Sadly, the 40-year campaign by conservatives to take over the political dialogue (and the political system itself) has been a success. Right-wing messaging is everywhere and has become the vernacular. But those of us on the left—and in the middle, too, come to think of it—must not give up.  Language counts. We need to try harder to—as my pre-school teachers often said—use our words to convey what we mean. And even though we may have heard all of this before, (we’ve all read George Lakoff, right?) it’s worth reminding ourselves to use our own talking points, rather than mindlessly adopting the language of the right.

Addicting Information offers this helpful compilation of words and phrases to avoid, and ways to recast the dialogue:

(1). Big Business: (Also referred to as: Corporate America; Multinationals; Corporate Interests) When we use any of these words, we automatically sound pie-in-the-sky liberal. People think, “what’s wrong with that?” After all, they’d like their own businesses to get “big” and have no negative associations with the words “corporate” or “multinational” — which actually sound kind of exciting and worldly. Instead, try: Unelected Government. This puts them in their proper context as unelected entities with unprecedented powers, whose actions have immense impact on our lives, and which we are powerless to hold accountable.

(2). Entitlements: I keep hearing reporters from National Public Radio and other liberal news outlets use the word “entitlements” and it makes me froth at the mouth. They’re not “entitlements” — which sounds like something a bunch of spoiled, lazy, undeserving people irrationally think they should get for nothing. Instead, try: Earned Benefits. This term not only sounds better for the progressive cause, it’s also more accurate. Programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment are all forms of insurance that we pay into all of our working lives — via a percentage of our income — and then collect from when the time comes.

(3). Free Market Capitalism: (Also referred to as: Capitalism, Free Markets, and Supply-Side Economics) Like “Fascism” and “Communism,” “Free Market Capitalism” is a 20th-century utopian ideal that has amply been proven an unworkable failure, and damaging to society. Instead, try: Socialized Risk, Privatized Profits. This best describes the dramatically failed experiment in unfettered capitalism, as practiced in the late 20th century and early aughts.

(4). Government Spending: (Also referred to as: Taxes, Burden, and Inconvenient) Conservatives talk about “government spending” like it’s this awful thing, but the fact is, communities across America benefit from U.S. tax dollars, especially supposedly anti-government red states, which receive way more federal tax money than they contribute.  Instead, try: Investing in America. Because, that’s what our federal tax dollars do. They invest in education and infrastructure that wouldn’t prove profitable for businesses, but which still benefit society in the long-run.

(5) Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage: While these phrases are technically accurate, they play into the conservative notion that marriage between two men or two women is somehow different and inferior than a “real” marriage between a man and a woman. Instead, try: Marriage Equality.

(6). Gun Control: Yikes! That sounds like you want to control people, and all those “freedom loving” folks who want to bully gays and people of color into staying in their place will use that word against you. Instead, try: Gun Safety. It sounds so nice, non-coercive, and reasonable … plus, it’s true. Most of us aren’t against guns, we just want them used safely. Or, for some added punch, try: Gun Violence Prevention.

(7). Homophobic: People who oppose equal rights for gays, lesbians, and gender atypical individuals are not “afraid,” as the “phobic” suffix implies. They are mean, bigoted @ssholes. Instead, try: Anti-Gay.

(8). Illegal Aliens: It’s easy to support draconian laws against people we refer to by such a scary and impersonal term as “illegal aliens.” It’s way harder to act against our neighbors, friends, the families of our children’s classmates, or the nice lady who sells those plump, fragrant tamales on the corner. Plus … are they really “illegal?” If Big Business … Ooops … I mean “Unelected Government” … didn’t want them here — for their easily-exploited, low-cost, skilled labor (yes, our neighbors from south of the border do offer specialized skills for which U.S. agribusiness refuses to fairly compensate) — they’d be gone. Instead, try: Undocumented Residents. Why not? They already do much of what we officially-recognized U.S. citizens do, plus they’re having more kids than Anglos are. Seems like immigration provides an ideal way for us to avoid the demographics crisis hitting Western Europe and Japan.

(9). Pro-Life: Ugh. They are NOT pro-life. Once a child takes its first breath, these supposed conservative “pro-lifers” couldn’t care less about the quality of life for the child or mother. Let’s call them by their true name for once. Instead, try: Anti-Choice. Because, that’s what they really are about. They don’t care about “life.” They only seek to deny choices to women. Not just the choice of whether or not to have a child, but whether a woman can — like a man — embrace her full sexuality without having to worry about pregnancy, and whether she can make related choices about her body, her career, and when to have children, as men always have.

(10). Right-To-Work: Who came up with the phrase “right-to-work” ANYway? It’s total B.S. and doesn’t give you the right to do anything, unless you want to reject unions and earn less money than you would in a pro-union shop. In “right-to-work” states, non-union workers in union shops can decline paying union dues. Which sounds fair, but is not, because union shops pay better wages to their employees, and hence should receive dues accordingly. Instead, try: Anti-Union: It’s far more accurate, and — as unions increasingly gain favor — will make conservatives look bad. Because “right-to-work” really does mean: Right to choose amongst sucky wages and benefits packages.  Several readers have also suggested: Right-To-Fire (without just cause), and Right-To-Work-For-Less.

(11). The Environment: When people talk about “the environment,” they often sound annoyingly self-righteous, as if lecturing people with dubious hygiene practices. Unfortunately, you can’t count on people to make environmentally friendly choices — especially when people are struggling financially and these choices cost significantly more. Instead, try: Shared Resources. That makes way more sense. We may not care about some  factory dumping crap into the ocean, but we dang-well care about our neighbors up the river not properly maintaining their septic tank.

(12). Welfare: When conservatives talk about “welfare,” they make it sound like this pit people wallow in forever, rather than a source of help that’s available when we need it – and that we pay for through our taxes. The majority of us need help at one time or another. Instead, try: Social Safety Net: When people think of a safety net, they’re more likely to think of a protection of last-resort, and one that they can instantly bounce out of like circus acrobats. And if we continue to grow the middle class — instead of cutting taxes for the rich and allowing companies to pay sub-living wages — perhaps the latter will be true again.

The post 12 phrases progressives need to ditch, and what to say instead appeared first on Occasional Planet.

With just a few days to go before mindless spending cuts take effect under the ill-advised “sequester” plan, it’s popular, among media commentators, to say that “no one likes the sequester.”  Linguist George Lakoff thinks differently. Extreme right-wing conservatives may publicly declaim that the sequester is bad news, but philosophically, they love the concept, contends Lakoff. In an article published on February 26, 2013, Lakoff says:

The sequester is not just about money and political power for the republicans in the House. It is mostly about what [extreme conservatives]  see as the right direction for the country: maximal elimination of the public sphere.

What’s behind that thinking? Lakoff notes that:

Ultra-conservatives believe that the sequester is moral, that it is the right thing to do.

…[Ultra conservatives] believe that Democracy gives them the liberty to seek their own self-interests by exercising personal responsibility, without having responsibility for anyone else or anyone else having responsibility for them. They take this as a matter of morality.  They see the social responsibility to provide for the common good as an immoral imposition on their liberty.

Their moral sense requires that they do all they can to make the government fail in providing for the common good.  Their idea of liberty is maximal personal responsibility, which they see as maximal privatization — and profitization — of all that we do for each other together, jointly as a unified nation.

They also believe that if people are hurt by government failure, it is their own fault for being “on the take” instead of providing for themselves. People who depend on public provisions should suffer. They should have rely on themselves alone — learn personal responsibility, just as Romney said in his 47 percent speech. In the long run, they believe, the country will be better off if everyone has to depend on personal responsibility alone.

…So for them the sequester is not a “self-inflicted wound.” It is justice.

Read Lakoff’s full explanation here.

The post Lakoff: Why extreme conservatives like the sequester appeared first on Occasional Planet.

$60 million.

That’s the mountain of cash plunked down on TV ad buys by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity as of mid-August 2012.  Those two groups alone have outspent all other political-action groups combined on both sides of the political divide, including political-action committees, unions, and trade associations.

You can bet Rove and his cadre of undisclosed donors aren’t putting down that kind of money for nothing.  They know it and we know it. Political attack ads work.  And if they’re based on lies, so what?  George W. started it and Romney et al. in their desperation to kick a black man out of the White House are modifying it, shaping it,  and perfecting it. Repeat a lie often enough and people believe it, especially if their preconceived notions and prejudices are ripe for the picking.

If you harbor any lingering doubts about how profoundly cleverly chosen words hold sway over our how we think about issues and form and choose our belief systems, there’s no better person to set you straight than George Lakoff, professor of linguistics and cognitive science at University of California, Berkeley, and co-founder of Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank.

Professor Lakoff has made it his life’s work to enlighten us about the whys and hows of communication and why we should care. In a series of books on the topic, Don’t Think of an Elephant, Metaphors We Live By, and The Political Mind, Lakoff exhorts us to be mindful of how we frame what we want to say, particularly in the political arena.  Why?  Because how we frame issues has implications far beyond the words themselves.  Ask almost any young, sexually active woman today how she feels about Republican framing of the debate raging about when and how she should be able to decide her reproductive destiny—which, let’s not forget, is actually her life destiny—and you’ll understand what’s at stake.

Articles and opinion pieces by Lakoff in print and online are coming fast and furious as he tries to sound the alarm for Democrats to get their act together before Republicans dominate all three branches of government and kill the American dream by ushering in what Lakoff calls “the nightmare.”  In this season of extremism masquerading as mainstream thought, Lakoff warns that losing this election to the right wing of the Republican party will mean losing democracy itself.

One of Lakoff’s most recent postings on his website, coauthored with Glenn W. Smith, is a must-read discussion about “the public” and the American dream. The article addresses the same concept brilliantly articulated by Elizabeth Warren in her discussion of the interconnectedness of wealth and financial success with public investment in infrastructure, education, and publicly financed safety systems.  (Interestingly, President Obama wasn’t quite as successful with the same messaging, perhaps because he borrowed the argument from Warren and lacked her innate framing conviction.)

Here is an excerpt from Lakoff and Smith’s “Why Democracy Is Public:  The American Dream Beats the Nightmare.”

 America has, over our history, called upon citizens to share an equal responsibility to work together to secure a safe and prosperous future for their families and nation.  This is the central work of our democracy and it is a public enterprise.  This, the American Dream, is the dream of a functioning democracy.

Public refers to people, acting together to provide what we all depend on: roads and bridges, public buildings and parks, a system of education, a strong economic system, a system of law and order with a fair and effective judiciary, dams, sewers, and a power grid, agencies to monitor disease, weather, food safety, clean air and water, and on and on.  That is what we as a people who care about each other, have given to each other.

Only a free people can take up the necessary tasks, and only a people who trust and care for one another can get the job done.  The American Dream is built upon mutual care and trust.

. . . We are now faced with a nontraditional, radical view of “democracy” coming from the Republican party.  It says that “democracy” means that nobody should care about anybody else, that “democracy” means only personal responsibility, not responsibility for anyone else, and it means no trust.  If America accepts this radical view of “democracy,” then all that we have given each other in the past under traditional democracy will be lost; all that we have called public. . . . Everything that made America America, the crucial things that you and your family and your friends have taken for granted: gone.

The democracy of care, shared responsibility, and trust is the democracy of the American Dream.  The “democracy” of no care, no shared responsibility, and no trust has produced the American Nightmare that so many of our citizens are living through.

 

 

 

The post Lakoff: The American dream beats the nightmare appeared first on Occasional Planet.