understand the meaning of a single word. While he keeps to his 1 The title of a famous book published by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with George Lakoff
    An Inrerview with George Lakoff An Interview with George Lakoff FRANCISCO JOSÉ RUIZ DE MENDOZA IBÁÑEZ Universidad de La Rioja CICigüeña, 60 Logroño - 26004 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE George Lakoff teaches linguistics and cognitive science at the University of Califomia, Berkeley. Together with such figures as James McCawley, Paul Postal, and Haj Ross, he was one of the founders of the Generative Semantics movement in the 1960's. This represented the earliest major depamre from the standard Chomskyan Generative Transformational Grammar by demonstrating the fundamental role played by semantics and pragmatics in grammar. Since the mid-1970's Lakoff has become a leading figure in the development of Cognitive Liistics, which grounds linguistic theory in empirical findings from the field of Cognitive Psychology . He has studied conceptual systems in depth, although the bulk of his most recent research has increasingly focused on metaphor and its consequences for abstract reasoning. He is the author of Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, and co-author of Metaphors We Live By (with Mark Johnson), and More Than Cool Reason (with Mark Turner). His most recent book, Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't, analyses the language of political discourse and demonstrates that conservative and liberal ideas are based on opposite metaphorical models of the family and morality. At present, he is writing Philosophy in the Flesh, in collaboration with Mark Johnson, which interprets philosophy from the point of view of cognitive science. He is also working, with Rafael Núiíez, on the metaphorical stnicture of mathematics. INTERVIEW' Good afternoon, Professor Lakoff. First of all, I'd like to go back to rhe late 1960's and early 1970's.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles for True Pricing
    PRINCIPLES FOR TRUE PRICING Consultation draft 0 Principles for True Pricing 1 PRINCIPLES FOR TRUE PRICING Consultation Draft – February 2020 Authored by True Price Foundation and Impact Economy Foundation. About True Price True Price is a social enterprise with the mission to realize sustainable products that are affordable to all by enabling consumers to see and voluntarily pay the true price of products they buy. We envision a world where all products are sold for a true price. If a product is sold for a true price, then no damage is done to people or to nature: it is fully sustainable. If all products are sold for a true price, then the global economy is sustainable. In 2012, True Price was founded and it in the subsequent years developed into world leading expert in methods and tools to measure and monetize societal impact. It calculated the true price of dozens of products around the world and saw a growing appetite for the idea among companies, governments and consumers. In 2020, we feel that the time is right to focus on realizing true pricing, a system where consumers and businesses can see, improve and voluntarily pay the true price of their products. For more information visit: www.trueprice.org. True Price Harlemmerplein 2 1013 HS Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31 202 403 440 [email protected] 2020 True Price Foundation The text in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International. For more information consult Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-ND. Available at: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-examples/#nd Cover photo by Harry Cunningham on Unsplash.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphor: a Computational Perspective
    Strapparava, Carlo. 2018. Book Reviews. Computational Linguistics, uncorrected proof. Metaphor: A Computational Perspective Tony Veale, Ekaterina Shutova, and Beata Beigman Klebanov (University College Dublin, University of Cambridge, Educational Testing Service) Morgan & Claypool (Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, edited by Graeme Hirst, volume 31), 2016, xi+148 pp; paperback, ISBN 9781627058506, $55.00; ebook, ISBN 9781627058513; doi:10.2200/S00694ED1V01Y201601HLT031 Reviewed by Carlo Strapparava FBK-irst Metaphors are intriguing. We know that George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, in their book Metaphors We Live By, pointed out that our daily language is full of metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Metaphors are not rare at all as linguistic events and in general as a means of human communication (e.g., in visual art). Thus, more than an exception, they seem to be a necessity for our mind. People use metaphors as strategies to link concepts, to deal with situations, and sometimes to suggest solutions to problems. For example, you can see criminality as a monster or as an illness. What you have in mind to deal with it is probably to fight in the former case, and to cure or to plan prevention in the latter. Nonetheless, metaphors are extremely difficult to model in a computational framework. What is literal? What is metaphorical? Making this distinction has often proved to be a daunting task, even for a human judgment. Metaphors—so bound to our way of thinking and entangled with a huge quantity of knowledge and linguistics subtleties— constitute an excellent research problem for computational linguistics and artificial intelligence in general. We could probably say that they belong to the AI-complete problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Support and Attitudes Toward Protest in Venezuela Damarys
    Preserving Democracy: Political Support and Attitudes Toward Protest in Venezuela Damarys Canache University of Pittsburgh Michael R. Kulisheck University of Pittsburgh Paper to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association. Chicago, IL, September 24-26, 1998. Introduction Not long ago, Venezuela seemed to have skillfully avoided many of the problems experienced by other Latin American countries. Up until the mid-1980s, Venezuela possessed a solid petroleum- based economy and a vibrant democracy built upon inter-elite cooperation within a viable two-party system. The convergence of these factors brought political stability for almost three decades, a period quite exceptional by Latin American standards (Rey 1991). During this period, however, many issues went unresolved and many new problems were created. By the mid-1980s, the Venezuelan economy no longer enjoyed the benefits of high oil prices and the nation was deeply in debt. The government could not continue with the practice of redistributing oil rent among different sectors of the population. The economic crisis of the 1980s resulted in a dramatic turn for the worse for the people of Venezuela. Poverty increased by 32 percent between 1982 and 1989. In 1989, 22 percent of the population did not have enough resources to meet basic neeeds (Naim 1993). Questions were raised regarding whether traditional political institutions and social organizations were capable of meeting the social and political demands of Venezuelans. At the political level, debates surfaced throughout society about the effectiveness of political institutions and the failure of democratic governments to promote economic equality and growth. Multiple signs of citizens’ discontent with the political system emerged.
    [Show full text]