Certain phrases and stereotyped explanations get repeated a lot because they're catchy, easy to remember, sound cool, or are good for shutting up an opponent in an argument. These are what some scientists called "memes" and liken to genes as successful propagators in some Darwinian information ecology. We have a bunch that show up in discussions on Daily Kos. Here are my picks for the 10 Worst, or most overused or least useful ones. Or at least the worst ones not found in troll accusations/counter-accusations, which are a whole other stew of language and logic abuse.
A theme that shows up in several of these is trusting a dubious authority when it says something that agrees with our preconceptions and simultaneously declaring it totally untrustworthy when it disagrees. The CIA is the CIA, the Federal Reserve is the Federal Reserve, the media are the media, the police are the police—their mission is in almost all cases to protect the establishment and spin stories to the benefit of the wealthy and powerful insiders. Whether what they say sounds congenial or not, whether they're acting like they're on "our" side or not, you have to take it with a grain of salt and parse all the meanings carefully.
1. "that's a right-wing talking point"
Problem: overused/inappropriately used.
An example of a right wing talking point is "Social Security funding is a huge problem!" But a more general point like "US government debt is a huge problem" (implying all programs, not just Social Security, may have funding problems ahead) is not necessarily just a right wing talking point, just because some right wingers also bring that up. The problem is real, and has major implications for our future tax and inflation rates and what government will be able to spend on.
It's also the case that the right wing exacerbates the debt problem when they're in control, not just out of greed for corporate welfare and lower taxes, but very consciously to create problems for programs like Social Security or anything else that is part of the "safety net" that non-rich people rely on.
So a problem that is real can be recognized by both right wing and left wing advocates. The right wing will usually frame their specific talking points around a slanted analysis of who's to blame for the problem (e.g., "liberals" or "entitlement programs") and what the solution is ("tax cuts" and "entitlement program cuts", usually).
One good heuristic is that if you recognized that X was a problem under a Republican administration, then X doesn't cease being a problem under a Democratic administration, whether X is a big increase in government debt or a "jobless recovery" or some other phenomenon.
2. "most US households own stock"
Problem: irrelevant to most arguments where it comes up.
This comes up a lot as a counter when diarists start fulminating on the Wall Street/Main Street divide or berating the upper class that lives off of stock dividends and capital gains rather than income earned by labor (including the labor of small business owners). Yes, maybe 51+% of the population owns some stock. Among the bottom 80% of the economic classes, which is where most of us are, it's more like 40% though, and only about half of that number have more than $10,000 invested. Plus a lot of it is in 401(k) or ESOP plans where the employee-investor has little control over the investment and is simply hoping for the best (as they've been encouraged to do).
Even including the upper 20% in the calculations, it's uncommon for people to have investments worth more than a single year's wages, at least until you get into the very topmost percentiles where stock ownership is really concentrated. Few Americans could survive for long without jobs and the steady income they provide, even if they could cash in all their stock with no penalty. That's the crux of the Main Street/Wall Street divide.
3. "unemployment [meaning U3]"
Problem: interpretation is usually not a good match to the reality on the ground.
U3 is the more optimistic version, if we're going to talk government unemployment numbers we should at least be consistent in always using U6. Either way the numbers have been doctored by successive administrations since Reagan to put a happier construction on the realities of downsizing, offshoring, and the job market in general—since no administration wants to be blamed for its contribution to the slow but steady worsening of the plight of the American worker. There are related bad memes about Americans needing to educate themselves in new technologies and acquire better skills, which fortunately we don't see repeated here very much. Those are simply false, since the pool of jobs a retrained worker could compete for is small and either concentrated in a few high priced urban markets or limited by "no American need apply" constraints.
4. "we need to demonstrate/protest/march on Washington"
Problem: form over function, 1960s nostalgia factor.
Demonstrations and marches helped change the votes of legislators in the 1960s and 1970s, but they have had less and less impact since then. Now the media usually makes sure they are underreported or misreported, in terms of a few hired demonstrators for the establishment side being given equal coverage with a hundred times more numerous anti-establishment protesters. And police and Homeland Security officials in Washington, DC, now have numerous legal mechanisms for keeping demonstrators away from the people in government they want to reach.
You often see an angry retort to this argument, "So you don't think we should anything?" The answer is not to do nothing, but to have real objectives for what you're planning to do (and just letting off steam is not an objective) and be fairly sure that you have a reasonable chance of attaining them by your action. Just re-enacting rituals from the 1960s out of nostalgia or traditionalism will not accomplish anything in the current media and political environment. The plutarchs and establishment elites learned from the 1960s and made sure the same tactics would have diminishing returns in the future, so we need to adapt as well.
5. "hey, [politician/banker/media person], kiss my ass/fuck you!"
Problem: form over function, irrelevant.
This is like cursing the Rolls Royce that speeds by and splashes mud on you where you sit in the gutter. At most the chauffeur probably laughs behind his glove and the people in the back seat don't even pay attention. Who cares if you're insulting somebody powerful in a blog? Now if you said something like, "The GPS coordinates for [politician/banker/media person]'s home are ____ and main office are ____, just thought people would like to know", then you might stand a chance of upsetting the target of your ire. Not suggesting anyone necessarily do that, because the blowback could get a tad uncomfortable, but it might have more effect than just venting.
6. "where's the outrage?"
Problem: naive, nostalgia factor.
Anyone who's been paying attention has been in an almost permanent state of outrage for years, if not decades. The people who have been paying the most attention, like Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal, have been outraged longer than many of us have been alive. So one more repulsive new development is not going to raise the outrage level appreciably. Our government (just looking at our own and not foreign ones) has targeted civilians in war as a conscious policy for many decades, reduced cities of little military or industrial significance to immense funeral pyres where children were burned to ash or melted in the glowing streets, used napalm and white phosphorus on noncombatants with no compunction, engaged in torture of prisoners and dropped enemy POWs out of helicopters, heavily funded "death squads" and small armies of murderers and rapists to oppose advocates of workers' rights and democracy, casually waved its approval for ethnic cleaning and the eviction of subsistence farmers from their lands, spied on and forcibly suppressed internal dissenters, and given covert support to such noted apostles of democracy as Joseph Mobutu, Jonas Savimbi, Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. (Admittedly, Mugabe and Pol Pot were only our second choices in those conflicts.) The outrages just go on and on, the question is not how we react to them emotionally, but what can we do practically to end them.
And as for the media or politicians, if the question is asked in the nostalgic sense, a la "Have you no decency, sir?", then don't expect outrage or decency from the current crew. These are for the most part vile people, evil through and through. They are the outcome of a Darwinian selection process to put the worst of the worst in charge of our government and corporate world. And the frightening prospect is that they can still get even worse, horrible as they are now. Much worse. We're not back in the 1940s or 1960s when you could still find people of decency and personal honor in high places (and in the news reporting world). Being nostalgic for better times is understandable. But it's fruitless to respond to each outrage in ways that assume some shred of decency remains among people who are mostly human jackals.
7. "I've been growing an organic garden in my back yard"
Problem: unrealistic in context.
This one comes up whenever food insecurity issues are raised, whether relating to the vulnerability of our monoculture grain production to plant diseases, or to our petrolrum-intensive farming practices becoming unsustainable with Peak Oil, or to soil and aquifer depletion issues. However well intentioned a good thing like having your own organic garden is, you will not be able to feed yourself, by yourself, if the current food production and delivery system breaks down. That doesn't mean you should stop growing your own garden, but if you're concerned about our ability to keep feeding the huge population we have (including you), you need to start connecting with other people to look at constructive civic and political action.
8. "the democracy movement in [nation unfriendly to US]"
Problem: naive, gives credence to information sources that are not credible.
Yes, the regime in country X may be repressive as all hell, flog women, execute gays, and impose stifling political or religious conformity. But all we really know about them comes from media sources that are known to be blatantly biased and deceptive even talking about domestic US politics. Even if the regime is indeed evil, there is no real way to know whether the "democracy movement" or "people power" or "[color] revolution" forces are really dedicated to anything we would consider worthwhile, or whether they are stooges of multinational corporations and hostile political blocs trying to foment disorder and government change for their own selfish motives. It's easy to get a few spokespersons to talk about women's rights and various other causes beloved of liberals, but is that what is really driving the opposition? Or is it funds with multiple strings attached from the CIA or billionaire sponsored NGOs? It's hard to see how corrupt politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto could suddenly become principled democracy reformers overnight, but if you believe the media it's a slam-dunk
We barely get a realistic picture of what's going on in our own country, and then only because we can recognize certain kinds of "spinning" and PR when we've seen them before. Assuming anything about what goes on inside foreign countries based on what AP or CNN or the WSJ or WaPo or even the BBC says is very dangerous.
9. "single payer/health care reform/public option"
Problem: wrong terminology for getting public support.
Medicare expansion. Medicare expansion. Medicare expansion! Enough said? ;-)
10. "reality based community"
Problem: elitist, unrealistic.
Unless you're talking only about our "consensus reality" then this is a snotty and misapplied term. The speaker/writer often uses it as a shorthand dismissal of a view she or he simply disagrees with, in the belief that this cuts off the conversation and no evidence needs to be provided to back it up. Or a second unsupported assertion is the only evidence, if any is given.
There is definitely a consensus on Daily Kos among the heavy hitters who focus on the political process rather than on the substance of outcomes. Elect more Democrats! Don't let a Republican appoint the next Supreme Court Justice! Candidate X is ahead of candidate Y by 12%, looks like the game is up! Pass this bill!
Usually success in the process world is binary: if we get through the process (elect a Democrat, pass a bill), it's a success, otherwise it's a failure, and there is no middle ground and no other choices available. But does "winning" leave you in a better position a year down the road, two years, five years? As I have written before, the process focus promotes an excess of tactical thinking over strategic thinking. What are the long term goals and does winning battle X get us closer to them or merely stall us out indefinitely a few feet closer but still miles away from where we want to be? Sometimes losing battle X actually gets you closer to your strategic goal if it gets your message out to a public wanting to hear something clear and principled, and it can leave your victorious opponents in a bad odor with that same public. As in the famous example, Napoleon won every battle in his Russian campaign—except the last one. It was one of the more notable strategic disasters in history.
Beyond just the consensus that Daily Kos bloggers share, there is no evidence I see that most people here are any less prone to myths, misconceptions, cliched "folk wisdom", and unreal assumptions about both how government operates and how their fellow citizens live. And I doubt that I'm any exception to that! So the arrogation to ourselves of any claim to being uniquely in touch with reality is wrongheaded, and comes across as snobbish and intolerant. Being more realistic than a gaggle of the worst religious fanatics and hate radio dittoheads does not equate to comprehending all the intricacies and pitfalls of the political and economic situation in this country (much less the entire world), so it cannot be used as a tactic to shut off the discussion on more than a tiny handful of issues here.