I attended my field’s annual Policy Symposium this past week in D.C., which focused on addressing child care related issues on local, state, and national levels. As such, we hit Capital Hill on Thursday to meet with our representatives–or at least their fresh-faced staffers–to help them realize the importance of quality child care in the lives of healthy families, and healthy economies.

Our main priority was to push for re-authorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which helps subsidize the high cost of child care for working families. Since this has not yet happened, most states across the country are experiencing high waiting lists for child care subsidy services, including my own, where the parents of over 35,000 children are waiting for assistance. In the meantime, families either lose/quit their jobs because they cannot afford to pay for care out of pocket ($4,000-$10,000 a year) and then draw on already limited local resources, make potentially risky care choices, or simply leave their young children (0-5 yrs) home alone while they go out to earn a living. None of these scenarious, obviously, are good for communities, good for families, or good for children. However, as long as child care subsidy, and other “welfare” programs are framed in the political discourse as “handouts” it’s not going to change a thing in Washington and in your neighborhood.

Our keynote speaker, author and Berkeley linguistics professor James Lakoff, had something to say about this last point. He argued that most political debates are essentially moral battles between a strict father and a nurturant mother, as explained more in detail here:

Lakoff divides people into two ideal types: the strict father and the nurturant parent. The first believes the world is a nasty, dangerous place and that humans are fundamentally corrupt. He protects his family by asserting absolute authority over them; the father’s command is never questioned. Children are taught to be moral, self-sufficient adults through a combination of reward and punishment (often corporal). Once the child reaches adulthood, the father no longer plays much of a role in his life.

The nurturant parent is also deeply concerned with protecting his children and raising them to be upstanding adults. The difference lies in his view of human nature. Nurturers believe children respond best when parents explain their actions and encourage kids to ask questions. Nurturant parents place their highest priority on values like empathy and compassion. Whereas the strict father favors a tough-love approach to child-rearing, the nurturer cultivates deep emotional bonds. Nurturers believe children respond best not to the threat of punishment but to inner motivation and the desire to emulate their parents.

To make the leap from child-rearing to politics, Lakoff posited that people think of the nation as a family and the government as a parent. The way they view government typically follows from their views on child-rearing. So, for example, conservatives believe that single women who get pregnant should be punished by having to bring their child to term; a society that fails to punish women for promiscuous behavior is a society that encourages it. (The idea that abortion is murder becomes a kind of after-the-fact rationalization.) The death penalty is not only acceptable but moral for the same reason: People who commit murder must themselves be punished. Not to take a life in response would only encourage more murders. Conservatives also oppose most social programs because, like strict fathers, they believe able-bodied adults should fend for themselves. Giving them unearned benefits only undermines this ethic.

So you can see how Lakoff’s theory fits into our purpose at the Symposium, especially in my case, arguing for these “unearned benefits” with three North Carolina Republicans, a party known for a “strict father” approach to public policy. Our charge from Lakoff was then to reframe our issue to reflect the ideals of those “Founding Fathers” everyone keeps talking about, specifically their role in forming early States as Commonwealths, for the common good (separate discussion on that point later). Because most people are actually “bi-conceptuals”, a popular Lakoffism, appealing to the nurturant sides of Republican legislators is actually easier than one would think, it’s a all a matter of framing.

Anyway, take from that what you will. I thought it was an interesting speech, especially coming from a guy getting a lot of airtime with Democrats, for better or worse.