Posted on 05/20/2002 11:27:58 AM PDT by stayout
It occurred to me over the weekend how little true debate takes place in our society despite the seeming abundance of outlets for one to vent one's opinion. By "true debate," I mean citation to facts, use of logic, and the staking out of defensible policy positions. Liberals and the media are the worst offenders; for them, all you need to do is place a label on the other side in a thinly veiled ad hominem attack. In their minds, no more need be said. As Larry Elder often says, "[a] fact to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman."
Here's a priceless example: "homophobe." Who among us has not unthinkingly used that term to describe our side, simply because no other term seems to be available. Notice, however, the clever implications of that term. Its suffix, "phobe," means someone who is scared of something. So someone who is against the proliferation of the homosexual agenda (such as against the breakup of the institution of marriage), is labeled as a person scared of homosexuals. Thus, every time that term is used by them (or us), it subconsciously suggests that people who oppose the homosexual agenda are psychologically unhinged. Clever, clever, and more clever.
There are other obvious examples, such as "pro-choice" (i.e., the word "choice" conjures up images of freedom; thus someone who opposes "choice" must be a freedom-hating tyrant . . . see how it works?), "Bible belters," "right-wing extremist," etc. Once such loaded descriptors become generally accepted, especially by a lazy media, the battle has been lost. Of course, this has worked once or twice for us in the past, too. For example, if you are old enough, remember how Ronald Reagan absolutely put the left wing on the defensive with his unabashed use of the infamous "L-word" -- "Liberal" -- as an offensive term? He achieved so much success most self-described liberals to this day are afraid to call themselves "liberal"; rather, they call themselves "progressives."
Well, I say, two can play at that game. It is time for us to do the same thing to them that they have done to us. We must consistently use media-friendly soundbite descriptors to label the other side and put them on the defensive.
I hear taxaholics are addicted to whine.
| Nazi | Helps remove RW extremist from Republicans |
| -aholic | associated with uncontrolled behavior |
| -fiend | associated with uncontrolled, evil behavior |
But excuse me, where is the inaccuracy in describing someone like, say, um . . . Gray Davis . . . as a taxaholic? At the moment, either he or his cronies in the California Legislature are proposing -- among other things -- soda taxes, mileage taxes, SUV taxes, more gasoline taxes, and higher tax rates for the "wealthy" (notwithstanding the fact that in his own budget speech last week he admitted the top 5% carry 70% of the tax burden already).
By the way, I just realized another unconscious use of a liberal-inspired descriptor: "wealthy." Since when does earning a relatively high income in a particular year (perhaps you sold your house, for example) automatically translate into your being "wealthy"?
After weeding out those with any cojones, the neo-Cons are left with milquetoasts with names like Tucker, and quasi-intellectual Bush lapdogs like Bill Kristol.
Then that same bunch whines when no champions step forward.
You make a good point except Pat Buchanan can say some pretty weird stuff if you ask me. However, what alarms me most about PB is the fervor of his followers. Scary. (sorry if that offends you but you might as well understand how I see it)
Let me add that I am no longer a Bush fan myself. Keyes is cool, however, he could sometimes work on the tone of his delivery. I would trust him totally not to sell me out after the election, however, unlike GWB.
Upon re-reading what I just wrote I might sound like I don't like anybody. Let me say that no one is perfect and it is important that we be free to criticize those who have power over us. How they take criticism is an important indicator of character. How we give criticism is as well.
Of course, BIGOT stands for Believer In God's Original Truth.
As far as Kristol is concerned, I should have said GOP lapdog.
I thought we already did? Case in point...
Tree hugger
Gun grabber
Tax and Spend
Atheist
Elitist
Anti-American
Un-patriotic
Land grabber
Socialist
Communist/Commie-loving
Anti-Family
Anti-Religion
Those are a few...I've seen more used to classify the left at one time or another...
Let those SLAGGED & WANNA-BE-SLAGGED ROBOT TAXAHOLICS bear the proper labels for their idiocy in all our communications with our whole networks. . . friends, colleagues, writings, etc.
WE COULD CERTAINLY DO BETTER at coming up with potent, clever, witty, short snippets attractive to broadcasters.
Tax cuts for the top 1% should be countered with " Oh my God, what a stupid Ass you are".
The main difference between Dems and Pubs, is the direction of the check. Period.
It is about finding leaders we can get behind, who stand for something, and who don't move with the times. The GOP is terrific at dumbing itself down, at stooping to its competition, at wallowing in mediocrity. Its brightest lights either get chased out, or dim themselves so that the milksaps that run the Party can accept them. Anyone with any cojones they chase out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.