The GOP: Masters of politicizing language/words - to their advantage

[YoungDemCA]

Say what you want about the Republican Right, but they are highly effective at politicizing language/words to their advantage.

Exhibit A: The House Freedom Caucus. How can anyone argue with FREEDOM? Why do you hate freedom?! Why do you hate America??!!

Exhibit B: "Welfare" is now a dirty (and highly racialized) word in America. That makes the right-wing (and their corporate masters) happy, as they eagerly line up for their tax breaks and subsidies and other forms of...uh...WELFARE!

And so on and so forth.

They don't merely wrap themselves in the flag - in the minds of a certain segment of American voters, they are the flag. And anyone who dares question that article of faith is an evil dirty Obama-loving Communist who hates America (and freedom, of course).

[Gregorian]

1. I lost yellow to the Iraq invasion bumper stickers.

Of course. The only thing to fear is authoritarianism.

[DFW]

2. Much of that is to be laid at the feet of a guy I have met several times. Pure evil.

Friendly, aw shucks show, and a brilliant intellect who shamelessly admits he works for the highest bidder. That's the one with the most money, and THAT'S the Republicans. His name is Frank Luntz, and he calls himself a "pollster." Like everything else they do (right down to Fox "News&quot , it's a phony label. He is a propagandist, pure and simple, and he is VERY good at what he does. He doesn't care that the truth be known. I heard him admit right in front of me that Al Gore won the 2000 election. He didn't care. His guys took office, and that's all he cared about--then and now.

[elleng]

3. You got it.

Unfortunately the Dems have failed to recognize this and have ignored the teachings of George Lakoff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017296962

[uawchild]

4. spot on

Great post and right on the point. And, woah, you actually saw Luntz in person several times? I bet there's some stories in those meetings.

[Wellstone ruled]

6. Glad to see others

recognize who and what and were of the Rethug party. Going back to the Witch hunts of the fifties,many of these hate themes and labels were in play by Joe McCarthy,Roy Cohen,and Richard Nixon. When Lee Attwater came on the scene,he just embellished these themes and the rest is plain ugly.

[DFW]

11. There are!

But it was at a gathering where all are bound by an oath to keep everything off the record. It's frustrating, but on the other hand you get real candor from people who otherwise would never reveal themselves. I'm pretty sure I heard him admit elsewhere (TV interview somewhere, whatever) that he thought that Gore won the 2000 election, because otherwise I wasn't even supposed to mention that.

[Hortensis]

8. I've read some things about Luntz. Fascinating. I'd love to

get more of your impressions here as you see his touch at work.

[Hortensis]

5. How about "entitlements." USED TO mean we knew we earned them;

we were entitled to draw from the pool we paid into throughout our wage-earning life from every paycheck. Now "entitlement" has been redefined by right-wing locusts as welfare for an entire generation of sponges.

Make no mistake, the Koch types are not primarily targeting programs for the poor, which are relatively easy to pick off any time, and largely have been. Their big targets for cancellation are Social Security and Medicare.

[Igel]

9. That's not remotely true.

The first people to receive Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any number of other government funds received entitlements not because they were earned by a life-time of payments but because they qualified to receive the funds under the terms of the legislation and therefore were entitled to them.

When benefits were extended to the children of disabled workers, that was an entitlement due to the minor children. No payments had been received from them and held in reserve for them; as a new program, nobody had paid into the program. Yet people started received their entitlement check the next month. Because the law said they met the requirements and were entitled to receive it.

My former bosses were not entitled to Social Security, neither were their dependents. My two bosses waived FICA payments in the '50s.

When benefits for Social Security increased, there were no back calculations. The law said they were entitled to receive the benefits, and that made them an entitlement. My mother received far more than she paid even, even with interest; she still is. There is no Medicaid pool in reserve. There's no welfare pool (SNAP, WIC, or other entitlement program) to draw from; they come from current general revenues. They, too, are entitlements, to the exact same extent as Social Security is.

Period.

I am entitled to some Social Security payments. I no longer pay Social Security, though. It took three years to become invested in the state retirement program; now I am entitled to it, and had I quit after three years would have drawn more than I paid it. Because I was entitled, under state law, to it.

These entitlements could be revoked by legislation tomorrow and they'd cease to be entitlements. And no, there'd be no recourse, because strictly speaking the segregation of FICA and Medicaid funds is entirely off the books. All monies go into the general fund; those earmarked for the SSA to administer are then sent in that direction and any above what's needed is immediately returned to the general fund and a special treasury note issued to the SSA. That's the way it's always been since the SSA was started.

The word is far older than Social Security and has a long history. None of it meets your definition. The government does not maintain bank accounts or investment accounts for individuals.

[Hortensis]

15. We all know how it works, Igel, and how it was started.

[malaise]

7. The problem is that Dems repeat their stupid titles

I have heard Democrats use Democrat party and not Democratic Party.

Why would anyone on DU refer to those obstructionist, racist RW morons as a freedom caucus.
We give them legitimacy when we repeat that crap.

They are ReTHUG scumbags, plain and simple.

[Hortensis]

12. Very true. Look at those DUers who want to hide behind the word progressive,

assuming some of them are liberals of course, because the right has tried to redefine "liberal" as not respectable.

[malaise]

13. Excellent point

and a very good example.

[CanSocDem]

17. "Progressive" is a better word.

If you are old enough and been around the English language for a few decades, you wouldn't have a problem with the word.

Phil Ochs had a song in the '70's called "Love Me, I'm a Liberal".

In the 70's, the political left was noticing what DU discusses daily: there are so-called and self-identified liberals that are weakening the 'brand'.



.

[Hortensis]

18. They are not synonyms, tho, CanSocDem.

SOME people are using progressive IN PLACE OF liberal BECAUSE of the language shenanigans described in this thread. Liberal is a wonderful thing to be -- all of us liberals should proclaim it proudly. Progressive also, but it's something else. I like to think being a progressive liberal like me is best of all, of course.

Note that Republicans can be progressive conservatives, and some are in fact, although most are currently purged from elective office. Insisting there can't be any such thing because progressive means liberal would be a mistake, to put it mildly. It does not.

Britain and many other nations have lots of progressive conservatives, moderates, and liberals in office, and reading international news would get confusing fast for anyone who thought it was talking about liberal conservatives, liberal moderates, and liberal liberals.

[Marie Marie]

10. I am immediately suspect of any organization or group

with the words, Family, Freedom, Liberty or Patriots in their name. Dead give-away to mean a right wing group of hard core zealots. Also, the word Constitution sends up a Red Flag for me any more because it is usually some one who is either spinning or out right misrepresenting the true meaning of part or all of that document.

But alas, this crap that does indeed make up Bullshit Mountain, is too eagerly eaten up by the lazy and the stupid - and yes, I'm talking about the likes of the average Fox news viewer. They have elevated the simplistic, often untrue sound bite to a level of effectiveness I would have never thought possible. Idiocracy!

[Hortensis]

14. Yes. How about "homeland"? Always brings "fatherland" to mind.

They haven't corrupted "constitution" for me, though. I'm very proud of how well it has served us through unimaginable changes.

[Ron Green]

16. K&R. I think there are two problems:

One is that no one on the Left has been as effective as Luntz has been on the Right in controlling the language of propaganda.

Secondly, fear-based phrases and assertions, the stock in trade of Fox News and Republicans, are much simpler and more powerfully immediate than the more thoughtful and complex language required for real discourse. We will always have this disadvantage, but we ought to find better sound bites anyway.