Accurate Expressions?
Jon Stewart interviewed Tim Pawlenty yesterday evening and asked him a question worthy of repetition. Does our political rhetoric, in general, reflect what people think or believe is actually going on in the political arena? For example, when prominent political voices apply to our society or political order words such as tyranny or socialism or fascism, do these words accurately express the mind of the speakers? Did prominent critics of Bush really think him a tyrant? Do prominent critics of Obama really believe he’s a socialist? I’m asking not if these descriptive terms match the reality, but whether or not they are in general spoken honestly and thoughtfully. What are we mostly dealing with when we deal with this language?
Comments are closed.
I believe that most of it is perfectly cynical rabble-rousing. Sarah Palin’s recent use of the term “blood libel” is a good example of that.
I’m of the view that these words are often thrown around without much understanding of their historical meanings. They sound bad.
I’ve noticed, though, that some people mean what they say by them.
Did prominent critics of Bush really think him a tyrant?
This non-prominent critic of Bush did not. While opposed to the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy, I never participated in any of the protests against it because of the inclusion of anti-democratic organizations.
I also part company (respectfully) with others on the Left who are pacifists or, while not pacifists, are too squishy to come out and say what I am about to.
Democracy gives us civil means to change government. Force, however, is not an illegitimate tool to defeat tyranny and totalitarian governments. I am an old-school liberal who has no moral reservations about the attempts to assassinate Hitler.
When others, for example, say the President is the same as Hitler, I am left with three assumptions:
1. Like me, they find Nazism so repulsive it justifies violence to bring it to an end and therefore they are legitimatizing violence against the President.
2. They find Nazism somewhat objectionable but not to the degree I do, therefore are not calling for violence but just are (comparably) soft on Nazism.
3. They are blow-hards, not to be taken seriously.
I consider some of Bush’s (and Obama’s) policies to be tyrannical, but I wouldn’t categorize either one of them as a tyrant, unless I were using the term as a descriptive category for a limited set of actions or policies–as in, the president acts as a tyrant when doing X.
Comparisons to Nazis I could do without.
I never labeled Bush a Nazi or compared him to Hitler. However, I did frequently say that he was a “neo-Fascist,” and I meant it. By that, I meant that he had inclined toward populist demagoguery in support of nationalism, militarism and governmental authoritarianism. As much as I like and admire Obama, I don’t see him doing much to tame the “imperial Presidency.” We are, I admit, fairly safe from the excesses of his increasingly authoritarian office while it is in his hands, but I supported him, in part, because I wanted a scaling back of the overweening power of the Executive Branch, and I was mistaken to think he’d do that. The Executive Branch of the U.S. government is increasingly a threat to republican democracy.
I tend to prefer descriptions and explanations to terms like “neo-fascist” or “war criminal,” if for no other reason than that the former, while less likely to make an impact, or also less likely to elicit a knee-jerk reaction. If pressed, I’d call those who ordered, allowed, and administered torture war criminals, but I’d rather demonstrate how they broke the law than rely on the term or use it as an attack.
I don’t completely disagree with that last statement, Digby, but that said, the greater threat is from the judicial branch.
I think Kyle hit upon the answer. When someone says that politician X is a Y, he means that the worst three things politician X has supported are similar to what Y supports. Thus Bush is a socialist for Medicare Part D and the stimulus. The sum of the politician’s work isn’t considered; the direction the politician moved the country *may* be considered; mostly, the worst things (in the speaker’s eyes) are considered.
Or that something X supports actually qualifies as an example of Y.
This is an excellent topic.
I think there are some people — nonprofessional politicians — who genuinely believe that “Obamacare” is socialized medicine, that taxation is stealing, and so on. I think its more of an emotional thing than a rational thing. I suppose if you sat them down and forced them to give a reasonable definition of socialism, they might have to change their rhetoric.
I suppose professional politicians who say things that are patently untrue could be said to be using “prophetic rhetoric.” One thing that sorely annoyed me was McCain constantly saying Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama wanted to “wave the white flag of surrender” in Iraq. It didn’t bother me so much that the hawks said Clinton and Obama wanted to “cut and run.” It’s near enough to the truth that I accepted it as within the bounds of acceptability. But “surrender” implies handing over your weapons and letting yourself be taken prisoner by the enemy. I am sure many would disagree with me, but I felt McCain was basically lying. It’s not like someone with his military background would not know what “surrender” meant.
It seems to me that when concepts and specific phrases are tested out with focus groups, it is difficult to believe people who follow scripts based on the results are saying what they mean. It is just like any advertising or PR. It is not a matter of what’s true. It’s a matter of what sells the product. It’s not at all uncommon to see a politician sticking to a “talking point” no matter what the interviewer’s first question is and no matter what the follow-ups are. I would love to see a Sunday-morning television interview show set up like a court of law, with interviewers with differing political viewpoints and a “judge” who could rule on the fairness of the questions and the responsiveness of the witness/interviewee. (Probably no politician would consent to go on the show.)
Now, I am sure what I am saying is true, but the next question is how biased I am. Are liberals just as bad as conservatives when it comes to using misleading rhetoric, evading questions, and sometimes just flat-out lying? It’s hard to say. What I would say is that it seems to me conservatives are more successful than liberals at having a message and sticking to it.
It is interesting to see the same buzzwords or phrases appear over and over again in speeches and television appearances. When there’s a script, I’m more suspicious that what I’m hearing isn’t genuinely believed.
As is probably clear, I’m not opposed to using terms such as the ones mentioned, among others. If something is fascist, call it fascist. If socialist call it socialist. However, as I said above, I find it better to describe, demonstrate, and explain rather than simply label with a term sure to get a knee-jerk response.
For my part, I try to mean what I say and say what I mean, though, admittedly, I have found myself repeating terms without really understanding them because I’m caught in the group-emotion or group-think.