Founding Fathers were really Framers and seed planters.

“Founding Fathers” vs Framers of the Constitution:  A response to George Lakoff’s “cognitive and brain science” analysis of “Why Trump”.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35588-focus-why-trump

Lakoff says “The answer came from a realization that we tend to understand the nation metaphorically in family terms: We have founding fathers.”

Admirers of the men who created our ‘united states’ in the early days called them “framers” not “fathers”.  It might be more appropriate to call them ‘global farmers’ in that they planted a seed that could be accepted on any soil and could profoundly change the world for the better.  The ideal that the purpose of government is to serve ‘we the people’ not vice versa.   They did not found a geographic nation. They designed the foundation for an ideal on which any nation could be created.

“The conservative and progressive worldviews dividing our country can most readily be understood in terms of moral worldviews that are encapsulated in two very different common forms of family life: The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative).”

Given that I had an extremely strict father who routinely inflicted both warranted and occasionally unwarranted punishments, including both verbal and physical beatings of myself, my sister and my saintly mother, I am a flaming liberal and disavow this ‘conservative’ understanding of governance. I believe they do to once they understand the unintended consequences which it births.  

“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.”

Thus my visceral and mental rejection of any governing intuition with sufficient power to physical abuse the innocent and no means of control or accountability…and my unwavering support for both our nation’s First and the Second Amendments.  

“In the strict father family, father knows best…and has the ultimate authority…[and] it is his moral duty to punish [the family] painfully enough so that, to avoid punishment, … they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined…and able to prosper in the external world.”  [And] “if they don’t” …”they are not disciplined…cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty.”  …”Responsibility is…personal responsibility not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you; [not] society. You are responsible for yourself… [and] others…are responsible for themselves.”

With a B.S. Degree in Biology, below average language skills, an above average score in mechanical aptitude, a wide range of real world experiences, a nearly religious respect for science – and a scientific respect for religion, I authoritatively that state a ‘strict father family’ perspective is technically, BS.  The greatest fallacy of this fantasy is the reality that the abuse of power only fuels revenge and the unyielding desire for covert abuse of power using clever asymmetrical ways that will avoid detection.  An basic understanding of the “life sciences” empowers one with an impressive knowledge of ‘ending life’ as a science.  Combined this passion with a ‘higher than average’ mechanical aptitude and there is no father figure, founding father or farmer that can abuse power without putting themselves at grave risk.  Here in lies the profound functional wisdom of an ancient and universal value.  Liberty and justice for all.   In summary, we all have the freedom to do whatever we like.  And there will be consequences. ‘No justice?  No security!’  If Trump voters believe his Presidency will bring them security, they are gravely mistaken and need to crack a book.   The Bible, Quran or the report by the Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance.  “Do unto others…” isn’t just a suggestion.  Like DNA it is a code for sustaining life and essential to our species survival.

The late Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, a pillar of conservative idealism, once said a profoundly biological law in the context of government.  He said, “Structure is destiny.”  The Constitutional structure our nation’s framers (builders) give us had some initial flaws that nearly brought down the house.  Wisely they infused it with the flexibility to adapt to change, a fundamental aspect of life and reality in with the intent that it be changed as needed so ‘we the people’ could survive.   Today, it must adapt again, and quickly.  Unfortunately, the framers didn’t build into it the capacity for rapid restructuring.  They intentionally burdened it a slow and laborious mechanism useful in that era.    Given the pace of global technological change today that characteristic, once a strength, is now our it’s greatest weakness.  China can change on a dime.  We can’t change on a nineteen trillion dollar deficit and a procurement procedure that can never keep pace with the exponential growth of a growing array of unprecedented powerful technologies.

At this point in history, it doesn’t really matter who is President.  Even if the Democrats get their favorite pick, win back both the House and the Senate, and pass every liberal piece of legislation they desire, every American will be virtually powerless against a growing number of threats we face from beyond our shores and atmosphere.  Economic, environmental, WMD, cyber, geological and space threats are all beyond any single government capacity to prevent. 

And even the most liberal elites lack the courage to propose a global structure that could prevent most of these threats, and enable ‘we the people’ of the earth to respond most effectively to the threats our species cannot prevent.

I hope George Lakoff will turn his “cognitive and brain science” expertise to figuring out why the human mind cannot accept this profoundly simple fact.  Nearly 8 billion people live in an irreversibly interdependent world, yet we rely on independent governments to protect our security and our most cherished freedoms.  Physically it’s not possible.  Our minds are frozen in time with the mythical belief that our Constitution bases on the concept of independence, and a global governance system based on the supremacy of national sovereignty, instead of universal human rights, can protect us.

It’s B.S.  Mr. Lakoff, can you tell us why our brains are stuck on the suicidal belief?