RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Dems Are Moms, Reps Are Dads

I’ve thought for a long time that Democrats seem comfortable in the role of mothers, while Republicans like to think they are the father figures of America. I’m not talking about the kind of father who is a deadbeat alcoholic who cheats on his wife while she’s at work… well, maybe that’s not such a stretch for Republicans, now that I think about it.

I think it’s safe to say that if these political parties represent a family, it’s dysfunctional at best.

Democrats want to mother everybody, and that’s good in general, although it can be a bit stifling. Some of the mothers reading this might take offense at this idea, but ideally, everyone should aspire to taking care of ourselves without Mom coming over every day to clean and cook for us. I mean, Mom’s great, but jeezus, sometimes you just need her to mind her own damn business and let you live your life as an adult. She rearranges things in the kitchen, puts blue stuff in your toilet, and irons your wash’n'wear shirts. You just don’t need all that much help!

Republicans as dads are even worse. They not only demand you be perfect (or just like them, or both), they’ll refuse to help you out when you make a mistake! They figure that’s the only way you’ll learn your lesson. “OK, have it your way,” Dad says as you ignore his advice against eating a habanero pepper for the first time. He watches smugly as you defiantly bite into it, then laughs his ass off as you yell and start gulping water. Then comes his coup de grace:  “Just wait’ll it comes out the other end!” And he laughs some more.

OK, enough with the similes. My point is that it seems like the Republicans want to do what is best for us as a nation, as they interpret it, but when push comes to shove, they’re willing to let you hurt yourself or otherwise pay dearly for ignoring their advice. They are not always right, as in correct, but they are always sure they are right. In their defense, they would put their lives on the line to protect you from others, but if you want to hurt yourself, they’ll let you. In fact, they think it builds character for you to suffer. It’s good for you! But for themselves, they have most of the money and power, and they plan to keep it that way. They always keep the lion’s share for themselves. They make damn sure of that.

Democrats, by and large, are more likely to want to make you “be good.” They want everybody to be happy, but sometimes their good intentions backfire. They want everybody to feel special. But if everybody is special, nobody is special. Sometimes you just want what’s yours, what you’ve earned, and to hell with everyone else. But Democrats, like some mothers, are more socialistic. They insist you share everything, eat the same food, and wear the same clothes. It’s like Communism!

Take for example the mother who insists you share your Hallowe’en candy stash with your whiny little brother (who makes you sick with his fake crying). Mom says, “You’ve got more than enough for both of you, now you need to share!” Doesn’t matter that the little punk was too lazy to do his own trick-or-treating! You walked over 20 blocks in a stifling mask for that bag of treats. It was supposed to last you till next year! Meanwhile, little brother is making faces at you from behind Mom’s skirt.

Dad steps into the fray and says, “Give me that bag! If you can’t get along, neither one of you gets any candy!” He grabs the candy bag and takes it to his bedroom, where he starts digging through it for himself!

Now you’re mad. It’s all the little brother’s fault, and he’s gonna pay! But Mom sees that look you’re giving him, the one that burns holes in the wall behind him, and she decides she’d better do something before someone gets hurt. She marches into the bedroom to retrieve the candy from Dad, who by now is sucking melted chocolate from his fingers and the Milky Way wrappers in his lap.

Mom grabs what’s left of the candy and takes it into the kitchen, where she puts it on the top shelf, behind the old china passed down from her mother-in-law. She brings back two little packages of Smarties, gives one to each of the kids, promising you each get one piece of candy a day… “if you’re good”. This makes little brother happy, but you’re still pissed and thinking revenge. Mom is all proud of herself for being the peacemaker. She’s also thinking about which candy she’ll be munching on tomorrow while you’re at school.

Then there’s a crash in the kitchen! Pieces of broken china fly across the room as Dad yells some words you haven’t heard before. Mom grabs a broom and tells you kids to stay out of the kitchen. She sweeps up the worst of the broken stuff while Dad slips out the back door with the candy. Mom yells at him to stop, but he knows better and rushes to the garage, where he hides the candy in his gun locker.

Mom knows the candy is gone, and the kids are now fighting again, but she knows how to solve the problem. She packs the kids in the car and takes them out for ice cream!

Meanwhile, Dad takes advantage of being alone. He gets in his own car, stops at the liquor store, and rushes over to his girlfriend’s house for a quickie. She’s also his attorney, by the way. You know how Republicans are. They’re all in bed together behind our backs.

On the way back from the ice cream store, little brother pukes all over himself, thanks to the stress of the fighting, the candy, the ice cream, and that juice box Mom gave him on the way home. Too much of a good thing, I guess, but at least she meant well. Sometimes, Democrats and Moms just can’t help being generous to a fault.

After everything has been cleaned up, and the kids put to bed, Dad comes home, a little tipsy, and kind of red in the face. “What’s for supper? Eww, it smells like vomit in here! What stinks?” Mom starts toward him to get a hug and to cry on his shoulder, but stops three feet from him. “What stinks?” she asks mockingly. “From the smell of you, I’d say Johnny Walker and cheap perfume!”

They argue, then Dad storms out and doesn’t return for three hours. When he returns, he has a dozen roses in one hand, and in the other… a box of chocolates. Mom turns her back on him and stomps off to “her” bedroom. Dad attempts to follow, but trips in the dark over “his” suitcases in the hall.

He leaves, but before he’s gone a mile, he’s got his lawyer/girlfriend on the phone, ordering her to clean out the joint bank accounts and move it offshore.

Meanwhile, while little brother was sleeping, you put his hand in a cup of warm water and he pees himself in his sleep.

Well, it seems the similes crept back in. Or is it now satire?

Anyway, the moral of the story is this:

“Revenge is sweeter than chocolate! But in the end, everybody suffers.”

  • kenoshamarge

    What’s wrong? sounds like a typical American family, R or D to me. No wonder so many of us grow up with such skewed ideas of what justice means.

    • Denise

      I would like to think of it this way: One party is an enabler; and One party holds you to task.

      I’m a good mother, I don’t baby my children I insist they be responsible for their actions. I do not allow them to make excuses but ask that they search for solutions. Asking for advice is a great start for anyone.

      • JozefAL

        I’m sorry, but which (in your mind) is which?
        The Republican Party that I’ve borne witness to since the advent of Reagan is an enabler for the well-off and only “holds to task” the poor and have-nots. The Democrats may be “enablers” but, unlike the GOP, they do tend to have the best intentions for everyone.

  • Ladydawnelle

    wow

    no my Dad was not like that nor my Mom

    if that was typical than I escaped it

    perhaps why I am now an independent
    no pug children screaming “mine, mine, mine”
    no dorky dem kids giving it all away to the neighborhood

    whew

    my Brother and I (in the end) shared our candy and were allowed to eat almost as much as we could before getting sick

    no one MADE us (as long as Mamma was happy than everyone was happy)

    woe be it to anyone that dissed Mamma!

    • Ellen D

      Big WOW.

      When my daughter first went to college and stayed in a dorm she came home and said she had no idea that other families were so dysfunctional until she heard the stories. Then she felt weird because ours was so Ozzie and Harriet (I know – old reference).

      I also shared my candy equally with my younger sister. It was the lesser of the two evils – if I didn’t, I had to take her with me and it slowed me down ;)

  • Animal Control

    From this description no wonder America is screwed.

  • Claudy

    I’ve been following this theme for some time now. George Lakoff, esteemed linguist at UC Berkley, has made a living researching the divisions between Right and Left.

    The Right is patriarchal; Left matriarchal.

    Right believes in strictness and left in nurturance.

    Explored in depth in his “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think”.

    It may interest you that Frank Luntz (“It Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear”) helped Rs regain power leading up to 2000 election; and Lakoff was consulting with Dean back in 06-07 to straighten out the Dem message.

    Something worked ’cause the nanny state won.

    Towards end of the primaries when O was about to seal the deal, Lakoff issued a statement saying that he didn’t like his ‘language’ – he thought he was ‘off message’, i.e. not sounding like a nurturer.

    This must be why he attracted so many Independents.

    I agree with Lakoff’s last assessment.

    BO is neither fish nor fowl, IMHO. He has none of the comforting patriarchal messaging that a Bush employs and lacks the affectionate and natural empathy of a Bill Clinton…

    His body language and communication style has always put me off. He looks and sounds like a dictator. And, I wouldn’t hang that label on either the Right or the Left…

    until now.

    • Diana L. C.

      But Lakoff’s political theories in The Political Mind are not necessarily accepted by many in linguistics and in neuropsychology or neurolinguistics.

      Read Steven Pinker’s last: The Stuff of Thought. I believe it’s in Chapter 5 that he discounts Lakoff’s political theories. Randy Allen Harris’ The Linguistic Wars covers the history of the feud between the generative syntactics camp of Chomsky and the generative semantics camp of Lakoff. Lakoff has a combative, smug personality, I think; but then I’ve always admired Chomsky’s approach to linguistics more. His work in linguistics is never used as a hammer to try to convince people about his politics. And Lakoff’s opinions about how to run politics are just too Orwellian for me.

      I also attended a talk by Lakoff in Denver just as Hillary was at the point of being strong-armed out of the race. He was gushing over O like you wouldn’t believe. His talk and his answers to audience questions just did not convince me.

    • oowawa

      Fascinating post, Claudy. Thank you.

    • Diana L. C.

      Lakoff’s political theory in his The Political Mind is offensive to me in several respects. First he basically leaves female symbolism out and opts for the “nurturing parents” for the Dems, while sticking with “the strict father” for the Repubs.

      I can’t explain the faults of his theory half as well as Steven Pinker does in his The Stuff of Thought.” I believe he tackles Lakoff’s theory in Chapter 5.

      Read also Randy Allen Harris’ “The Linguistic Wars” if you want a good background on Lakoff’s camp’s, the generative semantics camp’s, war with Noam Chomsky’s camp, the generative syntax camp. Lakoff is a combative, smug person.

      I’ve got to admit that in my studies of linguistics, I could never find much “meat” in Lakoff’s theories, except one on metaphor. I always preferred Chomsky’s approach.

      I read Chomsky’s linguistics work before ever reading his political writing. I admired Chomsky for not using his stature as the “father of modern linguistics” as a hammer for his political thinking, as Lakoff uses his “distinguished linguist” stature for his.

      I attended a talk about Lakoff’s political theory on a book tour for The Political Mind in Denver just a Hillary was in the process of getting out of the primary. Lakoff’s remarks and his answers to audience questions were not compelling to me at all. The audience was mostly really far left latte liberals, and Lakoff was acting totally like O’s lap dog.

      His political theory is far too Orwellian for me.

      I come from an ethnic group that came from “Mother Russia” and eventually called the U.S. the “Good Step-Mother.” Believe me, there was not much difference in the way our family matriarchs and family patriarchs acted in many aspects of our lives. Both depended so much on the other’s help that it became a real partnership. The female/male distinction between parties theory breaks down in many ways–as do all analogies.

      • oowawa

        The female/male distinction between parties theory breaks down in many ways–as do all analogies.

        Wow–lots for me to look up and think about in your comment, Diana. My thought is that the specific ways that analogies “break down” are as illuminating as the ways in which analogies apply and make sense. Metaphors and analogies can be devices to engender fresh thinking on a familiar subject, as long as their associations are pursued and they are not allowed to ossify into cliches. And your comment throws many more associations into the mix!

      • Claudy

        Thanks for adding another layer to my understanding of Lakoff.

        I agree that the polarization of parties along gender lines is akin to “Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus” pop psychology.

        Only offering info re Lakoff to stimulate people to think about the mechanics of the dialog. Very sophisticated communication and marketing techniques — from neuro linguistic programming to behavior profiling and targeting and utilizing social media — have been employed by Obama’s team with great success. IMHO these methods should be analyzed and revealed as they point to an Orwellian scenario.

        I started following Lakoff’s impact on Dems when the NYTimes magazine ran an article on Howard Dean which discussed how he planned to win back the hearts and minds of the country to Dem positions by changing the dialog a la Lakoff.

        Dems have managed to take back the meaning of certain words, i.e. Progressive successfully replaced Liberal. Dems won points on ‘family values’ too saying it was a family value to care about the environment, and to push for universal healthcare. It’s ‘pro life’ for instance to be anti-war and anti-capital punishment. There are numerous other examples which I see played out in Obama’s speeches today and other prominent Dems who are riding this wave.

        As the Dems broke through Republican hold on our political culture, I see that we will have to break down what is going on for us now and therefore find ways to beat back Obamanation.

        If we don’t want what the Orwellian, we will inevitably be led to what role language played in this election.

        For the record, I was and remain anti-Obama because of his propaganda.

        Will circle back for Chomsky:-)

        -c

        • Diana L. C.

          Thanks for the clarification of your purpose, and sorry for the double answer. Sometimes it appears that my comments get lost here. And, yes, I do understand how the O crowd and the DNC use language in manipulative ways.

          I know the Dem leaders, rather than taking any of their time after 2006 to try to accomplish anything or develop substantial policies or plans for changes in government, or even show signs of countering Bush, used some of that time to hunker down with Lakoff’s theory and plan to “win” in 2008. It seemed like two wasted years to me.

          And now we have a POTUS who likes to point out the fact that he won. The U.S. has two parties fighting for power, while no one in government seems worried really about doing anything right for the governed. It’s all theory and manipulation–a game for the power brokers in each party: Who can come up with the right words to get their way, not who can work best to figure out the best course on each of the issues for the people of the U.S.

  • mark connette

    I am a registered republican……never beat my wife….never cheated on her…never forced my kids to eat hot peppers…….am I missing something? Must be a slow news day…oh well…….gotta run and beat my kids and screw the neighbors wife…hahahahahaha

    • pm317

      but you don’t mind voting for some who do, that is the point (btw, beating wife was not on steve’s list, forcing hot peppers on a kid was a metaphor).

  • pm317

    Steve, enjoyed reading this post!!

    • Steve_in_KC

      Thank you, PM! I’m glad you saw the hot pepper metaphor for what it is.

      Where some people got the idea the dad was forcing the kid to eat it escapes me. The dad was advising against it, but the kid defied his advice, so Dad just let him find out for himself. I’ve seen many fathers do similar things. If the kid insists he can handle it and ignores Dad’s advice, Dad just watches smugly and laughs at the results. “Serves you right! I tried to warn you!”

      • mark connette

        It was in a joking manner….I got the drift about the peppers….and who says you guys dont have a sense of humor?

  • oowawa

    Hey, Steve–very interesting theme. Does this imagery perhaps connect with Fascism on the extreme “dad” end of the spectrum and Communism on the extreme “mom” end? (I am thinking of the Fatherland (Germany) invading the Motherland (Russia) in WWII. Of course, once you get to to radical extremes, left wing (mom) and right wing (dad) seem to become indistinguishable in some respects, most notably a tendency towards totalitarianism.

    • Steve_in_KC

      Thanks, oowawa. I think you got the picture quite right.

      By the way, I’d love to hear how you came up with that screen name. It’s puzzled me for some time!

      • oowawa

        Well, Steve, I love doo-wop music from the 1950′s, and in many of the songs you can hear the background singers going “oowawa-oowawa-oowawa.” I liked the sound better than, say, “dipdittadip,” and “sha-na-na” was already taken.

        • Steve_in_KC

          That explains it perfectly! Thanks!

          I spend about ten years as a radio DJ and Music Director for an oldies station, so I know exactly what you are talking about. It’s funny, but I had heard most of those old songs on the radio for years, but when I was playing them on the radio myself, listening through the headphones to re-releases in stereo, I was amazed at the depth and complexity of many of those old doo-wop songs!

  • ces

    I’m thinking it’s more like Little Sibling, Big Sibling.

    Little Sibling does anything to get attention, and usually finds a way to do so.

    And the Big Sibling wants to beat the snot out of Little Sibling for taking attention/resources away from him/her.

  • Ladydawnelle

    Now THAT could be true!

    lmao!

    • Ladydawnelle

      they created the fear of being “frogged”
      (my big bro)

      owie!

  • DAB

    Your analogy illustrates why we need divided government — or better yet, a new political party.
    Perhaps a rare democrat/republican/independent combo like Michael Bloomberg would have filled the bill — oh well……….

    • NomNomNom

      Michael Bloomberg is a Wall Street backed stooge who has 20 billion in his bank account. He spent 150 million campaigning for mayor. The last freaking thing any of us need is another plutocrat if one is looking for something different than what we’ve got.

      • DAB

        True — but he was at one time a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent. Guess I’m just grasping at straws.

  • Ellen D

    There is a theory that the worst marriages are between dominant elder children.
    Guess after 35 years I should break the news to my husband. On the plus side it’s never dull.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Steve_in_KC thanks for the post which I enjoyed.

    I am left wondering about the stereotyping.

    My dad used to make a very hot curry which was the only time I was allowed cold beer at 10 years of age.

    I guess he liked to see us sweat.

    • Steve_in_KC

      Thank you TWK. The stereotyping was simply analogous to mothers as caregivers and fathers as tough-love types. Either one, taken to dysfunctional extremes, as our government seems intent on doing, devalues both.

      Political humor, especially when it involves the gender gap, is seldom an exact science. I was just trying to make light of our dysfuntional American political system, comparing it to a dysfunctional family stereotype.

      Glad you enjoyed it!

      • TeakWoodKite

        our dysfuntional American political system…

        That’s an understatement ..LOL
        Thanks.

  • WhatNow

    Steve in KC – yes we have a dysfunctional political system in America but did you have to reinforce a stereotype of what a supposedly typical family is like. Your description of family is faaaaaaarrr from what I see in my family and in other families. It must be a Midwestern concept and Of course everyone knows the Midwest is alwaaays behind, by about 20 years.

    I couldn’t read beyond the first paragraph, so if I missed something “progressive” from you, I would chalk that up as a mistake on your part. NQ is going down the tubes.

    • Steve_in_KC

      Well, make up your mind.

      You say you couldn’t read beyond the first papagraph, but you make a characterization about the main body of the post.

      You seem upset that I reinforced a stereotype, but you deny any such stereotype exists.

      Then you decide to insult the Midwest for good measure. Aren’t you the progressive one!

      So if you, by reading only one paragraph of a story, can derive such a depth of understanding about the piece as to criticize it (and expect any credibility from me or other readers), you must be a very advanced human being! Most of us have to actually read something to understand it as deeply as you seem to!

      And if you aren’t completely sold by reading one paragraph, it’s my fault? Yet you, by reading one paragraph, were so full of things to say about the piece you had to jump in and start insulting people.

      Gee, I wish I was just like you! Then I could be superior to everyone else, just like you! /snark

      And where did you get the idea that I was “progressive” or had any desire to write “progressive” pieces? In my mind, the “progressives” are the enemy of NQ. They’re the assholes who took over the Democratic Party and selected a nominee before the primaries were over.

      And since you don’t seem to like NQ, why waste your time here? Doing a little trolling perhaps?

    • oowawa

      Of course everyone knows the Midwest is alwaaays behind, by about 20 years.

      Well, WhatNow, inasmuch as the folks in the Midwest are so far behind the times, I am curious what states or regions you would recommend as being up-to-date and cutting edge? I want to be “progressive,” so maybe by moving to one of those modern areas I might be able to improve myself and catch up with what’s new . . .

  • r2d2

    “You just don’t need all that much help!” Nice sentiment. So how much help does the brat need?