Language as political weapon

[Sforza]

There is a line in a Pink Floyd song that has stuck with me for years. "Haven't you heard / it's a battle of words." I believe the reason Republicans are so succesful is because they manipulate language and connotations to a far greater degree than Democrats. Of course they have a grip on the media whereby they can seed the vernacular with words of their choosing. So, they do have the advantage. However, truth will give you an advantage as well. It is easy to twist words and connotations to subtly manipulate the listener's beliefs. It used to be called Rhetoric and it was actually taught at one time. Rhetoric is more than propaganda because there is a sublte manipulation of the emotions. Rove, the manipulator, and the Republican pundits are quite skilled. The Democrats must learn to use language to their advantage, if they are going to win in this Era of soundbites and short attention spans.

The abortion debate is all about the language. Is it a person or an embryo? People probably fall on one side or the other of this issue based on their understanding of the meaning of certain words. Now the Democrats know better than to say they are the pro-abortion party. They go with " pro-choice"--which sounds a lot better. However the Repubs have topped them by now saying they are the party of pro-life. How can one be against that? We shouldn't let them steal this very powerful word. Democrats are pro-life: they reject the death penalty and they reject needless wars. How can Bush be pro-life when he was execution happy as Governor? How can he say he is pro-life when he trashes the environment? How can he say he is pro-life when he lies us into wars where innocent civilians are killed by the tens of thousands. Fact is the Republicans are anti-abortion, but pro-death otherwise. From now on when any Republican uses the word pro-life, we should counter them by saying they are not actually pro-life. Take the word back. Being pro-poor is also pro-life, because if you don't take care of the disenfranchised, they often die. If you neglect the rich, guess what, those fuckers still survive. So the Republicans with their greed-derived idea of no welfare, are again the pro-death party.

We need to take back Jesus as well. We cannot let these Republican fuckers have Jesus--he's too powerful a tool. THey are trying to frame the debate with the idea that Dems are atheists and Republicans are Christians. They have created Jesus in their own hateful image. Fallwell has an article titled "God is pro-war". Of course he never quotes Jesus from the Gospels. Jesus is the Prince of Peace. He is not pro-war. He also said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven." Has Fallwell, Dobson, Bush, Robertson, etc ever one time quoted that? Of course not, but we should be saying it. Another thing, the evolution debate is nonsense. It is but an extremely small minority of Christians who believe evolution is untrue. We should back down these idiots who are trying to force the unscientific creationism myth on us. We should call them cults. Because mainstream Christianity has been perfectly fine with evolution for decades.

We should not let the Republicans frame the debate or frame the language. We keep accepting their premise, which is where the argument goes awry. We need new words and new connotations. We must win the battle for democracy and I think it can only be done by winning the battle of words. That or a Democratic takeover of the media. What words and phrases should we use? Which ones should we reject? Somehow the media has abused the word liberal to the extent that it has more negative connotations than positive. I think it is too late to try to take it back. We should use progressive in its place. Until the media spins negative connotation to that. We want progress. We want things to get better. And I think the majority of the people recognize there is something wrong. So progress is good. We have been regressing under the "leadership" of Bush.

So, what words and phrases and slogans should be be using? How can we turn the tide on the battle of words? Which bumper stickers are effective? We could start the discussion with that.

"fundamentalism is a mental disorder"

"God bless Iraq"

"If Jesus is the Prince of Peace, who is the Prince of War"

"America needs to stop bombing other countries"

"Reject fascism, vote democratic"

"When we restrict our freedoms, the terrorists win"

"reject imperialism"

"environmentalism is not abaout the spotted owl, it's about mercury emissions killing our children"

The term treehugger, for instance, is so picturesque that it has caught on in the media. This one word has done much damage to the environmental movement by trivializing environmentalists and reducing them to misguided people who are trying to save the spotted owl. We have left this common perception to bounce around the media. But environmentalism, the vast bulk of it, is about getting the corporations to stop polluting the world with a myriad of toxins and carcinogens, which is killing millions of human beings.

[gordianot]

1. I've been thinking along the same lines.

I have also been working on a Republican Neo-Con Dictionary. They really do twist around words in the same fashion that George Orwell warned us about many years ago.

[Ian_rd]

3. :)

Hey don't forget about me! hehe:

The Republican Dictionary

[gordianot]

7. That's great.

I am also backing this up with sources. Will have to get together sometime.

[Viking12]

2. Rhetoric was taught at "one time"?

I'm sad to hear that my job has been eliminated :eyes:

Rhetoric is still a vital subject in our universities. Many Departments of Rhetoric have been merged into Communication Studies and English programs although a few still exist, the University of MN for instance.

[gordianot]

8. We need Rhetoric classes in High School and on a college level.

Critical thinking, Philosophy, and general semantics is almost a thing of the past. Mention Rhetoric and you get blank "Bush" stares.

[TahitiNut]

16. Can't teach a subject that can't be tested by multiple choice.

The "factory method" school system is falling even deeper into cookie-cutter testing and grading. The approach has been to eliminate Art, Music, Logic, Debate and a host of other curricula that aren't used while working in the local MacDonald's -- unnecessary for consumerbots who're plugged in and tuned out.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Personally, I think they should ban propaganda enablers

like Luntz. Make it illegal for BOTH sides. If they want to conduct polls, fine. But focus groups that serve soley for the purpose of manipulating public opinion is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Luntz has admitted publicly that it is all about manipulation. TDS may be a comedy show, but I don't think anyone wrote Luntz' lines for him when he described 'public manipulation' as 'educating the public.'

[FrenchieCat]

5. Gee!

I just posted a thread that has a very similar message to the one in this thread!

Glad that this issue of language is being discussed as much as it is. I really is 1/2 of the battle....it would seem!

Thanks for this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1814258

[ArkDem]

6. WOW, you are really good with words and connotations.

[TalkingDog]

9. Drop the first one...the rest are fine

The thing that the Rep.s have learned IN SPADES over the Dem.s is it's not just language, but the SIMPLICITY of the idea that counts.

Most of their ideas are wrong, but simplistic enough for the average and below average (which statistically make up a majority of people in this country) to easily grasp and retain.

"Reject fascism, vote democratic"

"reject imperialism"

These two require a little more thought and can easily be disregarded as hyperbole because your average bumpersticker reader has no real idea of what imperialism or fascism mean, either by definition or experience.

The last one is fantastic. It builds on an idea they have experience with, but makes it PERSONAL. Why do you think the Rep.s got slammed and are getting slammed on 2 issues that follow this idea: Schaivo and Social Security? It ain't because they both start with S. Everybody I talked to on the Schaivo issue knew someone in this position or was in this position at some point in their lives, Right Wingers included. They turned on the politicos precisely because they had personal expereince with the issue. The same goes for SS.

The Rep.s heaped scorn on Clinton for: I feel your Pain. But guess what? It worked. The meme became: He and I have the same life experiences. He will look out for me.

So the main points to remember:

1) Effective Language
2) KISS (keep it simple stupid) even if it distorts the message.
3) Relate-ability. I feel your pain.

Everything else is gravy.

[Sforza]

10. Labels

They are often not fair, but they carry a lot of power. Sadly we must stoop to using labels on the Republicans. We have a few: neo-cons (not particulary damaging), and ideologues (too abstract). Greedy powerhungry dirtbags I don't think will catch on. I like calling them control freaks. Admittedly a dated term, but I think it characterizes the current Republican "thinking". They want to control the world's oil. They want to control (or outright abandon) the UN. They want to control people's sexuality. They want to control the government. They want to control other countries. Democrats should emphasize toleration. We don't "promote" homosexuality or abortion or atheism or socialism. We tolerate it. We acknowledge that all people do not have to fit into one mold. That's what this country is about. A mixing pot of all peoples and religions.

Some derogatory terms for Republicans: pro-corporation, intolerant, fundamental, simplistic, uncaring, greedy, deceptive, bigotted, pre-occupied with sex, power hungry, pro-rich, anti-poor, anti-labor, anti environment, pro-death, pro-war, pro death penalty, bullying,posturing, conflict of interest, war machine, military industrial complex, cavalier, flag wavers, tax dodging, fascist, racist, homophobic, religionists.

Some complimentary terms for Democrats: toleration, acceptance, peace, anti-war, taking care of the 'least among you', pro-environment, pro-labor, sharing, caring, ethnic, culture, diversity, one planet, cooperation, feeding the hungry and starving, brotherhood, brotherly love, respect for others, bill of rights, true patriotism, democracy.

What are some of the things Republicans call Democrats? And how can it be countered? I would think Coulter and Limbaugh would be good sources. Sad that politics has come down to name-calling. But it has, so the Dems need to be more successful at it. That is all that that last Presidential campaign was about. Except that Kerry didn't do it nearly as much as the Rovians. When Bush and company outright lie, we say they are being disingenuous. Way too polite. We need to just cross that line. When the bastards lie, we should say, "hey, you're lying (again)". I think we should start with Scotty the press secretary.

[Donailin]

11. Two words

come to mind. Primitive and evolved.

The republicans are primitive in that they re-act with base instincts -- they never think of the logical conclusions of their actions. Probabaly because they are illogical.
The democrats are evolved in that they consider carefully how any given action will affect our species in the future, we are in fact pro-active because we think critically and carefully.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi Sforza!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[kentuck]

12. Are you trying to say Jesus is against the war in Iraq ??

But Jesus was a warrior. He killed a lot of people before he was crucified. Do unto others before they do it to you. Doesn't it say that in the Bible?

[Sforza]

13. Anti-war Jesus

>>>Are you trying to say Jesus is against the war in Iraq ??<<<

Now I wouldn't go so far as to say that. But I do think Jesus is credited with the dippy and peacenik aphorism, "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword." I have no idea what he meant by that or how it could possibly be applied to the current administration.

I've heard it said by many a goofball Christian--that Jesus never specifically condemned war. As if that somehow justifies it. But I'm pretty sure it is included under "Thou shall not kill". I don't really see why war, which is government sponsored killing on a mass scale, should somehow be outside the jurisdiction of "Thou shall not kill". No, I don't really see how that could be. But I do think that when Jesus said "love your enemy", he was thinking about something other than murdering him. But then again, the Iraqis are not even our enemies. We are merely sacrificing a hundred thousand of them to bring democracy to their children. Yep, this next generation of liberated Iraqis will know freedom and democracy. But they won't know their parents, cause they'll be, you know, dead. So thank you George Bush for spreading democracy and thank you for having the courage to play God and sacrifice countless thousands of innocent women and children to bring them poor muslims God's own preferred form of government: semi-democratic capitalism.

On a different topic, which level in hell do you suppose Bush will be consigned to?

[kentuck]

14. In Orwell's 1984, even the Prince of Peace is a Man of War.....

I can see that you know Jesus very well. Who are we to believe, George Bush and the present bunch of so-called Christians or Christ himself? Christ does not agree with them and they know it. It's like a double-sin, they sin aforethought.