Political Catch Phrases Constrict Thought?

[eniwetok]

When we hear the Right use the term "pro-choice" it contains built-in argument... and implies that anyone who disagrees must therefore be "anti-life". Some do think in such simplistic terms. In reality, it usually means anti-abortion... unless there's some moral consistency being against the death penalty and war. Religious freedom for the Right often just means their right to discriminate or oppress others. "War On Xmas" is another such laughable phrase given that Xmas is our nation's most obnoxious holiday... in our faces for an entire month. "Self made" might fit the category since it implies complete independence in what one has earned... while it sweeps under the rug all those backdoor freebies government gives to business... free limited liability protection for corporations and shareholders, low tax rates for capital gains, free intellectual property monopolies, etc.

So when I hear Dems throw around terms like corporations and the rich must pay their "fair share" in taxes... it's a similar phrase with a built in argument. OF COURSE they should pay their "fair share"... but the phrase doesn't provide any criteria for what "fair share" even means... a topic for another thread, perhaps. "Living wage" is another such phrase... that sounds meaningful and good intentioned... and anyone who disagrees with some arbitrary number must be for predatory employment. Again, it's just a phrase anyone can project anything they want into. Depending on a worker's circumstances a "living wage" might still not be enough, or it might be pure gravy. Democracy is another such phrase that's often used by liberal Dems. But when one scratches the surface almost without exception we find what's being supported is un- or antidemocratic

So I think we should be cautious throwing around such catch phrases that lack operative definitions.

[daleanime]

1. And, of course, if doing so helps delay addressing the problems.....

so much better.

[moonbabygo]

2. you think Christmas

is most obnoxious holiday? Why?

It's my favorite time of the year

[eniwetok]

4. don't want to get sidetracked... but since you asked

Marilyn O... is that you?

Leaving aside that I'm not a Christian... and that it's really a pagan holiday?

Xmas is the perfect capitalist holiday and that's why it's been hijacked. It's perfect for manipulating consumers with guilt to spend and spend some more. The madness starts right after Thanksgiving and one simply can't escape it for that entire month... and I really hate most of the modern Xmas music I hear in stores. I'd much prefer old medieval music; something that hearkens back in mood to when people were more connected to the seasonal changes of earlier sunsets and longer nights.

My point was simply that the alleged War On Christmas is such absolute nonsense... designed to make those on the Right feel like their victims when the REAL war on Xmas is by corporations and they are trying to victimize us.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Me too. I LOVE that moment when I hear the first Christmas song of the year on the radio,

no matter how cheesy it is. I love the lights, the decorating, getting the tree, everything. Winter would be cold, long, and incredibly tedious without the magic of Christmas in the middle of it!

[Oneironaut]

3. "Prosecute the bankers," "Christian values," "Boots on the ground"

1 - Ok, but which bankers and for what? It's the laws that suck. They're either too vague or have too many grey areas. We all know Wall Street is full of greedy people. Saying that you're going to "prosecute the bankers" makes me believe you really don't care and are just looking for a good sound bite.

2 - What the heck is a Christian value? There is absolutely no criteria for what this is. It's usually pulled out by a sanctimonious Republican who disagrees with something, but the term is meaningless. Is it based on something in the Bible? Well, what does the Bible say about abortion, LGBT, marriage, the government's role in a state's issues, etc.? I'm not talking about the bs cherrypicking / interpretation that always happens - I'm talking about obvious Biblical references. The term is totally useless.

3 - Boots on the ground is a meaningless catchphrase that tries to dehumanize soldiers, all while maintaining absolute vagueness. It's basically saying, "We're sending soldiers." That could range anywhere from 10 trainers to a 100,000-strong invasion force.

[eniwetok]

5. Christian Values?

Talk about the hijacking of a religion. Paul and his followers stripped the historical Jesus of his orthodox Jewish beliefs and created a new non-Jewish religion around him. So in that historical context, just what are real "Christian" values.

[X_Digger]

6. This is what, the fifth thread you've started attacking democrats in one form or fashion?

I'm sure we'll all take your *concern* as seriously as it merits.

Are you sure you're on the right site?

[eniwetok]

14. pray tell... WHERE'S THIS ATTACK?

Are you so intolerant that you can't deal with a simple criticism that mushy phrases aren't enough... THEY NEED TO BE FLESHED OUT?

[OhioBlue]

7. Framing the Debate

Have you read George Lakoff? If not, I would recommend it. I think you would find his book, "Don't Think of an Elephant" interesting.

[eniwetok]

12. Read it back in 04

I used to post in the Rockridge forum... here's an old post from 05

Reframing: Income Tax = Opportunity Tax

Sorry for the repost. Perhaps this is the more appropriate forum.

Maybe someone's already suggested this.

Reading the section here about reframing the tax issue I was reminded of how a few years ago in debates with people on the Right I began replace the term income tax with opportunity tax. It better frames the moral basis for progressive taxation. It calls into question the myth promulgated by the Right that every individual earns their wealth completely by their own initiative. The truth is no one's good idea or skills alone will make them wealthy in the American sense of the word in an impoverished third world nation. They need a nation with an extensively developed infrastructure... from an educated workforce to highways to public health.... and such things are largely the result of PUBLIC investments.

No one discounts the value of creativity and hard work to society but by taxing "opportunity" the wealthy help repay the public for use of that infrastructure in proportion to how much they take advantage of it... as reflected in income, or course!

Oh hell... here's another


Reframing Is NOT Enough if Core Values Have Been Compromised

While I certainly agree with Lakoff that reframing what Progressives stand for is crucial to advancing a Progressive agenda... we have to ask just what is being reframed? Does it represent a Progressive vision of where we want to take America? Or does it represent what's left of a Progressive vision after it's been compromised by the dysfunctional dynamics of our two party system? This has reached such absurdity that most who consider themselves in favor of democracy live an Orwellian contradiction unaware that what they support is actually a system that's both undemocratic and often anti-democratic.

We see those thick ideological blinders even here where Lakoff's taxonomy of Progressive cognitive modes seems to be describing the left-wing of the Democratic Party... not the full spectrum of Progressive thought. More on that here: http://forum.rockridgeinstitute.org/?q=node/595

I believe Progressives occasionally need to revisit and rethink our core values. What's needed is a form of political psychoanalysis.... a values clarification process upon which we can then reconstruct a logically coherent paradigm upon which to base that vision.

Here's a possible web model for such a project: http://forum.rockridgeinstitute.org/?q=node/577

[tblue37]

8. I think you mean "pro-LIFE" in your first sentence. nt

[tkmorris]

9. So we're criticizing Dem positions instead of advocating again?

You are becoming quite tedious.

[eniwetok]

11. heaven forbid

Leaving aside your claim is bull... that there is no ONE Dem position on raising the national MW... it ranges from Obama's $10.10 to free lunchers who want $22... and that I've supported a MW higher than Obama as well as state/city efforts to go higher, are you suggesting that Dems go though life guided by vague, feel good, phrases without bothering to flesh out what they mean? For example, just what DOES it mean to "pay one's fair share" in taxes? Do you think you're going to just convince an independent or right winger using a cute phrase without some convincing moral basis for whatever tax rate you come up with? After all, it has to compete with the narrative the right wing has crafted over the past century.

Or perhaps you're referring to liberal Dems utterly deluding themselves that they support "democracy" when they actually support an a mathematically verifiable antidemocratic system and refuse to confront their own cognitive dissonance?

Sorry, that's just Orwellian. If I see such intellectually mushiness and hypocrisy... I have to say something... especially if I think Dems are making strategic blunders in refusing to reform an antidemocratic system that works against their own agenda... or refusing to develop a concerted strategy to roll back corporate power.

[bemildred]

10. Yep, words are tricky, all right. nt

[Zorra]

16. They really are, aren't they? nt

[LanternWaste]

15. Branding is an efficient and effective method of advertising a message.

Branding is an efficient and effective method of advertising a message. I think most people understand the relevant difference between an implied premise and a bumper-sticker.

[eniwetok]

19. sure branding is important

But one can't go on an interview show, or be in a debate and just throw cutsie phrases around. I've listened to Bernie for 10 years on the Thom Hartmann show... and he's never really fleshed out that phrase "pay their fair share"... and he's doing the same on the campaign.

[Katashi_itto]

17. It's a wonder you can even think at all.

[eniwetok]

18. PKB?

Was that substance-free, drive-by an example of what YOU mean "thinking" is?

[Katashi_itto]

20. I leave the substance-free narrative to you.

[eniwetok]

21. I can see where the ignore feature can be useful

given the fact that there are so many here are so oblivious to their own vacuous hypocrisy.

[Katashi_itto]

22. Lol...Your oblivious to the amount of irony you deliver.

[eniwetok]

23. not going to get in the gutter...

So the takeaway is you're incapable of mustering any coherent or substantive rebuttal to anything I've written here... and the best you can do it make childish personal attacks. Fine... have fun.

[Katashi_itto]

24. The irony is steep with this one.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

25. Republicans say pro-LIFE. They would never say CHOICE

[PatrickforO]

26. I can remember to the days when the so called pro life movement made the change.

EVERY time anyone said 'anti-abortion,' they said, 'no, pro-life!'

Words matter. Here's some more right wing whistles that have hurt Americans:

-Entitlements
-Welfare queen
-Super predators
-Free stuff
-Socialism

[handmade34]

27. ...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-agony-of-frank-luntz/282766/

Luntz's work has always been predicated on a sort of populism—the idea that politicians must figure out what voters want to hear, and speak to them in language that comports with it. He proudly claims that his famous catchphrases, like branding healthcare reform a "government takeover" in 2010, are not his coinages but the organic product of his focus groups. The disheveled appearance, the sardonic wit, all add up to a sort of tilting against the establishment, an insistence that it listen to the Real People.

But what if the Real People are wrong? That is the possibility Luntz now grapples with. What if the things people want to hear from their leaders are ideas that would lead the country down a dangerous road?