The Right Is Winning the War of Rhetoric.......

[KensPen]

When it comes to spin and propaganda the Right is kicking our asses.

There focused useage of words and phrases like "Left wing media" "elitist" "Bush hating" is nonstop, and actually becomes accepted fact.

We are now in a position, where if we want to give bush criticism we must first explain that our comments are meant in a "hate free context".

We are allowing the Right to set the table that we are eating at.

[Guaranteed]

1. No we're not....we're totally reframing things.

Did you hear Dean and Gore speak this morning? They were centering everything around Bush dragging us into war....that's a GREAT "frame" for us to be in. If we can maintain it, we WILL win.

[HootieMcBoob]

3. You're right

rule number one. don't apologize to right-wing lunatics.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Rule # 1

Don't let your opponents define you.

[kentuck]

7. Repubs start early in defining their opposition....

It's part of their over-all strategy. Democrats do not try to define their opposition in the same manner - they attempt to define the issues. Unfortunately, Repubs have been able to co-opt Dems by defining them as weak, or as "liars", etc.

[joeybee12]

2. Someone posted a long article about this a while back

Basically, they use the same words and phrases over and over. For example, "liberal" now has a negative connotation for many people, and this is a fairly new phenomenon. Basically, they're bastardizing words to suit their propoganda.

[HootieMcBoob]

4. it's not all that new

Reagan started back in the 70's with this.

[KensPen]

5. Speaking of Reagan....

a couple years past his presidency I saw a show on cable TV, I do not remember what network. It was about politics and News reporting. The program explained that Reagan was such a popular president that the Networks (I think they said all of them... honestly don't remember) actually had a policy of never criticizing him while showing his face, because they did not want to offend viewers.

So to offer critique of his policies or Iran Contra the voice over would be accompanied by footage of weapons or something...


hard to marry that type of policy with the "liberal media" accusation.

[Starpass]

8. They wrote a new dictionary---we didn't

These words and phrases have been ingrained into the American public for years now. The Dems never quite coined words and phrases that they could use over and over in response; but the big problem was that the repukes have all the radio airwaves and so much tv media in their pockets that they could sell their crap and implant it deep in the soul of the country. We just don't have the opportunities to do the same. I'm so tired of people attacking me when talking about certain issues and telling me "well, the Dems didn't do anthing about problem X or Y either". When you tell them what Dems have done or said, etc., they look at you like you're making it up! It's amazing the response if you can get them to watch something on C-Span, etc. where they can hear things first hand. I have no idea how we can erase these perceptions while being locked in the "media" basement and not allowed to speak.

[asjr]

14. Your post

speaks volumes. That is exactly what has happened. With the help of the media we have become second-class citizens. "Liberal" to me means encompassing all Americans--"Conservative" has become a right-wing mantra for corporatism and not for the average citizen. It will be up to us to counter the message that Repubs give to the world. It will not be easy but each of us has a vote in our future. Jobs are being outsourced, people are still being laid off, medical insurance is not available to many. Those who vote Repub are some of those that are affected. Will they still keep their heads in the sand in 2004? I think there are many out there who will switch parties next Nov. We don't hear about it because the media would never report that. Bottom line is this administration has set the country back decades and will continue to do so if we allow it.

[July]

9. How best to respond?

I couldn't agree more that the right is setting the agenda and crowding out substantive discussion. Every minute we (or a candidate) spends talking about trivial bullshit is one fewer spent on Bush's failures and our better ideas.

Now I am trying to think of a pithy way to deflect the "Oh, you're just a Bush-hater" comment, which serves to (try to) put me on the defensive while turning discussion away from Bush's shortcomings.

I'd like to defuse that by pointing out that no-one ever focused on the emotions of the Clinton-haters, so let's stick to the issues. Something like: "Since Clinton-haters were given a public forum for 8 years and were not disqualified from discussion because of their hatred (even when they made demonstrably unfounded accusations or unnecessarily harsh attacks), I feel free to say I hate Bush because of his policies. Do you want to talk about THOSE POLICIES?" However, this seems too long to capture the attention of those Bushbots who will be trying to shut down rational discussion.

I'm open to suggestions.

[KensPen]

10. excellent.....

pithy counterpunching is exactly what I want.....

[SnowGoose]

12. Someone said

I can't remember who, and there's probably a little paraphrasing here:

"I'll give Bush the same 'benefit of the doubt' that Republicans gave Clinton for 8 years!"

Pithy enough?

What makes it work is that everybody knows (even the wing-nuts, I think, somewhere deep down) that Clinton was HOUNDED. I'm not saying the man was perfect, but the witch-hunt became such a grotesque spectacle that even the Die-hard Confederate Loyalists could see it.

[July]

26. I like it!

Thanks, that cuts to the chase!

[rucky]

21. I take another approach when talking to repugs

They all hate Clinton, but if you bring him into the discussion, you're going to end up in a debate where you feel the need to defend him, right?

Don't. Act dissappointed in Clinton. Copy the voice of that jaded independent who is sick and tired of all politicians being crooks - and * took that to a new level (tick off some of your * lies here). Americans have every right to be angry b/c our leaders continue to fail us - and we need good leaders more than ever in the post-9/11 world. That's why i'm angry.

it's a tad dishonest, but it diffuses it.

[SnowGoose]

11. Queer

It might (or might not) be useful to consider the example of the term "Queer" to homosexuals. By embracing the word, the gay community set out to defuse its power. I'll leave it to you to decide how effective that strategy has been (for my part, I think it worked... how shall I say? *Fabulously* I know some disagree, that's ok).

I proudly take the labels "Liberal" and "Progressive", and make every effort to conjoin the term "Conservative" with an appropriate descriptive word. My favorite is "Fundamentalist". Actually, that's not true, my favorite is another word that starts with "F" but I tend to shy away from it when actually talking to Fundamentalist-Conservatives, or Big-corporation Conservatives, or Anti-environment Conservatives.

In the immortal words of Roberto Benigni (in Down by Law): "you trow boll against me, I trow boll aginst you."

I think the key is consistency.

[xchrom]

16. call me queer

to my face and mean it -- and we'll see how diffused the meaning of that word is.
it's unoffensive up to a point and in context.

[janx]

13. I tried to float a thread about this topic.

Yes, the right wingnuts are winning the war on rhetoric and propaganda. They have an entire ARMY of goofball, tabloid pundits repeating lies, 24 hours a day.

The sad thing is that the American people, on some level, take it in. Just this morning I saw Clifford May and Imus (on different cable channels) repeating the lie that somehow the CLINTONS (since they are behind everything) were involved in the candidacy of Wesley Clark.

People on this board believe that! I've seen it over and over! Why don't we wise up and think critically for a minute? Why believe these lies just because they're repeated over and over? And it's not just the junk about Clark--there are many "common beliefs" that have actually sprung out of right wingnut propaganda and tabloid news.

So one of the reasons they are winning this rhetoric war is that Dems believe what they hear without questioning it.

We're better than that. I hope that maybe we can pause from time to time on this board to consider what we're actually hearing and saying. At least it would be a start.

[Iverson]

15. the fight is far from over

Granted, it has taken a generation to get more than the lefty fringe worked up about it, but something is better than nothing, and history is not at an end.

Consolidation of media ownership is pretty important, no?

[janx]

17. Yes it is. Extremely important.

.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. The Emperors New Flight Suit

I posted this elsewhere on DU a few weeks back, but it speaks directly to the theme of your post. I see the loss of the war of rhetoric as a profound issue with very deep implications. I make reference to my support of Wesley Clark below as the most immediate antidote to political identity theft, but I think you can generalize (pun intended) to what it will take for all Democrats to regain our competitive footing:

I had been looking for a Democratic candidate who would finally be able to reframe the dynamics of all of the public debates that the Republicans have managed to ever so finely script in their favor over the years since Reagan came to power. The Republicans have in essence taken out patent pending notices on most of the key American buzz words, and images, in our idealized collective consciousness, much as corporations have in recent year laid legal claim on everyday expressions (like "Fair and Balanced"!) Suddenly Republicans seemed to "own" them, and the rest of us were only "Renters".

Either Democrats had to find a narrow and shrill vocabulary from the fringes of public discourse to lay claim to for their own, or they had to "borrow" Republican identified terminology. Republicans had seized the middle ground, the high ground always sought after in military campaigns, the strategic vantage point over America's identity. You know, I still remember how it felt when I lost my share of ownership in the American Flag during the protests against the Viet Nam War. It wasn't immediate, but the more those I opposed clung to it, the less I could relate to that flag, and before I realized it I had for all practical purposes surrendered it. I have felt awkward and conflicted around our flag ever since then, and somewhat distrustful of those who didn't feel as conflicted as I do.

Decency, values, patriotism, valor, strength, faith, families, all of these terms and concepts increasingly have taken on a Republican slant. Even the colors, Red, White, and Blue used in proximity to each other. One can almost see the copyright symbol next to each word; "Used with the expressed consent of the Republican National Committee". Democrats using those terms and symbols inevitably sounded "Republican Light". Sometimes of course they were, but other times they just looked like poor gringos trying to speak Spanish and butchering the language, how embarrassing.

Periodically I would half heartedly protest to my radical friends that this country has much to be ashamed of true, but much to be proud of also. I would cite our revolutionary history, I would point out our multi cultural traditions, and more than likely I would be reminded in turn of the betrayals of our Revolutionary traditions, and the failings of our multi cultural society. While all the while the Republicans banished all doubt: This is the greatest country on Earth. Love it or leave it.

Bill Clinton was a brilliant man, and a brilliant politician, with a warm outgoing personality. But I think he won because, yes the economy sucked at the time and that always helps the insurgents, but mostly because the Republicans let down their guard with Bush I. They were cocky after Dessert Storm. They indulged themselves in intra mural blood baths, and weren't pounding all the scripted notes in unison. They learned a lot from that loss and they went out and recruited the best front man money could buy them in Bush the Junior, the designated "compassionate conservative". Today's Republican Party (the predominate machine, leaving out a few decent mavericks from this overall characterization) have roots in 1984 the year, and 1984 the book. They have perfected New Speak. War is Peace. Division is Unity. Greed is Charity.

How can we win the public debate when the very language that must be used has been thoroughly rigged against us? I ultimately came to believe we might still win with Wes Clark. He is a Republican's worse nightmare, the genuine item, the embodiment of their own rhetoric, and suddenly the King is shown to be a pretender. It is the story of the Emperors new flight suit.

All I needed to be convinced to back Wes Clark this year was a close look at him as a man, is he sincere or is he a sham, that's what I wanted to know. I admit it, specific policies were less important to me for this election than in any other I can remember. Yeah I still care about policies, I have some bottom line litmus test issues, and Clark passes easily. I've studied Clark, I've looked at his career. I've met Clark, and I personally like and respect Clark. But what it keeps coming back to for me, the image that keeps coming up is this. When Bush and Clark finally stand across from each other in those Debates prior to the 2004 election, the Emperor will be naked for the world to see.

[janx]

19. Let me give you an example of what I mentioned in my second-

to-last post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=857656


Do you see? Here is someone who has taken the right wingnut spin like a dog snatches a hamburger.

But nobody bothers to question it. Why?

[camero]

20. Some Buzz words to try.

Republi-Nazis
Conservative Extremists
TaliBushkins

Maybe you guys can think of some more.

[KensPen]

22. The effectiveness

Is their grade school simplicity...

We got no traction from "vast rightwing conspiracy" even though there was none. It got dimissed as a concoction of X-files Lone gunman group.

their "bush haters" tag is goofy and yet it sells.

K.I.S.S.

[snippy]

25. The RNC uses focus groups to choose their vocabulary.

No one is instructed on what words and phrases to use until after they have been tested.

[snippy]

23. It is all part of a goal to become the dominant national party.

It is the result of a far reaching strategy developed and implemented over a long period of time. The first element of this strategy was to recruit and train, with nationally solicited funds, republican candidates for local elections with the idea that these candidates would later run for the state legislature and then Congress. This was the original purpose of GOPAC.

But GOPAC evolved from just a recruitment and training organization to a propaganda machine. The purpose of the propaganda was to make sure that it was the republican party, rather than the democratic party, which established the definition of the democratic party in the minds of as many voters as possible. That became a second element of the republican strategy. In the last 10 years or so democratic candidates and the democratic party have allowed that to occur.

Since Newt Gingrich took over GOPAC, the republican strategy has included trying to marginalize the democratic party by painting it as extremist in its liberalism. This is why a republican candidate for any office higher than dogcatcher is trained to use words from the famous GOPAC list when referring to a democratic opponent or the democratic party. It is also why the republican party spends millions of dollars every year and employs hundreds of people solely to make the democratic party appear too liberal for most independent voters. In fact, the republican party spends far more money and far more time defining the democratic party than the democratic party does.

Another element to the republican strategy was to focus on redistricting. The RNC spent tens of millions of dollars on state legislature elections in the late 1990's and especially the 2000 election. According to the RNC, the reason this was done was so that republicans would control more of the redistricting done after the 2000 census. Although the obvious goal of redistricting was to create more republican districts, another element of this strategy came to light just after the recent Texas redistricting.

The Texas redistricting continued implementing the republican strategy of defining the democratic party as too liberal. In effect it combined the redistricting strategy with the definition strategy. The redistricting did not seek to eliminate liberal democrats in the Texas Congressional delegation. Rather it sought to eliminate the more conservative to moderate white democrats and guarantee the re-election of only the most liberal minority democrats. This is part of a strategy described by Tom DeLay to make the democratic party the party of blacks, feminists, homosexuals, and extremist environmental groups like ELF. It has been said that DeLay's goal is that there will not be a white democrat left in Texas after he is done. This redistricting strategy will be followed in other states whenever the republicans get the opportunity, even if that does not occur until after the 2010 census.

The republican strategy to become the dominant party has been well thought out and developed, and well implemented on a national scale. It has been depressingly effective in my opinion. It irritates me that the democratic party apparently has no strategy to counter it.

[Kurovski]

24. Truth will out

Americans are fucking sick unto death of the horseshit.