Skip to main content

View Diary: Words To Live By (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This looks like (4.00)
    an impressive book outline to me.

    "you can't beat them on the rink if you can't beat them in the alley"....Conn Smythe

    by PeteyPuck on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:24:19 AM PDT

    •  Second ... (4.00)
      A home run in my book ... this is excellent ...
      •  I disagree. (none)
        At least in the way it's presented, it's exactly what drives me away from the Republicans (well, that and about a million other things). I distrust and resent their increasing frequent use of focus-group-tested catch-phrases, like renaming a tax that affects only the wealthiest 1% of Americans the "death tax"- and when they find out a particular spin-phrase isn't working, their sudden lock-step switch to a new-and-improved spin-phrase makes me certain they're trying to play us all for rubes.

        I appreciate the effort of questioning the status quo in some of these existing terms, and completely support the reasoning and discussion behind them, but I hate the presentation of a counter-list of words and phrases and what we're all supposed to use instead.

        That's what Republicans do (these days at least), and I think it's clearly to their detriment. Let them spout their consultant-approved phrases- we're better than that.

        •  In terms of 'reality-based' ... (none)
          I do agree that 'we are better than that'.  

          I like to think of myself as substance based, with concrete reasons supporting my policy issues -- after literally decades working as an analyst, both personality and profession.

          On the other hand, have watched the power of the Rethug words.

          I had an Admin Assis who was living from paycheck to paycheck ... who voted for BushCo in both 2000 and 2004 because she didn't want her children to have to pay "Death Taxes".  Could not convince her that this simply was outside the realm of possibility (with insurance, her estate probably would have been under $250k -- or a fraction of the level required before one pays taxes).  She would spout Luntz phrase after phrase ... she had a near heart attack when I took one of Luntz pieces and was able to highlight a month's comments from her.

          Should the Democratic Party be solely about "phrases" -- hopefully not.  On the other hand, "Death Tax", "Intelligent Design", etc are very powerful framing devices that lead to skewing of the debate.  If we do not use -- try to get others to use -- alternatives, we go into the political playing field having given up a major handicap.  These issues are too important not to figure out 'how to win'.

          Now, my personal proclivities in terms of dealing with this would be to focus on substance ... to have nuance ... to have long discussions that do not easily fit into soundbites ... to understand that every option has costs and benefits associated with it ...  And, you know what, people for whom that is true (such as those with significant higher education (graduate degrees)) vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.  E.g., if you can understand nuanced discussion and can separate fact from fiction, you tend to vote Democratic.  Evidently that community is not enough to win control of Congress and the White House.

        •  Beseiged... (none)
          Appreciate your response. I feel much the same way in terms of fighting back- there's nothing that drives me crazier than when Democratic politicians won't push back against some of the absolute bullsh*t the right pours out endlessly.

          But fighting back doesn't mean doing the same thing they do. As I said, I completely support the debunking of the the existing phraseology that Stirling does here...I just cringe at the list that he starts the diary with.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site