In this article, Mr. Engber paints a picture of the work of Drs. Westen and Lakoff which is entirely inaccurate.
To set the record straight, Westen and Lakoff are peddling entirely reasonable science which is far more nuanced and less inherently partisan that Engber suggests. The central question of both The Political Mind and The Political Brain is not an attempt to belittle and discredit conservatives, as the article suggests, but an attempt to explain the failure of Democrats in national elections over the past thirty years (with the exception of the walking anomaly that is Bill Clinton). Essentially they are trying to answer the titular question of Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas?, with insights from their prospective fields.
It should be noted that it appears that Engber is completely unaware of the fact that Lakoff is a linguist, and in no way involved in neuroscience. How a linguist can be a ‘neuropundit’ is beyond me.
But that is neither here nor there. What is relevant is whether Engber is accurate in his depiction of the work of both of these scientists, and especially whether his suggesting that they are ‘peddling junk’ is fair. I believe that the answer to both is no.
First of all, I question whether Engber has actually read either The Political Brain or The Political Mind. While both works suggest that there are ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ frames or states of mind, neither suggests that these states are all-encompassing. In fact, Lakoff repeatedly and explicitly denounces such an idea, arguing that we both possess both frames of mind at different moments and to varying degrees.
What they do argue, on the other hand, is that conservatives have, over the past several decades, been far more successful at activating and reinforcing a conservative frame of mind in a majority of Americans. For Westen, this relates directly to emotional appeals of fears of the unknown and of personal security, while Lakoff argues that this has is based on the cognitive metaphors implied by verbal and nonverbal communication.
Liberals, meanwhile, have fallen into the rational-actor fallacy repeatedly, believing that, if presented with rational arguments framed in neutral terms (if there such things exist), voters will agree with the better argument. Unlike Kansans, they will follow formal logic to come to the conclusion which best agrees with their perspective.
Clearly that isn’t the case.
The arguments made by both scientists, if one is willing to consider them openly, are nuanced and carefully considered. If they do seem biased, it is because they are, and openly so. Both books are written with partisan interests, and that authors of both are clear and upfront about this point.
But the fact that the books are written to try to persuade liberals to use relevant cognitive and neurological science to better craft appeals to the average voters doesn’t mean that the science cited is ‘junk’ or even biased. That’s a very important distinction, and one which Mr. Engber should’ve recognized and, even if he disagrees with the scientists, acknowledged.
Instead readers will be left with a woefully inaccurate portrait of two potentially influential books about voter behavior.
Finally, I think that it is incredibly important that the very premise of the article, that all ‘neuropundits are raging liberals’ is in itself unfair. While the current crop of academics making arguments like Westen and Lakoff are certainly overwhelmingly liberal, it isn’t just liberals who have made such arguments. It is, in fact, conservative think tanks and consultants who have made the conservatives so good at politics. Take, for example, Dr. Frank Luntz. While Luntz uses different methodologies, and perhaps questionable ethics, to craft powerful messages, he in fact has spent a career doing exactly what Westen and Lakoff suggest (albeit from a conservative point of view).
