In his compendium on the life and works of Charles Dickens, George Orwell paints his literary forebearer as not so much a revolutionary in the traditional, head-rolling sense, but as more or less a revolutionary all the same. Dickens found fodder for criticism at all levels of the inequitable society from whence he hailed, but as Orwell writes, "there is no clear sign that he want[ed] the existing order to be overthrown, or that he believe[d] it would make much difference if it were overthrown." Nevertheless, he concludes that, "it is not at all certain that a merely moral criticism of society may not be just as 'revolutionary'."
Two years ago millions of voters saw in Barack Obama their own contemporary Charles Dickens -- a "revolutionary" who arose from within the same system he would condemn and reform, but keep intact. Candidate Obama spoke of the immorality of deep inequality and want, and of justice through opportunity. He successfully tapped into the inherent decency and good faith political leadership one expects any advanced society to not take for granted -- and he furnished a slew of sophisticated policy proposals to fix the dysfunctional areas of a system where that is precisely what was happening.
Unfortunately, that sophistication has been undermined by sophistry, the most recent and glaring example of which comes this week from top Republicans who equate a non-extension of tax cuts for the very wealthiest with "class warfare". This sounds like a bizarre evocation, as if the term were not a diptych with alternate meanings. It's possible that the GOP leadership simply doesn't understand the concept; however it's far more likely that they do and are taking a Menckian approach with the hopes their listeners will prove credulous to its euphemistic position in modern parlance.
Variations of class struggle exist throughout the historical landscape. Aristotle actually incorporated the notion directly into his ideal society. Marx and Engels saw history as nothing more than the study of class struggles in all societies over millennia. But in neither the conceptualizations of Aristotle, nor Marx, nor anyone in between, was class warfare a one-way street of envious outrage against success or standing. In reality, one could make just as strong an argument that the American lower- and middle-classes are the true victims of class warfare, rather than the term's current proprietors, due to neoliberal policies operative since the early 1980s that convinced policymakers that inflation is always worse than unemployment and that markets are always efficient.
The outcome of that ideology's policies is now obvious: between 1980 and 2005 over 80 percent of new gains went to the top 1 percent; and today, a quarter of the nation's current income confers to that same group, even while wages for most everyone else have remained near stagnant for decades, despite more expensive essentials such as health care, housing, and education. An expiration of the Bush tax cuts will move the marginal tax rate for the highest bracket from 35 percent to just under 40. To give this a reference frame, during the 1950s and 60s -- incidentally a time of vibrant national prosperity -- that rate ranged between 70 and 90 percent. To describe a small, top-end tax hike now as "class warfare" should be grounds for one to be laughed from the podium. But for some reason, it isn't.
The reason is that the Democratic leadership continues to roll over in the sophistry war while coming up short in substantive policy battles. "Class warfare" is but one formerly neutral phrase that has been appropriated for propaganda purposes and is thus widely misunderstood by the American public. It's also worth recalling last year's health care debate, where it became obvious that tens of millions of Americans apparently do not own a dictionary. How else, perforce, could an expansion of the customer base for private providers, and the addition of slightly heftier regulations, be described as "socialism", an economic system where the state owns the means to production?
The answer may again lie with Orwell, who in his landmark essay, "Politics and the English Language", describes how:
Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different...a speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself.
Unfortunately, polls and primary results in the lead-up to November hint that the power of euphemistic sophistry may perhaps prove itself once again. In his words and writing Obama demonstrates that he 'gets it' with regards to special interests and regulatory capture in government. However, what remains neglected is an acknowledgment of Washington's intellectual capture. It bodes ill that the administration allows its centrist policies to be perceived as Marxist or socialist when that is hardly the case; but, rather than counterattacking the very ideology most responsible for current conditions, the administration often remains on the defensive with cumbersome, waffling explanations and the naive hope for future comity with its opposition.
Rather than bothering to articulate partisan responses to partisan rebukes, Democrats could shift the ideological rubric altogether. The first step would be to vocally acknowledge and celebrate the heterogeneity of American politics and society -- that there are fundamentally differing value structures that can still achieve relative harmony within the basic democratic structure. The American ideal is not monolithic; there is near infinite wiggle room within the poles of "socialism" and "capitalism". One can only wonder at a political environment where deregulation could be labeled as "anarchy"; policies that increase inequality as "class siege"; or policies that close that gap as "class peacemaking" (feel free to offer others below).
This entails easily digestible moral messaging that forcefully sets the ideological record straight and reminds the public of the now legion effects of a teleological rightward shift the country experienced over the past three decades. As Berkeley's George Lakoff points out, it is just as much differing moral doctrines as policy measures that service voters' decision making. In this light, there may well be a practical moral case for political sophistry; insofar that would show the opposition's racket for what it is.
Follow Stuart Whatley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stuwhat84
Senate Republicans say they'll block tax increase - Yahoo! News
More House Democrats call for tax cuts for all - Yahoo! News
Expiring tax cuts hit taxpayers at every level
Blumenthal to ask Obama to hold firm for middle-class tax cuts
Obama Gets His Way With Small Business Bill
Plugging oil wells...Obama tax cuts
Bush Tax Cuts Not Important for Economic Growth: Summers
While I have never been a fan of the kind of minimalist writing style advocated by, say, Strunk & White -- sometimes ideas are too complex to be fairly represented in simple, declarative sentences -- this article strikes me as an example of the kind of rhetorical excess against which Strunk & White inveighed. The article reads more like an undergraduate's poor attempt to sound "scholarly" than a seasoned scholar's attempt to convey an idea clearly.
Someone please tell me the author's being ironic.
"This entails easily digestible moral messaging that forcefully sets the ideological record straight and reminds the public of the now legion effects of a teleological rightward shift the country experienced over the past three decades."
Easily digestible?
Stop it, I'm stuffed already. ;*[
Quote: with the hopes their listeners will prove credulous to its euphemistic position in modern parlance.
Gah. It's just... gah it's so bad.
They hope that if they call it fertilizer, you won't notice that it's bullsh*t.
Am I incorrect that the tax cut for the non-wealthiest 2% still is a tax cut for 100% of Americans? I mean the rich would get the tax cut for their portion of their income that is under $250,000. If that this so, then you could say the rich would be getting second tax cut on top of the first tax cut.
Sure people would like to see Mr. Obama take these people on more in order keep some of the independents from moving to the right. I think if he had done a better job on healthcare and stimulus, the tea party wouldnt be as stout as it is now. What we have is a party that lost power in 2006 and hasn't changed one bit but is still able to gin up anger and pull enough support to actually make gains with regards to congressional seats. Some in the administration could change their verbiage from time to time but most folks get what they are saying. The republicans are known language bastardizers and engage heavily in euphemistic sophistry and even have come up with a new kind of false friending of words to suit their own agenda. The Republican party stops at nothing to spin words and phrases in order to push their ideology and put us down.
And on the subject of use of langauge, a major problem with Obama's use of language is that so little of what he says is spontaneous; rather, it is all scripted and then read instead of spoken.
As you so well quoted Orwell: "The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself".
While there are knuckeheads and cynics and misanthropes in both parties, the GOP seems to exist solely tho make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and everyone as dumb and as scared as possible.
And the GOP does this by deliberate sophistry.
I see no equivalence in the Democratic party, for all its faults.
Also, Obama is certainly no more "Scripted" than any other politician. That said, he does speak with spontaneity. He can also speak quite well without a teleprompter. Or notes on his palm.
I find the following paragraph to be particularly compelling -- certainly worthy of reiteration and further development:
"Rather than bothering to articulate partisan responses to partisan rebukes, Democrats could shift the ideological rubric altogether. The first step would be to vocally acknowledge and celebrate the heterogeneity of American politics and society -- that there are fundamentally differing value structures that can still achieve relative harmony within the basic democratic structure. The American ideal is not monolithic; there is near infinite wiggle room within the poles of 'socialism' and 'capitalism'..."
Many of these rhetorical labels... "class welfare", "socialism", "death panels", "death tax", etc... are the product of the likes of Frank Luntz. He's a professional propagandist and he's very very good at it. For a given topic, he'll experiment labelling it in different terms, testing a sample audience for their reactions to the labels. The winner is sold to the GOP who then use it effectively in rhetoric. So when he adsised the GOP to call the estate tax the "death tax", it fell in disfavor with the public and was revoked.
Simple words for simple minds. The Pied Pipers cherp the catch phrase du-jour and the rats all line up. It's pathetic. But unfortunately, it works.
Should the democrats stoop to that? I dunno. Lemme see...
"estate tax" = "revoking generational tax subsidies"
"capitalism" = "worker exploitationism"
"socailism" = "Christianism"
counter "Obamacare" with "GOPcare"
"imposing government regulations" = "greed suppression laws"
"taxes" = "Sustinance for a healthy America"
"climate change" = "collapse of the environment"
If that's what it takes...
The rest of your comment does no better, continuing the disingenuous exaggeration for effect so typical of disingenuous political debate.
Bastardization of language has long since drained virtually every word in the political lexicon of any meaning - for the sole purpose of persuading those in the electorate less familiar with the bastardization ploy to support the highly ideological political positions of those more actively engaged in politics. This ploy supports the common aphorism adapted from Trotsky, “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.â€
Adding words to this lexicon from our general vocabulary only to twist their meanings for purely political gain merely continues the bastardization and debasement of the very language we depend upon to communicate anything.
Like government itself, which sucks ever more of human existence under it’s purview, the political bastardization of language requires it to continually suck ever more of our language into it’s service as the words it has drained of meaning become generally recognized as such and rendered useless for political purposes.
Indeed, Lakoff ‘s entire raison d'etre centers around the managing the bastardization process for leftist political gain. So, Whatley’s disingenuous call for unmasking the bastardization of language by the right by continuing the left’s own bastardization reeks of the hypocrisy that dominates the world of the political.
… but, to expect anything else would be to ignore the obvious?
Which brings me to my next point: Isn't your use of the word "centrist" as it relates to the current Democratic party likewise Orwellian? The slide to the right from the right has continually provided political cover for everything to the left of it to slide in the same direction. We should stop pretending that our office holders aren't perfectly happy with that arrangement.
On a side note....all the folks screaming about fascism have - guaranteed - taken every dime of federal or state money they ever could. Right now in WI we have someone looking to unseat Russ Feingold, and he is running on how he is a businessman, creates jobs, blah blah blah....but he and his company have taken MILLIONS off the government for expansion, rail tracks to his factory, etc. Those "jobs" he created, if at all, came from Govt. money. Every one of these anti socialists have gobbled up public services and money all their lives, and would take more if they could, unless exposed and called out.
Did you know, by the way that the Federal government is including the one day employment at primary polls this week as "jobs created" to get them off UI rolls? Talk about hypocrites!
So, give some examples of this happening, i.e. a private industry creating real productive jobs that Democrats (or anyone else) are upset about. The examples have to be concrete and defined, not abstractions, and you can't use any company or organization that has taken government subsidies.
You are nibbling when there are huge bites to be taken. The corporate welfare in this country dwarfs anything that lazy liberals could ever imagine. Just a couple of war profiteers yearly government funds could keep all the welfare moms in checks for a century.
I don't hear you complain when the "government" takes "our" money to fund wars on the other side of the world. Or subsidize corporate farmers, or oil companies, or coal. Look, I am not for subsidizing much at all, but if we sank our money into our people rather than our corporations, we would be miles ahead.
In fact, you don't seem to realize there is no "government" anymore. It is a shell organism, inhabited by corporations. They are mining, farming, stealing our government from us. Obama has had to realize, once he got into office, that he doesn't hold the reigns. He may have temporarily grabbed them, but the proof is in....Bush knew this too. He was just much happier with the whole arrangement. Obama is disappointing me mightily, but what can he really do? Fell the whole corporate america structure that holds us in thrall, by himself? And do yourself a favor, and admit to me and others, and YOU....that we are in fact being run FOR corporate sake, not the people. If you can't admit it, then convince me otherwise. Show me how the welfare folks are actually pulling all the strings, and not companies.