14 Comments so far

1. gmkaake March 15th, 2007 4:58 pm

   Excellent way to help frame the issue of accountability. I continue to be amazed and educated by the insightful articles on Common Dreams.

2. Gail March 15th, 2007 7:21 pm

   “A conservative in authority holds other people below him accountable, and upon meeting our punishment to those underlings, his personal responsibility is met. Story over.”

   The Republican ego is a sight to behold. Screw all you underlings….take the fall, sucker!

3. Anarcissie March 15th, 2007 10:29 pm

   I am pretty fed up with these fairy tales and just-so stories. All “progressives” have one idea of accountability and responsibility, and all “conservatives” have another? I doubt it, and Dr. Lakoff being a scientist, I call for him to produce some scientific evidence for it. While he’s at it, he might try defining the categories he’s so confidently describing. There seems to be a conflation of “progressive”, “leftist” and “Democrat”, along with another of “conservative”, “rightist”, and “Republican”, and an implication that these two categories exhaust the possibilities. Well, things are not that simple.

4. Roberto March 15th, 2007 10:39 pm

   I want to barf every time I hear the word accountability whether uttered by L’s or D’s or even activists.

   Good governance is not about individuals or “leadership.” It happens when we invest in governing capacity and delivery, well before problems arise.

   It’s convenient and it feels good to blame someone, but focusing on “accountability” is just a diversion.

   When we blame people, we assume that the people that replace them will somehow do the right thing. But, it turns out that the new ones are affected by similar socio economic and institutional pressures as the old ones.

   If it wasn’t Bush invading Iraq it would be someone else. Indeed, it look like Hillary’s volunteering to takeover the cause should she win. It’s part of the job description.

5. DM March 15th, 2007 10:50 pm

   I’m sorry, maybe I’m just too liberal to understand the conservative viewpoint but I think this analysis attempts to validate and justify an approach which is simply unjustifiable. To say that the conservative definition of “accountability” is simply to blame subordinates is not logically defensible for at least a couple of reasons:

   1. This view of accountability is not accorded to others when it doesn’t suit the conservatives to do so. When Iranian Kuds units were charged with providing weapons to Iraqi insurgents, the government of Iran and its leader were held responsible in full by the conservatives. The Republican talking point was that it didn’t matter if the government knew … in fact it would be even more disturbing if they did not and this would further justify a U.S. response. Similarly even in the example you use of the Military hospital the general in charge was held responsible rather than blaming problems on medical “Lynndie Englands”.

   2. Even conservatives formerly acknowledge their responsibility as did Alberto Gonzalez (”I am responsible for everything … although …”). They are quick to demand the resignation or rejection of opponents in similar positions when things go wrong.

   No, unfortunately I don’t see any other explanation apart from self-serving “logic” and opportunism. When things go wrong, conservative leaders attempt to wash their hands by punishing others and/or very carefully limiting analysis and debate (vis the 9/11 Commission). They know they’re at fault but if they can get away with it they will. However, if their opponents are in charge, the conservatives blame them for every failure and smear them with lies when no important failures can be identified. Remember the Clinton presidency.

   The problem is that the Republicans, and I fear the Democrats, have agendas which they cannot openly discuss. As a result, the whole blame game is a bit of a set-piece theatre performance.

   I’ll believe that Bush is taking responsibility when he uses the Bush family war profits to fund the promised Veteran’s benefits, or the rebuilding of New Orleans or the compensation due any Guantanamo prisoners who are eventually found to be innocent in a fair open court.

6. Lobo Gris March 16th, 2007 7:48 am

   There is only one measure of responsibility, accountability that counts whether you are a liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, or a pink polka dotted hippopatamus. If you are at fault you stand up, admit it, apologize, and resign. Period.

   Anything less is simply sidesteping what you are claiming to be doing and hoping that you get by with it.

   Lobo Gris

7. gmkaake March 16th, 2007 8:27 am

   I think Lakoff/Smith’s analysis helps us understand the conservative mind set – at least to me it does. I just don’t think like them, so it’s interesting to look at things the way they are seeing them and helps me understand them better. And when you unravel things a bit, there is much more possibility of actually communicating and perhaps even finding some common ground.

   I went to the Rockridge Nation website and read the Thinking Points – available in PDF. Iammyself recommended this in comments on another article, think it was the one on angry progressives. Thinking Points is definitely worth a read. One point he makes there is that the values of the progressive movement are traditional american values. The neocon’s and religious right have taken these same traditional american values and turned them on their head. The names may be the same but the meaning is completely different. This didn’t happen overnight – it has taken over 30 years. As progressives, we need to turn this around by clearly articulating what progressive values are in a way that delineates the deep meaning.

   And I don’t think their point is that you can simply divide the population into two groups. It certainly isn’t that simple. It’s really more of a spectrum of beliefs, from one extreme to the other. And, if we get down to a value’s level and we identify what we really mean when we talk about these values, we may be able to come to more of an agreement about how the country should be run. Of course the extreme conservatives will never be moved, but the ones closer to the middle, may be able to see that we really have shared values.

   If the country is polarized along progressive/conservative lines, we need to find common ground between the two groups to loosen up the polarization. We need to dig a little deeper when we talk to each other. And clarifying our progressive values will also bring together progressives from all political parties (Dems, Greens, Independents, etc). I think in many ways we will find we have a lot more in common than we think, when we communicate at a values level.

   Anyways, that’s my take on it.

8. gmkaake March 16th, 2007 8:52 am

   The values clarification is what is happening now for Christians, which is way overdue. There has been a lot of effective discussion happening about christian values delineating the deeper meaning between a progressive view of christianity and a conservative view. Do you worship a God of Love (NT) or a God of Judgement/Fear (OT), etc. Although I don’t consider myself a christian, I have always felt that the teachings of Jesus are completely in harmony with my spiritual beliefs. But the Christian Right has tried to lump all Christians together. I can’t tell you how relieved I am to see this discussion finally taking place. I live right down the street from New Life Church and Focus on the Family . It feels like blue sky and a breath of fresh air when you’ve been stuck in a closet for years and years.

9. Anarcissie March 16th, 2007 12:36 pm

   The term “spectrum” indicates a one-dimensional scale. I think people’s political and cultural ideas, interests and attachments have many dimensions, not one. The people who have been calling themselves “conservatives” in the United States since the 1930s differ very widely. In spite of Lakoff’s theory above, many of them believe in collective or communal responsibility. In any case, the desire to pin blame on isolated individuals while excusing oneself and one’s associates goes back to the original scapegoat (see your Bible or anthropology book) and before. It’s practiced right across every spectrum you can find.

10. gmkaake March 16th, 2007 2:50 pm

    thank you for making my point. below the surface of value labels conservatives throw around, there is a lot of common ground as americans. as progressives we need to clarify and clearly articulate what our values are, and we may find many so called conservatives believe have similar beliefs, since at their heart, progressive values are values most americans share. again, just my perspective.

11. iammyself March 16th, 2007 7:51 pm

    Anarcissie.

    Lakoff isn’t making the case that anything is simple, but rather, that there are differences and they are quantifiable. No, it’s not black-and-white. The thing is, the differences can be classified, and should be, in order to study and adress them. This is what scientists do.

    I found/find Lakoff’s views incredibly helpful in understanding the fundamental differences between conservatives and progressives. The fact is, the Right has framed the issues for many years and systematically brought about staggering, as well as very harmful, change. We either attempt to understand and learn, or camp out here at Common Dreams and lament our own demise.

12. quicksilver March 16th, 2007 11:53 pm

    Accountability is certainly an ambiguous concept in the U.S. What Lakoff and Smith fail to elucidate is that politicians actively rely on this ambiguity. Thus, when Gonzalez says something like “I take full responsibility for what happened,” he is aware that this sounds like he is invoking the “good,” progressive sense of accountability, and will satisfy many people who want to hear that. As a lawyer and a conservative, he also knows that professional bureaucrats and politicians will understand that he intends the “bad,” conservative, legalistic sense, and that he is therefore speaking in good faith. The language of accountability, especially in the U.S., always plays on this sort of double-speak, where an utterance is deliberately crafted to be interpretable by different audiences differently.

13. bnpehukokica December 11th, 2007 11:27 pm

    titxuracenari…

    exkotyhepahi…

14. bnrusivucipy December 12th, 2007 9:07 am

    titcuhuhixeto…

    exwarepypity…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)