12 Phrases Progressives Need To Ditch (And What We Can Say Instead)

[Mira]

Author: Elisabeth Parker





If we want people to think well of our progressive agenda, then we need to use our own words. (See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil)



(1). Big Business: (Also referred to as: Corporate America; Multinationals; Corporate Interests) When we use any of these words, we automatically sound pie-in-the-sky liberal. People think, “what’s wrong with that?” After all, they’d like their own businesses to get “big” and have no negative associations with the words “corporate” or “multinational” — which actually sound kind of exciting and worldly. Instead, try: Unelected Government. This puts them in their proper context as unelected entities with unprecedented powers, whose actions have immense impact on our lives, and which we are powerless to hold accountable.

(2). Entitlements: I keep hearing reporters from National Public Radio and other liberal news outlets use the word “entitlements” and it makes me froth at the mouth. They’re not “entitlements” — which sounds like something a bunch of spoiled, lazy, undeserving people irrationally think they should get for nothing. Instead, try: Earned Benefits. This term not only sounds better for the progressive cause, it’s also more accurate. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment are all forms of insurance that we pay into all of our working lives — via a percentage of our income — and then collect from when the time comes.

(3). Free Market Capitalism: (Also referred to as: Capitalism, Free Markets, and Supply-Side Economics) Like “Fascism” and “Communism,” “Free Market Capitalism” is a 20th-century utopian ideal that has amply been proven an unworkable failure, and damaging to society. Instead, try: Socialized Risk, Privatized Profits. This best describes the dramatically failed experiment in unfettered capitalism, as practiced in the late 20th century and early aughts.

Read 9 more:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/24/10-phrases-progressives-need-to-ditch/#ixzz2XvCdVJHi

[emsimon33]

1. The Republicans have clearly illustrated the power of the right phrasing

We need to adopt the same strategy.

[truebluegreen]

3. True. We need to reframe the issues

instead of buying into theirs and then trying to argue against them.

[Brickbat]

2. Crap, I was hoping "speak truth to power" was on there.

[truedelphi]

4. It is a really good phrase. Used by MLK, Jr.

And it is a heck of a lot better than Fox's "Fair and Balanced," or CNN's line of "No bias. No Bull."

[CTyankee]

5. Language is really key!

We need to do this ASAP! Altho I do see some of these changes being used more and more. So I am encouraged...

[jimlup]

6. I agree with some but not all of the suggested changes...

We can't allow the Republicans to take possession of certain words and have them end up against us. I'm sorry by the "environment" is one that I'm not willing to give up and don't think I sound like a "self righteous liberal" to anyone who wouldn't already be thinking that after hearing me for a few sentences.

We can't let the repukes and conservatives win the language. Yes some like "entitlements" we should likely change (actually I think the conservatives started that one years ago)

For example I have heard the argument form conservative (idiots) that goes something like this:

"Before it was global warming and now it is climate change. They couldn't make us believe in one falsehood and now they won't be able to shift the name and make us believe another falsehood."

(I'm paraphrasing as I doubt that the speaker was capable of forming such a statement. Still, I think you get the idea I'm worried about.)

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

9. I agree.

That was my thought, too. I agree with the need to re-frame these topics, to change the buzzwords and preferred phrases, but some of the suggested alternatives are... perhaps unsubtle? Maybe that's not it. Hmm. The thing with re-framing is that it can't be too obvious, or the effort simply won't work. The framing can't play into an existing controversy, at least not too obviously, or you lose part of the audience right away. It should be sensible enough to make people think, catchy enough that it will be used, and probably subversive enough that it changes our minds without our realizing it. I suspect part of the reason our adversaries are better at this sort thing is that we prefer to explain and convince, rather than subvert and control.

[jimlup]

10. Yep...

I also think that part of the battle is just keeping the discussion going. The people who are going to oppose us are going to oppose us anyway. The people who will tend to be with us once they know what is really going on are still going to be with us even if we screw up the dialogue a little. Thus a big part of our work is to just keep pushing the issues (and the truth which is still the truth regardless of what words you use to describe it.) Push them and push them until they start to get traction.

In my life I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised at the progress made in gay rights. I really didn't think we would have come this far so soon and it is a good lesson for me in how to just keep the discussion going no matter how lost it seems, it may not actually be.

[Triana]

7. Bookmarked. Great suggestions. Thanks! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. I hate the goddamn backpedalling bullshit.

All we do is react. "Entitlement" is a good example. Instead of saying "Yes, 'entitlement'. It's an entitlement because it is insurance and you pay the premiums, so you are entitled to the promised benefit if you experience the loss for which you are indemnified." We say... "uh, did I say entitlement??? I mean, uh... money you get because it's, uh, part of the deal. Yeah, that's the ticket."

So... I want government to protect my entitlements from supply-side, big business assholes. The dictionary likes that sentence just fine.