With thanks to
Ritter and his
insightful commentary yesterday about Newt Grinrich's explicit instructions to his troops to control the language used to talk about their programme and that used to tar their opponents (i.e. us).
In 1990, Newt Gingrich wrote a fundamental document, as a GOPAC effort, "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control". It's time to bring this document back to our attention and see how it is still in use today.
(written by Ritter)
As Newt wrote, "Often we search hard for words to help us define our opponents. Apply these words to the opponent, their record, proposal and their party".
And here's the list of words that Newt said you should always use whenever you are going to describe anything democratic or liberal. Always attach these words to everything 'liberal'.
"Decay, failure, fail, collapsing, deeper, crisis, urgent, destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, liberal, they, them, unionized bureaucracy, compassion is not enough, betray, consequences, limits, shallow, traitors, sensationalists, endanger, coercion, hypocrisy, radical, threaten, devour, waste, corruption, incompetent, permissive, destruction, impose, self-serving, greed, ideological, insecure, anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, anti-jobs, pessimistic, excuses, intolerant, stagnation, welfare, corrupt, selfish, insensitive, status quo, mandates, taxes, spending, shame, disgrace, punish, bizarre, cynicism, cheat, steal, abuse of power, machine, bosses, obsolete, criminal rights, red tape, and patronage."
And as I went through that list, you probably recognized a lot of words that you've heard in the context of discussions about about democrats and liberals and it's no accident. What was amazing to me during this last election was the number of cons who would come onto shows like Crossfire and talking about John Kerry, would just pull these words out of the hat.
On the other hand, Newt said, to the Republicans, that there are positive governing words, positive words that should be attached to any discussion of the GOP or GOP policies, conservative policies.
He said, in fact he said, "memorize as many as possible" of these words. That's a direct quote. "Positive Governing Words".
Here's the words that Newt said should be attached to all things Republican, and have been, basically, ever since this memo came out more than a decade ago, certainly by right-wing radio talk show hosts.
"Share, change, opportunity, legacy, challenge, control, truth, moral, courage, reform, prosperity, crusade, movement, children, family, debate, compete, actively, we, us, our," (this instead of they or them), "candidly, humane, pristine, provide, liberty, commitment, principled, unique, duty, precious, premise, caring, tough, listen, learn, help, lead, vision, success, empowerment, citizen, activist, mobilize, conflict, light, dream, freedom, peace, rights, pioneer, proud, pride, building, preserve, pro-flag, pro-children, pro-environment, reform, workfare, eliminate good-time in prison, strength, choose, choice, fair, protect, confident, incentive, hard work, initiative, common sense, and passionate."
Perhaps someone with enough time on his hand should take last year's editorials on Europe, France, Germany published in the NYT, WaPo, Guardian etc. and run them through a word count text program and come up with with a list of the most frequently used neo con buzzwords.
On European Tribune, I have been doing an almost daily exercise consisting in finding in the business press words or ideas that suggest that the same mechanism is under way in Europe, i.e. that some words are used to tar and discredit opponents on the one hand, and promote certain ideologicla concepts on the other hand and, by sheer repetition, to become "common wisdom".
What I have been doing on ET, which I am now trying to make more systematic, and what I would suggest be done on DailyKos as well on a similarly regular basis, would be to try to flag these (mostly successful) attempts to insert ideological content in what are supposed to be bits of information.
Below is the content of a single article form this week-end's Economist. It's edifying.
The nationalist resurgence
Why the forces of economic nationalism seem weaker than those of globalisation
nationalism = bad
globalisation = good
THE merger will liberalise share ownership and create one of the biggest companies in the world, said the minister. "I have a vision of transforming it into a vast, diversified energy giant encompassing not just gas but oil and electricity." Oh, sorry, that was not Dominique de Villepin, France's prime minister, announcing that the marriage had been arranged and would take place between Gaz de France and Suez, two big French energy firms. It was Alexei Miller, boss of Gazprom, describing his company's takeover of a Russian state-owned oil firm last year.
EDF and Gazprom are very frequently used as bogeymen by the Economist. Both are State-owned, and both from evil socialist countries (Russia, the original evil empire in its previous Soviet incarnation, and France as its Western counterpart and today, worthy successor).
State-owned = bad
liberalise = good
There are indeed some uncomfortable similarities between the European Union's mood just now and Russia's state-directed capitalism. The French government seems to favour a sort of Gallic Gazprom, that well-connected and politically influential behemoth.
European Union = bad
well-connected and politically influential = bad (but only in evil, Socialist countries)
France, Italy and Luxembourg have little lists of national champions they think should be immune from foreign ownership. The Spanish government prefers a home-grown energy champion to seeing a local firm fall into the hands of a German utility. And so on.
A good sample of who the bad guys are.
Behind this lurks the explicit view that the nationality of ownership matters; and the implicit one that foreign firms could become agents of foreign governments (a suspicion for which there is almost no empirical evidence).
I'll be sure to quote that sentence again next time the Economist complains about Russia's interventionism, through Gazprom, in Ukraine or other countries it supplies with gas - or not.
ownership = good
nationality = bad (or irrelevant, the same thing)
Thus the merger of two French or two Spanish energy firms is acceptable, but a takeover of a French or Spanish firm by a German one is not.
French (or Spanish) or even US governmental intervention = bad (cf Dubai ports)
UK governmental intervention = ok (cf Centrica. The fact that the review of its mooted takeover by Gazprom was to be "vigorous" (as explicitly stated by the UK government) was fine and is never mentioned as an example of nationalism).
(Note: the UK is the true country of free markets. The US are sometimes an acceptable successor. That's British globalisation for you)
Whether or not this contradicts the law of the European single market, it certainly contradicts the spirit of the European Union, as several commissioners have been pointing out.
actual content of the law = bad (or irrelevant)
"spirit of the law" = good (i.e. what the Economist would want the law to be)
The EU embodies the notion that countries are better off when they share sovereignty and that, in certain areas--the single market pre-eminent among them--nationality should not matter. Arguably, that would be true even if the EU did not exist: in a world of global capital, ownership becomes diffuse and fuzzy in any case. But the EU does exist; and that makes the notion of defending national champions against European partners as quixotic as saying that a yogurt-maker is a strategic asset in the first place.
France = bad
UK = ok (how does the above parapraph not apply to monetary sovereignty and sterling "nationalism" vs euro "globalisation" will be explained elsewhere, I'm sure),
Yet official behaviour is only part of this story, and perhaps it is the less important part. Today's hysteria about cross-border mergers is in some ways the opposite of what happened 25 years ago. In the 1980s, the impetus behind the creation of the single market came from liberalising governments; most of the opposition came from companies fearful of being exposed to more competition. Now, argues Ernest-Antoine Seillière, head of UNICE, the European employers' association, opposition to liberalisation comes mainly from governments and unions, while the impetus for change comes from companies.
Yes, an important one:
government = bad
companies = good
Europe is experiencing a wave of mergers, the largest since the dotcom boom of 2000. Unlike previous waves, this one is not just national; it floods across borders. In 2005 the value of cross-border mergers in the EU was the highest since 1999-2000; in the first two months of this year, cross-border deals have for the first time ever accounted for over half of all European mergers by value. Mergers can be wise or foolish, competitive or anti-competitive, of course. But at least they are usually business decisions, not political ones. They have more to do with corporate restructuring and the single market than with the creation of European or national champions.
business decisions = good
political decisions = bad
and of course:
corporate restructuring = good
European champions = bad (and national - read, as stated above, French - champions worse)
So while it is true that Europe is flirting with economic nationalism, it is not the whole truth. It would be more accurate to say that, as in Russia, a battle is engaged between two opposing forces: protectionism and economic nationalism on one side, business restructuring and globalisation on the other.
Heh. That article is a real treasure trove...
protectionism = bad
business restructuring =good
economic nationalism = bad
globalisation =good
and, of course
Russia = bad
European Union = bad (or at least dangerously leaning that way)
The two inevitably clash. The protectionist instinct is growing and could get stronger: France's anti-competitive actions are provoking other countries to retaliate, risking a downward spiral. But in general the market-opening activities of companies look more powerful than the market-closing instincts of governments.
France = bad (ok, we get it...)
markets = good (whoddathunk?)
protectionism = bad
competition = good (and will prevail, of course)
This is partly because those market-closing instincts are neither uniform nor all that strong. Despite backsliding on trade (most recently a curious attempt to defend Europe's downtrodden shoemakers against competition from that economic powerhouse, Vietnam), the European Commission is relatively liberal--if only because most of its authority comes from policing the single market. Economic nationalists reside in national capitals, as you would expect. And even there, protectionism is a squib, not a constant ray. Governments are in theory committed to market liberalisation and they know that autarkic nationalism would be toxic: they swallow it in small doses out of short-term political expediency or to curry favour with unions.
nationalism = bad
market liberalisation = good
unions = bad.
In contrast, the forces driving companies to go global are relentless and all-embracing. Across Europe, the past few lean years have forced companies to cut costs, restructure their balance sheets, reduce debt and boost profits.
cutting costs = good
debt = bad (really?)
profits = good (now I'm surprised...)
Interest rates are still low, adding to the attractions of mergers financed by debt. These pressures will not ease. The need for capital and new markets is pushing companies across borders faster than governments can put up obstacles to them.
In case you din't get it:
markets = good
governments = bad
but
debt = good (but presumably only if used for mergers?)
borders = bad
In other words, companies will take advantage of the single market wherever they can. The question is whether governments can impede them. The recent case of Germany is instructive. In the face of high wages, inflexible labour laws and declining competitiveness, the German government's efforts at reform were fitful and half-hearted. But German companies restructured, cut costs, reorganised and laid off workers.
markets = good
governments = bad
(Did we hear that before?)
high wages = bad
reform = good
inflexible labor laws = bad
cutting costs = good
workers = bad
lay-offs = good
Again, we see what is at the heart of this ideology: labor is a cost, to be cut as much as possible. Anything that prevents that is bad, anything that makes it possible is good.
Competitiveness and business confidence have rebounded. But the cost of relying on companies alone to reform is persistently high unemployment. The moral is that Europe's nationalists cannot reverse or perhaps even much affect the market-opening actions of their companies. But they may increase its cost.
Blaming companies for lay-offs = bad
Blaming governments for lay-offs = good.
And, in case you forgot:
markets = good
governments = bad.
and, most of all:
labor = cost = bad
capital = profit = good