I have a great deal of respect for George Lakoff. More than I do for just about any politician I can think of. It's not just due to his work related to politics, either. I first read Metaphors We Live By in 1989, and I helped produce a lecture/discussion series on cognitive linguistics as Midnight Special Bookstore in Santa Monica with him as the lead attraction back in 1994. Moral Politics did not come out until 1996, and when it did, I reviewed it for the Christian Science Monitor. But I also reviewed Philosophy in the Flesh and Where Mathematics Comes From, as well later books on politics. So I'm very familiar with his work, not just as it applies to politics, but in terms of how it relates to the larger currents of Western thought.
But I have to say that I'm still a bit puzzled by his recent post, "What Counts as an "Issue" In the Clinton-Obama Race?" at the Huffington Post. I'm not puzzled by the points he is making-they are quite familiar to me. But I'm puzzled about the supporting evidence, which is a repeated problem with Obama. (As I pointed out in a diary yesterday, "Rankism--An Issue Custom-Made For Obama", I think Obama could easily add significant substance to his campaign.) I want to take this opportunity to use Lakoff's piece to clarify my concerns, since this still seems to be something people have a hard time figuring out-not just about me, but about lots of people who remain skeptical, when they'd much rather not. Because, you see, if I saw Obama the way that Lakoff does, I would not be having such doubts.
STATE BLOGS
