Words matter, particularly in politics. by GT Slade
(libertarian)
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What kind of notions you got? - Mae West
Without being a semantic fanatic, this writer believes words matter. Nothing affords a better example than the US news media.
Based on his experiences in the business, Bernie Goldberg has said that their leftist slant is not deliberate deception or a conspiracy by his former colleagues, merely a reflection of their mutual assumptions. The lamestream media view the world through a prism.
An oft-misused term is "progress." I define progress as "an advance which makes something better." It is not synonymous with "change," which means "something different." A new version of Windows might be progress or it might be VISTA (different). Repealing a law is progress, while adding a new one might be regressive. In fact, you can almost count on it.
There was an unpopular bill finagled through Congress this year, tangentially involving health care, technically the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." It is a sham, "the worst bill ever," according to the Wall Street Journal (November 1, 2009). Yet, even the allegedly Republican-leaning Fox News calls the legislation "Health Care Reform."
If we understand which legislation they mean, we know it is anything but health care reform. Pundits say, "The Democrats got Health Care." True, in some sense, certainly not the common variety.
Democratic strategist Tara Dowdell [pictured] says that, "The criticism that the bill could have had stronger cost-containment measurements or reductions is true," adding that most of the savings will show up in the second decade. Really?
Politicians understand the repercussions of appelations. You would never hear about an illegal invasion of Canada, for instance. It would be called something catchy, like "Operation Save Our Bacon (OSOB)." With last year's so-called Stimulus Bill growing in unpopularity, Congress tried to introduce nearly identical legislation as a "jobs" bill. They can call it "Miracle Grow," the government still cannot create jobs, particularly with this approach.
Phrases like "immigration reform," "campaign reform," "education reform," financial reform" and, of course, "health care reform" are bandied about on the News. Aside from sounding catchy, all they have in common is the word reform, and its misapplication.
I don't listen to the radio intentionally, but sometimes I overhear things like a so-called reporter from CBS News saying, "Ron Paul has been a bit of a contrarian." What a nifty way to negate someone's principles. Paul is a libertarian. The reporter is troubled that Ron Paul does not accept the status quo.
Another deceptive term is "independent," with Governor Charlie Crist in Florida and Joe Lieberman in Connecticut its poster boys. The former is a Republican, the latter a Democrat. They are independent based not on philosophy, but on political convenience. Real independents oppose the two-party monopoly, at considerable inconvenience, not for political expediency.
Actual independent candidates have difficulty getting media coverage and, when it occurs, it is usually prefaced by "of course, he has no chance of winning." Bogus independents are treated with the deference extended to ruling party candidates because the media distinguishes between political hacks and idealists. Hacks are considered serious candidates, not politicians who refuse to take a hint and and take a hike. Real independents who garner support are "spoilers." You wonder what the mediacs think is being spoiled the two-party monopoly?
According to our media pundits in a three-way race, one candidate is a spoiler, always the independent. When did independence become undesirable?
Depends on your notion of progress.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of GT Slade only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
GT Slade is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: May 20, 2010 09:54:35 PM
Hi GT Slade,
I liked your article in the beginning. Right up until you began to confuse political party affiliation with some kind of brand or label. Independent isn't a "deceptive term" at all, it is simply a choice of party affiliation. I know it drives some folks nuts when individuals don't fit the neat little labels and boxes as you'd like but even if a Marxist registered as a Republican they would be a Republican. You seem to think you can assign party affiliation based on how a person thinks or acts. The ONLY thing "Republican" means is what party an individual has chosen as the most effective to reach their political goals. The key word is REACH. Wishing for a 3rd party doesn't make it possible. But, as you point out, these two politicians have decided the Independent affiliation is the best tool available to them at this time. So, my point isn't that third parties don't have a purpose; what they have is a large number of people intent on using them for an unsuitable purpose...political change.
Our Constitution ensures we have a two party system as a mathematical inevitability. Wishing it weren't so, even wishing it really, really hard, will not change reality. The way the US Constitution defines elections it forces coalitions to be formed prior to the election. In election processes where there are run-offs and requirements for qualifying as a valid government after the elections you'll find coalition building after the elections such as in the UK and Israel. Coalition building before the general election fosters the rise of parties, two political parties in particular. There is no incentive for those parties to unite with any marginal parties, ever. So they cannot be pulled into the fray through coalition so they cannot become established or familiar to the citizens. The two parties work very hard to ensure they only have to deal with each other. Libertarians, Constitutionals, Greens, Independents and all the rest each do their parts to ensure the two big parties never have to deal with the ideals those parties represent.
The problem isn't the two parties the problem is the one philosophy embraced by the leaders of both....political glory through the myth of perpetual growth and advancement.
