Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Saturday, September 5, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Words Matter
Ever wonder what’s happening to words once they fall into the hands of corporate and government propagandists? Too often reporters and editors don’t wonder enough. They ditto the words even when the result is deception or doubletalk.
Here are some examples. Day in and day out we read about “detainees” imprisoned for months or years by the federal government in the U.S., Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn’t the media know that the correct word is “prisoners,” regardless of what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld disseminated?
The raging debate and controversy over health insurance and the $2.5 trillion spent this year on health care involves consumers and “providers.” How touching to describe sellers or vendors, often gouging, denying benefits, manipulating fine print contracts, cheating Medicare and Medicaid in the tens of billions as “providers.”
I always thought “providers” were persons taking care of their families or engaging in charitable service. Somehow, the dictionary definition does not fit the frequently avaricious profiles of Aetna, United Healthcare, Pfizer and Merck.
“Privatization” and the “private sector” are widespread euphemisms that the press falls for daily. Moving government owned assets or functions into corporate hands, as with Blackwater, Halliburton, and the conglomerates now controlling public highways, prisons, and drinking water systems is “corporatization,” not the soft imagery of going “private” or into the “private sector.” It is the corporate sector!
“Medical malpractice reform” is another misnomer. It used to mean restricting the legal rights of wrongfully injured people by hospitals and doctors, or limiting the liability of these corporate vendors when their negligence harms innocent patients. Well, to anybody interested in straight talk, “medical malpractice reform” or the “medical malpractice crisis” should apply to bad or negligent practices by medical professionals. After all, about 100,000 people die every year from physician/hospital malpractice, according to a Harvard School of Public Health report. Hundreds of thousands are rendered sick or injured, not to mention even larger tolls from hospital-induced infections. Proposed “reforms” are sticking it to the wrong people—the patients—not the sellers.
“Free trade” is a widely used euphemism. It is corporate managed trade as evidenced in hundreds of pages of rules favoring corporations in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. “Free trade” lowers barriers between countries so that cartels, unjustified patent monopolies, counterfeiting, contraband, and other harmful practices and products can move around the world unhindered.
What is remarkable about the constant use of these words is that they permeate the language even if those who stand against the policies of those who first coin these euphemisms. You’ll read about “detainees” and “providers” and “privatization” and “private sector” and “free trade” in the pages of the Nation and Progressive magazines, at progressive conferences with progressive leaders, and during media interviews. After people point out these boomeranging words to them, still nothing changes. Their habit is chronic.
A lot of who we are, of what we do and think is expressed through the language we choose. The word tends to become the thing in our mind as Stuart Chase pointed out seventy years ago in his classic work The Tyranny of Words. Let us stop disrespecting the dictionary! Let’s stop succumbing to the propagandists and the public relations tricksters!
Frank Luntz—the word wizard for the Republicans who invented the term “death tax” to replace “estate tax” is so contemptuous of the Democratic Party’s verbal ineptitude (such as using “public option” instead of “public choice” and regularly using the above-noted misnomers) that he dares them by offering free advice to the Democrats. He suggests they could counteract his “death tax” with their own term “the billionaires’ tax.” There were no Democratic takers. Remember, words matter.
Using words that are accurate and at face value is one of the characteristics of a good book. Three new books stand out for their straight talk. In Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-party Tyranny, Theresa Amato, my former campaign manager, exposes the obstructions that deny voter choice by the two major parties for third party and independent candidates. Just out is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Pulitzer Prize winner, Chris Hedges. Lastly, the boisterous, mischievous short autobiography of that free spirit, Jerry Lee Wilson, The Soloflex Story: An American Parable.
Not withstanding their different styles, these authors exercise semantic discipline.
Here are some examples. Day in and day out we read about “detainees” imprisoned for months or years by the federal government in the U.S., Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn’t the media know that the correct word is “prisoners,” regardless of what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld disseminated?
The raging debate and controversy over health insurance and the $2.5 trillion spent this year on health care involves consumers and “providers.” How touching to describe sellers or vendors, often gouging, denying benefits, manipulating fine print contracts, cheating Medicare and Medicaid in the tens of billions as “providers.”
I always thought “providers” were persons taking care of their families or engaging in charitable service. Somehow, the dictionary definition does not fit the frequently avaricious profiles of Aetna, United Healthcare, Pfizer and Merck.
“Privatization” and the “private sector” are widespread euphemisms that the press falls for daily. Moving government owned assets or functions into corporate hands, as with Blackwater, Halliburton, and the conglomerates now controlling public highways, prisons, and drinking water systems is “corporatization,” not the soft imagery of going “private” or into the “private sector.” It is the corporate sector!
“Medical malpractice reform” is another misnomer. It used to mean restricting the legal rights of wrongfully injured people by hospitals and doctors, or limiting the liability of these corporate vendors when their negligence harms innocent patients. Well, to anybody interested in straight talk, “medical malpractice reform” or the “medical malpractice crisis” should apply to bad or negligent practices by medical professionals. After all, about 100,000 people die every year from physician/hospital malpractice, according to a Harvard School of Public Health report. Hundreds of thousands are rendered sick or injured, not to mention even larger tolls from hospital-induced infections. Proposed “reforms” are sticking it to the wrong people—the patients—not the sellers.
“Free trade” is a widely used euphemism. It is corporate managed trade as evidenced in hundreds of pages of rules favoring corporations in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. “Free trade” lowers barriers between countries so that cartels, unjustified patent monopolies, counterfeiting, contraband, and other harmful practices and products can move around the world unhindered.
What is remarkable about the constant use of these words is that they permeate the language even if those who stand against the policies of those who first coin these euphemisms. You’ll read about “detainees” and “providers” and “privatization” and “private sector” and “free trade” in the pages of the Nation and Progressive magazines, at progressive conferences with progressive leaders, and during media interviews. After people point out these boomeranging words to them, still nothing changes. Their habit is chronic.
A lot of who we are, of what we do and think is expressed through the language we choose. The word tends to become the thing in our mind as Stuart Chase pointed out seventy years ago in his classic work The Tyranny of Words. Let us stop disrespecting the dictionary! Let’s stop succumbing to the propagandists and the public relations tricksters!
Frank Luntz—the word wizard for the Republicans who invented the term “death tax” to replace “estate tax” is so contemptuous of the Democratic Party’s verbal ineptitude (such as using “public option” instead of “public choice” and regularly using the above-noted misnomers) that he dares them by offering free advice to the Democrats. He suggests they could counteract his “death tax” with their own term “the billionaires’ tax.” There were no Democratic takers. Remember, words matter.
Using words that are accurate and at face value is one of the characteristics of a good book. Three new books stand out for their straight talk. In Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-party Tyranny, Theresa Amato, my former campaign manager, exposes the obstructions that deny voter choice by the two major parties for third party and independent candidates. Just out is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Pulitzer Prize winner, Chris Hedges. Lastly, the boisterous, mischievous short autobiography of that free spirit, Jerry Lee Wilson, The Soloflex Story: An American Parable.
Not withstanding their different styles, these authors exercise semantic discipline.
Comments are closed
73 Comments so far
Show AllMr.Nader, I enjoy your straight talk and analysis of the Orwellian doublespeak that is spun from the corporate media.Our leaders like to rename things to suit their agenda.Thanks for "The Seventeen Traditions" I am enjoying it now. peace
Thank you, Mr. Nader! Excellent and articulate analysis, as usual.
"Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
- G. Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"
Good article Mr. Nader. How about the dems using the words "wasting your vote". There are too many examples to list here; lets just say that the American public is fed sintax instead of syntax!
Perfect, Mr. Nader. I have long wondered how to replace the word "privatization" with something more sensible. How can it be privatization when it is still public money being spent? It just makes the activity one more step removed from public oversight. I tried piratization, but corporatization is perfect.
I find that "theft" seems to do the job rather well.
So do "bondage", serfdom" and "slavery".
Yes, it is corporatization, not privatization. All corporations are public, even if privately held, because corporate liability is limited. Stakeholders other than shareholders indemnify all liabilities beyond the stockholders' up front investment. (Exception: cases where deep pocket corporate officers or shareholders cross a rather high threshold of malfeasance.)
how about my most disliked:
"reform"
when the imf /world bank/your government uses that, it usually means
"you're on your own buddy."
In fact it almost always means, elimination of anything that helps the lower down people.
another, equally repulsive phrase:
"collateral damage"
Exactly!
The word "reform" used to have all kinds of nice connotations - ending racism, inequality, corruption, etc. One got happy-feelings when I heard the word. But now when one hears the word, they better hunker down!
Because now, it basically means "a scheme to steal the public wealth for private gain".
pjd is correct; he or she often is. It is not "you're on your own", but "you are now carrying me as a parasite".
Even if there were no other evidence that the MSM serves the elites, their propagandistic use of language would be enough.
What horrifies me, though, is not that they pervert the language (it's part of their real job, after all) but that liberals and even leftists buy into their damnable perversion.
Check how many people who should certainly know better use the elite lexicon rather than the traditional one. It's truly frightening.
Words like ‘change’ and ‘reform’ engender fear in a great number of people, especially in seniors and especially so when discussing medical care. I contend that health care reform advocates made a major blunder in naming the issue. In addition to being simple and succinct, the phrase 'Medical Security' brings to mind the two most successful and familiar (and sacred) U.S. government programs: Medicare and Social Security. Perhaps there is still time to reverse the damage by replacing, ‘Health Care Reform’ with 'Medical Security’ in future conversations.
Honestly, you need to post that as a main article. "Medical Security" is a *beautiful* framing. I'm so green with envy that if my hair were curly I'd look like a giant stalk of broccoli.
It is just as well that what Obama and the Democrats are proposing is not called Medical Security as it will be much better if Medical Security is used in discussions of a single payer option.
Love it, it drives myself and my father nuts when we hear these terms. Its also fun using the real terms in polite company, the looks can be priceless. (The fact I've been called vulgar is another story on the power of truth)
How about the word "conservative" as applied to the current Republican party? I know I keep harping on this but I can't help it. The truer words "reactionary" and "fascist" are hardly ever employed by progressive media and for the life of me, I can't understand it. The MSM would never use either word, especially "fascist" as applied to walking scum like Glenn Beck or Michelle Malkin. But even writers found here on CD hardly ever use those words and still cling to the adjective "conservative". A true conservative would care about the rule of law, the constitution, human rights, etc. The Republicans want to turn this nation into the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
P.S. Mr. Nader: If you run in '012, I'll vote for you.
And let's not forget how well they like to 'conserve' their natural resources, like fresh air, clean water, undeveloped wilderness, real family values, true spiritual meaning, even right to life (of 'others'). They have nothing to 'conserve' my sanity and well being, for sure...when asked, I tell-I am so conservative(in a true sense) it makes the Republican conservatives look like fascist lunatics...
thanks mr. nader, this unconscious country isn't ready for you, but please keep up your work.
How about changing "Health Care Market" to "Health Care Jungle"?
There are just so many of these invented euphemisms, every one of them designed to prevent clear thinking. One of the ones that irks me is using the word "resources" in place of the word money. Such as, "He lacked sufficient resources to buy the car." Really? We can buy automobiles with "resources?" We don't need money? I don't think so. I think the guy lacked enough money to buy the car. My auto dealership was very clear about the matter. They wanted to be paid in money. To them resources were lists of things that countries had like copper or iron ore that we had to study in fifth grade geography class. It's doubtful that I could have paid for my car in iron ore.
The word "resources" is meant to obscure the very idea of wealth. So "the wealthy" now become people possessing resources and the filthy rich become people of great resources. Presto! These folk are no longer the parasitic rich. Instead they are now some sort of resource managers.
I wonder who dreams this stuff up? He or she must be, well, resourceful. Coming up with just the right word to confuse and obscure what you are talking about must be difficult. For coming up with this "resources" business I think they deserve a rousing shout of "double-plus good!"
But big words r 2 hard 4 u to read
Health Care....Death Prevention and Disease Management.
Defense....Global Killing Department.
Education....Anasthesia.
US State Department....Tel Aviv.
Voting....SelfSex.
Department of Defense - NOT! Offensive - no if ands or butts about it!
Department Of War - D.O.W.
Sioux Rose
LORD B: W.O.W! Excellent analogy.
WAYOUT: Most excellent post!
Through the end of WW2 and a little beyond, the Army (and embedded air forces) were officially under the Dept. of War, the Navy and Marines (and their embedded air forces) officially under the Dept. of the Navy. The US was a little more honest in those days.
Ironically, the DOD has since never waged a defensive war, just a bunch of offensive ones. (In 2001 the US war against Iraq was over decade old, and material aid to war against Arabs in and around Palestine multiple decades.) Then again, since the first external invasions of the USA, War of 1812, followed a US invasion of Canada; the Pearl Harbor attack followed acts of war by the US Navy against Japan (including serious threats to cut off petroleum), the US has never waged a defensive war prior to the formation of the DOD. (I left out the Pancho Villa attacks, because I am uncertain of how many times the US invaded Mexico prior to them.)
I can think of no person who has given so selflessly of themselves to further the causes of justice and equality in our country than Ralph Nader. He stands, in the old tradition I suppose, for truth and integrity, something sorely lacking in today's political climate. He use two words, "deception and doubletalk", that for me characterize the entire discourse in our country. These are not merely misrepresentations and misspeak. I believe that most all of our national dialog is now steeped in deliberate misinformation and an intentional subversion of the truth by the manipulation of language. Controlling the message is the first priority, truth is not considered. The system, our system, is corrupted, often irreparably, because we rightfully believe that success is based upon sound information. Truth, something we all say is essential, has somehow lost its value. We, intelligent albeit gullible, want so badly to believe our politicians, our priests, our lawyers, our CEOs, even though it becomes harder and harder to believe a word they say. We want to make sense of the world we live in. So, we turn to those who spend the most money presenting their message on the media. The average truthful word that used to be worth a dollar, will not even fetch a penny at the auction today, so corrosive are the forces of liars. Lying has not just reached an art form, today it is inherent and ever present in our psyche. People like Dick Cheney, Lanny Davis, Alan Greenspan, Alberto Gonzolez, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, William Kristol, and millions just like them, have no more grasp of the importance of truth than Bill O'Reilly has manners. Their job is to manufacture consent for the powers that be. Nothing more. Try finding the words of truthfulness in the Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary. Its online; look it up. Instead of looking for Nemo, try finding the truth in this work of historical fiction and false reality. Read a defense department statement. How about a press release from Exxon? Truth counts for nothing in the corporate world.
Language, in today's transnational corporatocratic world, is used for nothing more than to further the short-term economic gains and geostrategic interests for a handful; to consolidate power and money. More money is probably spent by corporations to control their message, through their media specialists and lobbyists, than our society spends educating our children. The loudest messages are sold to the highest bidder. Truth has little or no role. Laws are based upon a commonly understood language. Throw out truthfulness, and laws become meaningless. In fact, I say throw out truthfulness, and human relationships become meaningless. Seems we're well on our way, doesn't it?
Wayout, Absolutely 100% without question or doubt, beyond all other commentaries,omnipotent omniscient,omnipresent,infinite and just downright fucking fantastic.
Ralph is a self serving asshole that gave us BV$H for 8 yrs. I don't care much for the man to say the least, but I have to admit he is @ times brilliantly on the mark.
Gosh - if Ralph "gave us Bush" - who "gave us Obama"?
i kind of thought that as we see Obama carry out the Bush agenda, fools might shut up about Ralph.
But then eight years of Clinton fulfilling the Reagan agenda didn't seem to do it...
When the passenger pigeon became extinct in the early 20th Century, some unknown person or persons must have sighted the last of the breed-- never knowing the significance of this momentous and poignant occasion, of course.
When it comes to Nader-blamers, webwalk, we are more aware of their place in the micro-arc of history. After the Bore-Lieberman fiasco in 2000, wave after wave of Nader-blamers emerged like bats from the moderate liberal caves.
One couldn't visit a progressive blog without navigating through swarms of strident and bitter Blamers: partisan Democrats, "progressive" lesser-evilists, Bush-haters.
Nowadays, as this comments thread reveals, we're "lucky" to see one or two. In spite of myself, I almost feel like tossing out a handful of breadcrumbs to sustain them.
I know that they're unappealing, unfriendly, and unclean as species go, and I won't miss them when they're gone. But I can't suppress a twinge of pity for such evolutionary dead-enders.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I nominate "lesser-evil" as our worst euphemism.
It provides cover for those voting in favor of fascism and imperialism.
When people say "I had no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils", they might as well say "I was told who to vote for, I had no choice". That's tyranny, why call it democracy?
If we stop voting the "lesser-evil", it will likely result (in the near future) in Republican victories. That's unfortunate, but unavoidable if you truly want change. It's a setback on the road to building a movement. The Democratic leadership will not allow the party to be reformed.
So if the grassroots of the Democratic party are willing to support a progressive agenda, then they should back the candidates that embody that - regardless of party affiliation. Even if you want to reform the Democrats, it makes more sense to do that outside the party than from within. By drawing people from the ranks of Democratic voters, you are exerting the only leverage ordinary people have over the party - their money and votes. The DNC won't listen to reformers if they continue to supply them with money and votes regardless of their political stances.
In any case, the Dems and Repubs are more politically similar than ever before. McCain and Obama (and Bush) support identical policies on all the big issues (yes, there's healthcare, but look how's that's going. If he drops the rancid "public option" then his plan will be no different from McCain's tax credit plan. And obviously, and more importantly, both plans were blatant attempts to preserve the insurance industry.)
No - 90,000 Democratic votes illegally scrubbed from the voter roles gave us the Idiot.
There was another "Nader Blamer" on here a while back claiming Global Warming was all Ralph's Fault because he spent too much time focusing on the illegal war in Iraq. I suggested that, by that logic, Ralph could be blamed for all the highway fatalities since the 1970's since he only changed seat belt availability and federal highway safety standards and never pushed for full face NASCAR helmets for everybody.
As I recall, Ross Perot who I also voted for, got blamed for Bush senior losing his re-election to Clinton. So watch out, big party supporters, the third party will rise again.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Ralph Nader was tangential to the Democrats' losses. They did themselves in.
Joe
Maybe Ralph could start a new college. It could be staffed with the likes of Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald and others, and be a place of serious critical analysis. It could be a school where the "Humanities" actually mean something.
One term that's a misnomer is "American Democracy". In actuality there's no such thing. Good article Ralph. Too bad the "American Democratic system" gave you and Kucinich the finger or anyone else that might have a few brain cells, for that matter.
Ralph Nader, meet George Lakoff.
(If you don't know Lakoff, search the web for him.)
...and Thom Hartman. These three alone, if they formed a communications consultancy, could revamp progressives and Dems alike.
Speaking of "the power of words" - where did the David Michael Green article that CD posted this morning go? i was going to follow up on a comment i left but the article has disappeared.
And why on Earth did CD pull it? It wasn't perfect but it was thought-provoking.
i suppose this post will also disappear...
I was able to revisit it by finding the link in "history," http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/05-5 and it's still on the CD page I just opened in a new window.
HE lets "Free Trade:" off easy.
"In the late 1980's, the West began to liberalize its financial markets. For some years, large corporations had argued with governments that they needed to move money around the world faster and in much greater quantities in order to take full advantage of its value as they expanded global operations. Their requests were greeted with skepticism until they found steadfast allies in the governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. By the late 1980;'s, the most powerful capitalist economies had lifted the bureaucratic barriers that blocked the free movement of capital between them..... The exponential growth of organized crime triggered by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of dozens of transitional and failing states was given a further fillip and indeed became inextricably bound up with globalization- it was here in the huge reservoirs of the international banking system that the liquid assets of the corporate and criminal worlds mixed and mingled. Very quickly it became impossible to seperate the two....Fraud and organized crime were in the vanguard of the brave new world of globalization."
McMafia; A Journey Through the Global Criminal Underworld by Misha Glenny; Alfred A. Knopf. N.Y. 2008
The OECD reckons that about half of all the world's cross-border trade involves structures for concealing money, involving about 70 tax havens (the French call them 'fiscal paradises"), as corporations and rich individuals shuffle profits around to avois taxes and for yet more nefarious reasons. Assets held offshore by rich individuals, beyond the reach of effective taxation, equal one-third of global assets- or $11 trillion, conservatively estimated, costing governments over $250 billion a year in tax revenues. This is more than twice the global aid budget for developing countries. The Cayman Islands (ppop. 45,000) claims to be the world's fifth largest financial center. A U.S. Senate report estimated in 199- when the problem was smaller- that up to a trillion dollars is laundered through banks each year, half of it through U.S. banks
There are basically three forms of dirty money. One is criminal money: from drug dealing, say, or slave trading or terrorism. The next is corrupt money, like the late former Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha's looted oil billions. The third form, commercial money- what out finest companies and richest individuals hide from our tax collectors- is bigger. The point- and this is crucial- is that these three forms of dirty money use exactly the same mechanisms and subterfuges: tax havens, shell banks,shielded trusts, anonymous foundations, dummy corporations, mispricing schemes and the like all administered by the "pinstripe infrastructure" of mainstream banks, lawyers, and accountants.... U.S. Treasury officials told Raymond Baker that in a good year they caught 0.1 percent of illicit inflows into the countrey- a 99.9 percent failure rate.
Poisoned Wells;The Dirty Politics of African Oil by Nicholas Shaxson; Palgrave MacMillan, N.Y. 2007
[associate fellow with the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in London]
When a guy like Nader is caught minimizing a problem then we know the standards of political discource in this country are really shot to hell.
When words lose their meaning, the people will lose their freedom.
Confucious
And that is precisely the plan of the elite. After all, the less freedom we have, the more freedom they have.
We've got the elite's number. The internet is spreading the word. I'm surprised it hasn't been shut down. I do observe that, regardless of broadband spread in other countries and cheapening rates as well, they are fighting tooth and nail here to slow down broadband.
Those who teach the definitons today control tomorrow.
And those that resist
End up on lists
Sometimes even enjoying
Special Visits
From the man. Pre-emptive thought control.
Words? I was convicted recently for "saying words likely to cause a violent reaction," in another. Darn, free speech? hahaha. All I said was "follow me into the darkness *^#@*," shucks, an invite were all it was.
Words are more powerful than swords. Darkness fears light, truth, which is always with languange.
HOW DID GOD CREATE THE WORLD, THE UNIVERSE?
He Spoke. Love to you all.
I think the "public option" or "public choice" Nader describes is actually public fantasy.
At best, placing the “public option” in the healthcare market system will result in healthcare as a right being forced to account for itself in the other’s idiom, to argue for the place of humanity in the market’s ranks.
And who do you think is going to win THAT argument?
Yeah, words matter.
Ralph, I love the way you address the issues but as bluepilgrim suggested, you and other strong progressive independents just like you need to learn the art of framing by George Lakoff. Yes, Lakoff does cling to Democrats too but I have to admit that he's not as strong about it either. Still, most people do not open their hearts and minds to voting on the quality of the candidates takes on issues but rather by how much money he or she can raise and their party affiliation. It sometimes haunts my mind that 1992 appeared to be a huge uprising for 3rd parties because people admired Ross Perot for being a filthy rich billionaire and yet framing some of the issues in a hilarious way. My parents were almost about to consider voting for Perot in 1992 but despite Perot's appeal on the economic issues, his weakness was being unable to get voters to shake off their voting on party affiliation and countless others as well. Yesterday, cassandra raised an interesting point about the need for candidates to clarify their takes on the issues. Framing is a complex tool and the sad part about most elections is that no matter how many times sweethearts such as Ralph Nader and Cynthia Mckinney try to explain their positions to the electorate, most of the electorate will still settle for the vague candidates. It would be nice if the electorate were actually intelligent enough to get past the soundbites as "knowledge" and reason and think critically. Maybe framing will get more people back into the groove. Give it a try. What's to lose at this point?
Nader did try to frame. His small team created a video with Nader and "Obama Girl" sharing the same office - funny and educational too. But it didn't come close to the glow-job offered by "Brand Obama" and his Madison Avenue team:
"Yes I Can!" - wham-bam, thank you mam. Who could resist that?
I don't blame smart people for voting for Obama. There is merit in the argument that, faced with only two corporate options, the Dem is, historically, the rational choice. This was Chomsky's take on it, although being a resident of a safe state, he voted for McKinney, Zinn voted for Nader.
What actually infuriated me was that progressives became such un-challenging cheerleaders for, in my book, an unattractive candidate whose record should have been a redflag. I had to watch this bandwagon lovefest, no questions asked, no demands. It was painful for me. Many of of the afflicted are friends of mine.
Yes, Madison Avenue played Cupid and progressives fell in love, all according to design. Quell the voices of reason! Sweep them off their giddy feet! He did his business and then rather immediately turned his back on them. ouch. that must smart. It hurts me to think of how he took advantage of some very good people, guileless for sure, but sincere in their wishes for a better world.
I gave several hundred dollars to Nader, my spouse gave the same amount to McKinney. Frankly, the two corporate run parties are heavily funded by the worst corporations, the most deceitful and egregious ones. To us, that was a bright red flag waving furiously in our faces. We wanted the progressive message to go out to voters. This was the opposite. We refuse to be taken hostage by the so called two party system and will do what we can, anytime we can, to challenge it and offer something far better. Who wants to be marginalized into a "voters' cage?" not me.
ps, I'm new here. Is it true that this site censors comments?