A couple of weeks ago, a well known linguist and a cognitive and brain scientist, George Lakoff, the co-author of a highly popular 1980 book, Metaphors We Live By, decided to use his extensive expertise to answer the question, Why Trump?
His conclusion is rather disappointing in its banality: those who are attracted to Trump and to the Republican party in general, are those who are yearning for a strong, authoritative father-figure:
"What do social issues and the politics have to do with the family? We are first governed in our families, and so we grow up understanding governing institutions in terms of the governing systems of families. In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father's authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they are in charge of."Thus, Trump insistence on winning, his moral certainty, his simplistic understanding of direct economic causality, his anti-PC rhetoric are all made to appeal to disgruntled white males who are rapidly losing grounds in today's complex world, but who grew up with the ideal of a authoritarian family. And, according to Lakoff's foray in psychology, these values are so much ingrained even in people who might first appear as moderate or even progressive, that someone like Trump rapidly triggers and re-activate the "inner authoritarian" world view. Consequently, the more shrill Trump's campaign becomes, the more supporters he gets.
Inspired by this bold analysis, and its cavalier manipulation of psychology, sociology, linguistics, and politics, I propose to offer a counter - argument.
Trump likes to turn on his opponents by saying that they've started it. Well, Professor Lakoff started it. So let me use a similar flight of imagination and insight and try to answer an equally relevant question: Why Hillary?
On the surface of it, Hillary Clinton's candidacy should hardly succeed with US voters: she is a legacy, heritage candidate in traditionally democratic society; she is mired in scandals, she is in cahoots with corrupt lobbyists and bankers, her belligerent foreign policy is pushing US closer and closer to the brink of the next world war. So why is she winning some many primaries? What's there to like? Here are my answers clearly inspired by Mr. Lakoff's analysis.













Comment: Hillary's emails confirm France and US killed Qaddafi for his gold and oil