The reason Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White
House and the Supreme Court is because they have won the “language war.”
President Hoover called himself a “true liberal,” and President
Eisenhower said that cutting federal spending on education would offend
“every liberal — including me.”
“Liberal” has been made into a dirty word by Republican think tanks like
the Heritage Foundation and Republican linguist and pollster Frank Luntz.
How did they do it? The first step was to make the sound of the word
'liberal' seem like something undesirable. Notice the tone of voice used
by most so-called conservative politicians and so-called conservative
radio and television talk show hosts when they say the word: liberal.
They make the word liberal sound contemptible. They always say it with a
tone of voice of contempt, scorn and condescension.
They don't do this by accident. No doubt, most, if not all, have spend
many hours in front of a microphone and video camera practicing and
rehearsing their pronunciation of the word: liberal.
Obviously, Karl Rove, Frank Luntz and other special handlers from the
Heritage Foundation have coached them very will.
And notice that when they use the word liberal it is often preceded with
a negative word such as limousine, West Coast or Hollywood. Often the
word liberal is followed by the word: elite.
The fact is that the vast majority of limousine owners are Republicans.
So are the vast majority of private country club members, the vast
majority of yacht owners, the vast majority of private airplane
owners, especially jet airplane owners are Republicans--not Democrats.
As well that they should be, if their prime goal in life is to advance
their own economic self interest at the expense of everyone else.
But the Republican Party would be a small minority party if they only
attracted those who benefit from their policies. In order to become the
majority party they had to bamboozle, con and swindle "the mob" into
voting them into power.
They did it by winning the "language war."
But the so-called conservatives live in glass houses. What they have
done to the Liberals/Progressives, Liberals/Progressives can do to them.
One way is to always precede the word conservative with "so-called."
"So-called" is a great term for disrespecting your opponents, and it's
what Progressives need to do to win elections. James J. Kroeger wrote an
outstanding and relevant essay entitled: "THE REPUBLICAN NEMESIS"
http://taxwisdom.org/republican_nemesis.htm.
Perhaps most important is the way Progressives pronounce the word:
conservative. There are two approaches that will work. One is to
emphasize the "con" in conservative and then shortly before or after you
say the word CONservative, say something about con men or con artists.
That way CONservatives will be associated with con artists -- which most
should be.
Another way is to emphasize the SERVATIVE part in the word conservative.
Shortly after Progressives say the word conSERVATIVE, they should ask
who are being served by the so-called conSERVATIVES? Certainly it's not
you, unless you happen to be a CEO or major share holder of a huge oil
corporation. It's not you, unless you happen to be the CEO or major
share holder of a pharmaceutical company. It's not you unless you happen
to be the beneficiary of a large inheritance, because the Bush
Administration and the so-called conSERVATIVES in Congress want to make
it completely tax free. It's not you, unless you always travel First
Class and stay in five star hotels without having to be concerned about
the price.
The Republicans have very effectively used a debating technique and
propaganda technique of 'Stealing their thunder.' The Republicans are
very vulnerable to being accused of creating 'Class Warfare.' That's
because they do it. 'Stealing their thunder' is bringing up your
negative before the opposition does, then turning it back on them.
Instead of just stealing the Democrats thunder by bringing up the
subject of Class Warfare first, they have accused the Democrats of doing
exactly what they do themselves.
But just because they accuse the Democrats of creating class warfare,
that doesn't mean that the Democrats should not discuss the issue and
set the record straight.
In Kroeger's outstanding essay, he shows that the reason Republicans
have been winning elections is because they are winning THE IMAGE
CAMPAIGN. In politics, image is everything and the difference between
winning and losing elections. Usually, the candidate who shows the most
respect for their opponent--will lose!
Kroeger points out that when Democrats are accused of hating Bush or any
other Republican candidate, they should point out that we don't hate
them: we FEAR them. We FEAR that the so-called conservative Republicans
are taking our country down the path of financial ruin. We FEAR that the
Regressive Republican policies are turning the respect that the United
States once had throughout the world, into hatred of the United States
and contempt for, the United States.
David Michael Green wrote an outstanding essay titled: "WHAT'S IN A
NAME? EVERYTHING: How Progressives Can Start Winning Again By Renaming
Their Opponents and Reframing The Debate." His outstanding essay can be
viewed at
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0208-21.htm.
Green suggests that we always call Republicans: Regressives. I agree.
But his outstanding idea has not gone very far because so far, it has
not been used. For a name to catch on it has to be used over and over
again with constant repetition.
Names are very important in politics. The Estate Tax, which only effects
the estates of multimillionaires, has been changed through contestant
repetition into the so-called Death Tax. Now Johnny Lunchbuckett and Joe
Sixpack are against the so-called Death Tax simply because its name has
been changed.
If you let the opposition name you, you are fighting their fight, on
their terms -- and you will probably lose.
If Mohammed Ali had attempted to fight with the style of either Joe
Fraser or Mike Tyson, I doubt that he would have won a single
professional fight. On the other hand, if either Joe Fraser or Mike
Tyson had attempted to fight like Mohammed Ali, they probably would
never have won any fights either.
The key to political victory is knowing your strengths and weaknesses
and knowing your opponents strengths and weaknesses, and fighting your
fight -- not theirs.
Another key to political success is the ability to tell great stories.
Storytelling is a powerful persuasion and influencing tool. Outstanding
salesmen and other influencers are usually great storytellers. Winning
politicians are usually very good or great storytellers. Stories need
not be long to be effective. In fact, a one or two sentence story can be
a very effective.
I highly recommend a little book about the art of storytelling by
Annette Simmons titled: "THE STORY FACTOR: Inspiration, Influence and
Persuasion Through the Art of Storytelling." One reviewer of this book
notes that the one thing history's greatest leaders have in common is
that they were all great storytellers.
No doubt, storytelling is at the top of the list of great persuasion
tools. Also on the list are metaphors and rhetorical questions.
Questions are quite often the key to political victory. Turning a
question around and framing it to your advantage is that key.
If you ask most adults whether or not they favor the legalization of
marijuana, most will say no. Ask these same people if they they believe
that marijuana should remain completely unregulated, untaxed and
controlled by criminals--criminals who often sell other, much more
dangerous drugs--and offer free samples of the more dangerous drugs to
their marijuana customers, and you will very likely get a completely
different answer.
The difference is how the question is framed. And the difference
betweet political victory and political defeat is who controlls the
language.
