(American Experience, PBS, transcripts, on line, keywords Reagan, Jodphurs)
I’m not Robert Reich, but neither is he me. Forward then, Robert Reich.
When Repub appears here, it is short for Republican.
Understand the Republican rhetorical games? You need to understand in order to get out of the fog head, of Repub rhetoric, and make a strong reply smack on target. I assume you would like for me to write about Republican rhetoric because I think I understand it, just don’t write much at a time. I write about it now because I would like for liberal replies to be more accurate in aim against foghead rhetoric. I would like for that accuracy to spread, and to make it into the news media where the reporters are eager to just get on to the next story after finding any sort of conflict by anybody, such as an obscure Florida pastor. I would like for LaFeminista to be able to read dead thud bullseye replies to foghead seriatim.
Let’s see some examples, one to start..
“Class Warfare.” I heard that first from Karl Rove. The intended Repub assertions are already hiding within the term itself so if you use the term you are in some sense little or large confirming the assertions. Once confirmed by usage over a period of time the Repubs win. Their victory may not be total but it will do, like swiftboating. You may find David Brooks even using the term class warfare. He’s a sucker. There are others.
Analysis: warfare is asserted. Really? Exaggeration already. We have conflict here but warfare is in the Middle East. Nor are the classes at war, if we can even decide who the classes might be. Well just this phrase by itself, class warfare, asserts there are some classes, who are warring. Who might they be? If there were a war, who is winning? Is the poorest class going to fight back? Do we have an American aristocracy in the USA? If so, how did that happen? Who are they? Does class refer to rich and poor or to workers and managers? Nascar versus symphony?
Obviously we don’t know specifically what class warfare means. You can be sure that the ones who want to use that term will say it means whatever seems advantageous at the moment, shaping like silly putty in the hand.
Class warfare is a garbage pile word. You can put in and get out just what you want.
Suppose we reply without analysis. We know that the Repubs say they are against it. We could argue that the Repubs started it, that we are for it, that we call it justice not warfare, and so on. But by the terms the Repubs have already won. People are against warfare. People were taught that they are middle class, are not sure who the other classes are, except for biases, and they don’t want warfare. If they’ve been had by the Repubs, they are not ready to admit to it, for they are plenty enough clever at all times. The term(s) class warfare sound a little like Marxism, readily available for argument. The reality of facts is already blanketed by the assertions merely in the term class warfare.
Typical. When Newt was speaker, he told the Repub congressmen going home for break, similar, “Tell them you are for that too, but you have questions about the taxes involved and the effect on small business.” Sure they told lies but no reporter has called the Repub’s hand for this type of lie even to this day. As for class warfare perhaps Repubs are for it, looks like it to me, but for the rhetoric game they start they have already won if we follow along without truthful confrontation.
You may think, “Well they don’t do that on purpose. They are not that smart.” The heck they don’t. And yes they are that smart. They know their goal and they look for terms. When one Repub somewhere finds a weighted phrase the rest recognize and adopt it. Talking points are regularly produced by conservative tax-free think tanks under other guises and in the Repub party by persons who really are plenty enough clever to trick the more or less willing again and again and then the rest of us.
Rather than putting counter-tricks in liberal arguments I hope that first we will think carefully about the reality or non-reality of terms, about why they might have been chosen, about who and what interest may have chosen them, and then point out the hidden assumptions in the terms and thus aim directly for the truth. That route is the sole way some horse race reporters are ever going to see issue conflicts clearly. Some entertainers, like McLaughlin for example, never will see issues clearly, and that’s no doubt on purpose, in the spirit of Tricky Dick’s White House. Then there’s this: Analysis of rhetoric can be tedious, granted, but you do not need to tell your analysis each time, just the needed truth.
Forward. Times should be interesting. Reagan in jodphurs.