About Me

Name: conservativedude
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The Language of Politics: When Words Are Weapons, Part III

Posted by conservativedude on Monday, November 03, 2008 4:00:21 AM
This is the third and last post about words and language as political weapons (for now).
 
3.  Turning Positives to Negatives  or "The Glass-half-empty paradigm"
 
I want to touch on a recurring theme I've noticed, and that's how "positives" from one candidate have been turned around to appear as a "negative" or derogatory statement by the other candidate because it's not perceived as inclusive.

To touch on the examples from Part II, the codewords that the liberals take issue with like, "hockey mom" or "Joe six-pack" are victims of their campaign to turn positive, inclusive utterances into exclusionary, racist remarks.  Normal people don't make everything about race or gender oppression, so liberal politicians and commentators squeeze all the precious juice out of a conservative viewpoint so all that's left is the bitter rind---the calling card of a liberal. 

Because Governor Palin never implied any racism in her "hockey mom" comment, liberals quickly tossed her true intent aside and cried racism, thus turning a positive into a negative.  Celebrating a group, type, or activity is only valid when a minority is actively involved.  Unless a black person, for example, inititates the joyful moment, that moment is considered invalid because it unavoidably carries with it HATE and exclusionary discrimination.
 
As I described in Part II, I understood "hockey mom" to be any mother (or parent) who is actively involved in their children's lives, but apparently I'm being racist.  Liberals and the black community chose to segregate themselves from this inclusive comment that they deemed divisive.  I wonder what Rosa Parks would say about black people (or their liberal spokespeople) actively separating blacks from the rest of society---forcing them to the back of the bus?  Americans have to wake up and understand how inoffensive ideas are being subverted for the liberal agenda of perpetuating unrest and the social divide.
 
The same goes for "Joe Six-pack", an American who happens to like sports or beer and takes the weekends off.  Groupings like these are left open-ended so many people can easily associate with them.  Race is not a factor.  "Joe sixpack" does not mean "no black people".  It's ludicious, but the left continues to assault conservative viewpoints by making innocuous, uplifting personality types that we can all rally around and recognize seem like a coded brand of hate.
 
With this line of political discourse, it's clear if they are ever to be happy (if that's possible), every statement uttered must be as generic and inclusive as possible. (translation: politically correct!)  Replace "hockey moms" with people,  "Joe six-packs" with people, "community organizer" with secular saint, and "Joe the plumber" with fraud.  That should do it!
 
If you still have doubts as to their extreme agenda, many in the media took Palin's wearing of a white outfit at a rally as proof of her racism!  It's no longer safe to say innocent, positive comments, just as it's taboo to wear white.  I'd say they want us walking on egg shells, but I might get in trouble because most eggs are white.  Would it be worse though if they were brown?
 
*                                       *                                       *
 
It's not just Obama and his surrogates who enjoy twisting positives into negatives.  Near the end of the VP debate, Palin answered a question describing her experience.  First she talked about her political career and executive experience, then made a more personal appeal by adding:

But it wasn't just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn't have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? We've been there also so that connection was important.
 
The full transcript of the debate is here.
 
In response, Senator Biden started off on a good track, but eventually turned her positive (personal resume) against her, as if she was attacking him in her remarks, and not just making her case.  I guess the liberal opponents just think everything is about them.
 
He started by mentioning his decades in Washington, then ventured into personal resume territory too.  He talked about when some of his family tragically died in a crash and he worried if the others would pull through, and then the similar "kitchen table" worries that Governor Palin had articulated.  He continued:

I understand what it's like. I'm much better off than almost all Americans now. I get a good salary with the United States Senate. I live in a beautiful house that's my total investment that I have. So I -- I am much better off now.

But the notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- I understand.

Now, I'm not going to question his emotions, especially when he got choked up at the end of this excerpt, but I feel that's the reason no one has called him out on his preceeding, angry retort about fatherhood and an imaginary (sexist?) attack by Palin.
 
At first it seemed like Biden was following the same playbook as Palin, when he outlined his personal experiences that make him a family man and someone everyone watching could relate to.  In effect, matching a "positive" from Palin, with his own "positive" comment.  But right before his most emotional moment of the debate, he forcefully responded to an imaginary threat against his fatherhood or manhood.
 
That's the central idea when it comes to turning postives into negatives--thinking everything the opponent says reflects negatively on you, even if they are just talking about themselves, especially in a positive light. 
 
Next time Barack Obama gets defensive after McCain describes his own love of America, take note of how Obama so craftily turns positive statements into attacks about him.  It makes you wonder when he hears positive comments from his opponents as they describe themselves, if he feels threatened by the weakness of his own positions and hollow convictions.
 
 
*                                       *                                       *
 
Perhaps all these attacks from the left are an attempt to distract us from all the back-peddling and denials wafting from Obama like stink lines from a cartoon outhouse. 

One language-based example is how Obama's sacrosanct "Fight the Smears" website made an interesting update regarding his involvement with ACORN, the community organizing group that is under FBI Investigations in a dozen states for voter registration fraud, and is partly responsible for the financial crisis we are now in by bullying banks to issue sub-prime loans. 

As archived by a blogger along with a photograph of Obama working with ACORN in 2004, a "fact" on his website used to be:
Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.

However, as the ACORN controversy grew, Team Obama changed the "facts" so they now say:
Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
 
If "never worked" for ACORN was not completely accurate and warranted 'change' (pun intended), that certainly implies that he did work for ACORN.  By saying that he was just "never hired" by ACORN doesn't mean he never worked for them (without pay).  It's a subtle but vital distinction.
 
 
The election is just two days away, and if Obama is elected it'll be thanks to his supporters (the mainstream media), and his surrogates who twisted words to make him sound like 'The One', while portraying McCain as the anti-Christ or President Bush (which is of course redundant if you actually listen to the mainstream media and kool-aid drinking hippies).  If Obama and Biden win, it'll be because of their many "rhetorical flourishes" and ability to sound eloquant while not really saying anything at all---other than 'spread the wealth'.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Language of Politics: When Words Are Weapons, Part II

Posted by conservativedude on Friday, October 24, 2008 3:23:43 AM
This is a continuation of my thoughts on how words and language are being used to affect the campaign and the 'free exchange of ideas' we supposedly can have in this country.

2.  "Code Words"
 
Code words are just one of the many tactics liberals or secular progressives use to turn language against us, and control us through words.  Their desire is to ensure everyone walks on eggshells for fear of people being labled a racist or any of those colorful epithets.
 
In George Orwell's 1984, the Thought Police and government strictly controlled not only the news stories and history, but also the language and words available to the people.  Their notion was, if you use government to control the dictionary and what words people have to pull from when trying to speak, make an argument or dissent, you can control and limit that dissent and free thoughts from 'outside the box'.  This is more generally accomplished by neutralizing language through "pplitical correctness".  Being PC is definetely one explaination the code word whiners use to justify their crusade against innocent diction from the right.
 
They use race as a shield against every type of criticism.
 
As I mentioned in Part I, if you criticize ACORN---or any community organizing groups---you are racist because "community organizer" is code for a black person.  Maybe they are right in asserting that connection though, because before this election I never had heard that exact phrase before.  Perhaps that's something you discuss at those black-only clubs and frats or black-only scholarship meetings.
 
This entire problem reeks of professorial indoctrination tactics.  In order to warp the minds of my generation, and beyond, they attempt to dig deep into the meaning of words or issues to somehow shine the spotlight on something and say, "See! That's discrimination.  This Donald Duck film showcases classic xenophobia and racism; X group is wrong and Y group is being persecuted."  It's only a valid example if they can denigrate the 'white oppressors'.  Public schools and colleges teach white students to hate themselves, instead of telling us all to hate the mistakes of history and say, "never again."  They do this by either twisting historical words, or by labeling things as discriminatory and somehow blurring the line between historical problems and 21st century America. 
Would those classes be called Flagellation 101 or Self-flagellation 101 if you willingly signed up for it? 
By the way, just call me Mr. X. 
 
*                                 *                                 *
 
The Obama campaign and his surrogates outside as well as within the media have taken a page from the college professor's handbook this election season.  On top of community organizers, "hockey moms" and "Joe Six-pack" are considered codewords for white people, and therefore not inclusive to black people. ("So, vote Obama because those Republicans are racists: WE WANT CHANGE!")
 
There's nothing separatist in identifying yourself as a 'hockey mom' like Sarah Palin, just as there's nothing stopping any men from calling themselves 'hockey dads', or 'basketball dads', or so on.  I never played hockey, and my luck with basketball and baseball was less than noteworthy.  However, through those years, and my later bowling and tennis years, my mom was always there for me: to take me to practice, and to stay involved and interested while juggling all the other 'mom duties'.  That is why, from the moment I first heard "hockey mom", I thought of my mother.  While the leftists choose to perceive "hockey mom" as a term to narrowly and hatefully describe white (hick) mothers, I actually see it as an inclusive term to describe all mothers who are active in their children's lives, whether that be through sports, the international club, or studying. 
 
"Joe six-pack" came before "Joe the Plumber" but after Joe "The Gaffe-master" Biden. 
 
First, we're supposed to look past liberals' reverse racism where again, they choose to limit Joe six-pack as being only a white male, and not just any typical, beer-loving, football cheering American.  The apparent 'fumble' is that in one's mind's eye Joe is white.  How criminal!  It's in the eye of the beholder, but since racism-based scare tactics are a major platform of the liberal playbook, they tell us what we see in our minds and that we're wrong.  
 
Thanks liberals, but I saw Ingrid Bergman's stellar performance in Gaslight, so you'll never succeed in 'gaslighting' me! 
 
Other, more generic words or sentiments are applied with racial connotations by Obama or other liberals as a way to tap dance out of that particular minefield.  This August at The Century Foundation panel, they took it a step further and brought up a few more supposed codewords/questions like, "Is he qualified?"  The implication there is that the evil, racist opponents of said candidate assume that because he's black, he can not be qualified and that it has nothing to do with a legitimate concern over his record (or lack thereof).
Taking it even further into koolaid country, the panelist continues by saying that those who say he's not "experienced" really mean that he's had different experiences than (white) America.  "What does experience really mean?"  I guess that depends on your definition of 'experience'.
 
A psychological point to consider as well is the power of suggestion.  Regardless of the truth, after someone tells you, "everyone pictures 'Joe' as a white man", thy will be done.  That's what you'll see, even if you originally saw a football-cheering, black woman named Josephine in your mind's eye.  And so what if you did see a white guy in your head?  I don't want someone trying to tell me what I'm thinking and quantifying the 'political correctness' of it.  That's when you know government is too big---when they've encroached on the deepest, darkest recesses of our minds!
 
 
In Part III, I'm going to talk about how liberals frequently take a 'positive' from the conservatives and turn it into a negative, much like "Joe sixpack", which they consider not inclusive enough. It often comes down to their interpretation and twisting of the words that in fact makes the phrase not seem "inclusive".
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Language of Politics: When Words Are Weapons, Part I

Posted by conservativedude on Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:58:12 AM
Words are essential.  We use them to get our points across and convince others that we are right, while also discrediting any opposition that comes our way.  The 2008 election is proof enough that ad campaigns, debate language, perceptions and tones in the media, as well as pundit and surrogate commentaries provide all the linguistic fodder that can make or break a campaign.
 
I'm going to cover some examples of how words and language have been used in recent months to wage a political war.  In 'Part 1', I'm focusing on labels and how playing on people's sympathy for the "suffering/oppressed" or fear of being called a racist has been a vital tactic employed by the left.
 
1.   Guilt & Fear Mongering
 
During all campaigns, democratic politicians try and make us feel bad for those who are less fortunate.  The problem is, they target groups who don't want jobs or drug addicts who would rather get high than be an upstanding citizen.  No one questions that we should help people in need, but they want to take our money to fund government entitlement programs and that's a problem.
I mean, Robin Hood did it, so why can't we?
 
Hood took from the oppressive (who were rich) and gave to the oppressed.  What Obama and Biden represent is class warfare and indeed socialism.  This comes down to their own words.  By now we are all familiar with Joe the plumber, an everday American with a dream of owning his own business, whose neighborhood was visited by Obama.  Joe had the audacity to ask a man running for president this question:  "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
His response might just be the straw that finally breaks this (donkey's) back:
 
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." 
 
It seems Senator Government thinks other people are entitled to your money!!  No matter how you try to spin it, "spreading the wealth around" for the good of "everyone" is clearly socialism.  Mike Huckabee, on his program, correctly stated that Obama saying those four little words changes everything.
 
This gem comes on the heels of Biden's Good Morning America interview where he said, "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people."  He wants to take your money.  He continued by saying (abut the wealthy who will pay more under an Obama administration), "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."  
 
I thought being patriotic meant wearing a flag pin, being proud of your military (and wanting them to succeed), putting your hand over your heart for the anthem and defending the unborn or "born alive" American citizens, but I guess Barack and Michelle Obama missed that memo.
 
*                     *                     *
 
Another issue which may succeed or fail based on the words used to present it is gay marriage in California, and you betcha they assert that opponents are homophobic.  It's no longer an issue that we can discuss, because if you are critical of opening the flood gate and diminishing the traditional definition of marriage (instead of a parallel form of marriage for gay couples which I have called for), they say you are not tolerant.  What about the opponents of Prop. 8 not being tolerant toward people who support marriage as it has always been--between one man and one woman?
 
A prime example of this is a commercial against proposition 8, which shows a conversation betwen two women.  Here's an excerpt:
 
Woman 1:  Honestly, I just don't know how I feel about this same-sex marriage thing.
Woman 2:  It's okay...and I really think it's fine if you don't know how you feel, but are you willing to eliminate rights and have our laws treat people differently.
Woman 1 (overacted): No!
 
The ad takes advantage of the fact that gay marriage is currently on the books in California, even though it was wrongfully won by several activist judges a few months ago.  Woman 2 says, "are you willing to eliminate rights", despite the fact that according to the will of the people, and the last state-wide vote, it is not a right.  And the, "do you want our laws to treat people differently" argument is specious at best because every law on the books has clauses and loopholes, requirements and stipulations, designed to maintain order in a chaotic world.  Her argument asserts that we should not acknowledge our differences, and comes with a level of tolerance I'm familiar with.  She says she's "fine" with her friend having a different opinion, but goes on to trap her in a corner.  This just proves it's hard to fight liberal perspectives when they play any sort of 'tolerance card'.
 
*                     *                     *
 
Speaking of cards, the most talked about card this season has been of course the race card.  Interestingly, no one has criticized Obama for his race.  Those assertions have pre-emptively come from Obama himself, and his hordes of far-left surrogates.  On The O'Reilly Factor, Dennis Miller aptly described this trend as playing the 'race card' card.  Here's the one to top:
 
"It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy.  We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced, and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’ ”  -Obama
 
He also said (Republicans would say), "he's got a feisty wife", and was quoted as saying, "he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."
 
Obama is a brilliant campaigner.  He effectively brought up the topic conservatives never would---the issue of race.  He tried to scare his followers into buying that an imaginary hate-machine from the right wants to tear him down because he's black.  He also expertly linked his clear inexperience to his race, quite effectively limiting the attacks in that vein.  The "funny name" part echoes his "clinging to religion and guns" comment in Pennsylvania and illustrates his elitism---how he separates himself from the rest of us because we are too tolerant and won't do it for him!  He also effectively explained away Michelle's "first time proud of her country" remarks by calling her "fiesty"---so now any critique of her will be perceived as a racial attack trying to portray her as a crazy black woman. 
 
Along with this racism fear tactic comes the agenda of stealing the term "change" as if Obama is the first politician in history to challenge the status quo to get elected, and that McCain and every other politician running for office this year isn't doing the same.
 
Change is not a brainchild of this election cycle.  Every politician ever running for office has run on the mantra of change, but the lemmings have spoken and apparently The One is actually the first to ever call for change.  If you believe that, I recommend checking out this clip from Andy Griffith's A Face in the Crowd from 51 years ago. 
 
I especially like the quotes, "...Instead of long-winded public debates, people want slogans...'Time for a change'...punchlines and drama."  And no doubt faux Greek columns.  Maybe Obama never saw it, since he hadn't yet been born, or else he's hoping his young, hip target audience--sorry, I mean demographics---haven't seen it either since this title is not available on iTunes.
 
According to the liberals, if you want change this election season, "change" does not mean new and innovative ideas (of either candidate), rather: "Obama is African-American and he represents the change America needs."  Thanks for that reminder that his father was African, but that racial qualifier is used so often to lead the electorate to the decision that "change" should be based on the fact he doesn't look like any of the other presidents, instead of his platform.  After all those years in public schools, I'm tired of liberals trying to make me feel bad for today's black people---and the need to overcompensate now---because of prejudice from a time before I was born.
 
If he does not win, they will blame it on racism, just as they did with Tom Bradley, a black candidate for California Governor in 1982 who lost after leading in polls.  Tell ya what, I think I can live with that.  The fact is, I've been called much worse for far less a transgression than supporting a different candidate in a democratic election.
 
You can't even criticize community organizing, despite all the illegal activities of ACORN involving voter registration fraud in a dozen states and their ground-floor involvement in the current financial crisis, because "community organizing" is a codeword for "black" and therefore untouchable. 
 
 
Keep your eyes peeled for Part II, which will explore the so-called "codewords" that the left accuse conservatives of saying.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »