Many diaries here have discussed (much better than I could) the power of words. Lately, the right wing have used catchy labels such as "cut and run", "limousine liberals", "flip-flop" to ingrain unfair characterizations into the mind of the public. While, they have a much better vehicle in a compliant media for propagating these labels, even Presidents, Vice Presidents and Congressmen are not averse to using them, not even mentioning the Ann Coulters. However, those of us on the left have been loathe to fight back. Sure, we come up with "swiftboating" and such, but these are so tame when compared to the ones used against us and rarely extends beyond the blogosphere.
Yet we let them get away with it every time. The Democrats have not fought back, perhaps out of a sense of propriety and of being above such things. But come on, surely the party of poets and Chelsea Queens can come up much better counter-pejoratives.
Some people here may think that such namecalling is juvenile and that we are above such things. We can't, however, argue its effectiveness. So, while our politicians and some here may be too polite to answer back, I'm not. >:)
Before going any further, I'd like to point out that this is my first diary. I have been a reader for more than a year, but only signed up a couple of weeks ago. So if I breach any unwritten rules and protocols, please let me know... and please be kind. :)
The big problem is that the left is always overpowered when it comes to stealing the frame of events when they break. The Fort Dix incident, for example. Fox news immediately turned it into a "this is why we are fighting in Iraq" and "this is why we need to take control of immigration"... when a few well placed news conferences could have quickly framed the event as "this is a direct product of what we are doing in Iraq" and "Bush's policies have put us in grave danger" and "The terrorists have followed us home so we need the troops to fight them here".
Sure, these aren't exactly fair, but that's not the point. The right certainly had no remorse over using their framing to benefit them, and we shouldn't have any remorse turning their framing against them. This is a media war and we need to use whatever we've got.
We allow Republicans to use "cut and run" and "surrender" to frame the debate about ending the Iraq war. Consequently, the public thinks we are giving up and surrendering, that the Democrats agree with this thinking and are pushing withdrawal only because it is the lesser evil.
The left has no opposing catchphrase bumper sticker argument, and even if the majority agrees with the left, it's only because the facts are overwhelmingly in support of ending the war. When the issues are much closer, the right can always push a false 5-10% advantage in the polls.
So when we advocate for the withdrawal of the troops, we should use phrases like "save the troops", or "pull them out of the fire"... there is no logical counter-argument against that. Who wouldn't want to save the troops? In all press conferences Reid and Pelosi can say that "President Bush continues to throw our soldiers into the fire", "The President treats our soldiers like cannon-fodder", or "the American public demands that troops not be thrown into the fire". It's to the point, it sticks, it fits onto a New York Post headline, and the press cannot ignore it.
I'm not necessarily promoting the above framing, I'm just giving an example of how we should push back.
We need to make up our own labels. For example, let's start labeling others as "Yellow Ribbon Patriots". I don't think there is any average Joe in America that wouldn't know what that means, even if they might have not known about the concept beforehand. It accomplishes a couple of things. First, it kills the use of those horrible yellow ribbon magnets. Second, it makes the "yellow ribbon patriotism" uncool. It implies that there is a "good" kind of patriotism. It doesn't directly attack those who support the troops, but creates a category of patriot that people don't want to be. It also makes authentic patriotism (our brand) more desirable. It exposes the hypocrisy of those who claim support and yet have no problem with cutting veterans benefits or sending wounded and untrained troops into battle.
Since the right refuses to confuse to condemn the things that they say on the air, we should pin Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others onto them. "Coulter Republicans", "Hannities", "Limbaughlicans" - those who resort to attacking their opponents by using dirty language. When the right starts to imply treason and such as a debate tactic, we can accuse them of "Coulterizing" the debate. Let's label the repugnant use of "You're a good American" by calling them "Hannitized Americans" or "Hannity Patriots". These types of labels will do a great deal to discredit those foul-mouths (fowl-mouths?) and the Fox brand of punditry.
My personal favorite: "O'Reillicans"
"Rolex Christians", "Offering Plate Christians" - people such as Pat Robertson, Dobson, etc. who are out of touch with the "Real Christians" and use their money to gain power for themselves.
"Fox (Faux) Christians" - those who condemn everyone else but themselves. Those who make abortion and homosexuality their big issues, but have no problem with (and in fact are usually connected with) corruption and cronyism in the government. Those who try to impose their religious views onto the public.
"Fox Scientists" - those who propagate fake science and/or suppress real science.
"Fox Conservatives" - No definition required.
"Screw You Republicans" - those who couldn't give a damn about the normal people and only seek to further themselves and their friends. Those who vote against legislation designed to help the poor.
"Board Room Republicans" - those who are beholden to corporate interests.
"King George Republicans" - They're trying to distance themselves from Bush. We shouldn't let them.
"Rambo Conservatives" - Those who fantasize about fulfilling their hollywood fantasies in real life by starting and propagating wars.
"Stink Tank Righties" - the lobbying groups that have too much influence in our government. "Stink Tank Congressmen" - those who are beholden to or a part of such lobbying groups.
"Brownies" - those in key positions that got their jobs by party cronyism and party loyalty rather than their qualifications.
The key here is to repeat, repeat, repeat. By repeating and being united in using these labels and making them part of our everyday conversation, they will work their way into the public and in turn, change the public's general views. The examples I gave above don't necessarily have to be the ones that gain popularity. I'm just making the point that we have to be much more lethal in our use of language.
Will the right raise holy hell about it? Of course. Some people may have to apologize in the beginning, but if we all continue to use loaded terms, eventually there would be too many people to raise holy hell about and we'd have moved the Overton Window to our favor.
It used to be that we were the ones that were good at this. Around the sixties, we defined the use of language by imposing "Political Correctness" into our normal discourse. Yes, there is a lot of backlash against it, but even Fox will not use any kind of language that is blatantly politcally incorrect.
We were able to use the term "Racist" to denigrate those who practice prejudice... so that today, such a term would mean public condemnation that even people like David Duke and Rush Limbaugh would be loathe to have such labels attached to them. It also had the effect of drastically lowering the amount of racism common in society, so much so that most even have to convince themselves that they aren't racists. If we weren't so adamant about these in the past, these probably wouldn't be true today.
And barring all these reasons, name-calling is fun and releases some of the anger. It's better for our health. :)