angry liberal
Has anyone else noticed this buzzphrase popping up more frequently in the past week or so? They're trying to brand us yet again. And with the media's complicity, they'll probably succeed. Classic case of Lakoff's notion of "framing the debate". It implies that we no real reason to be angry, that we're just obnoxious twits who want to hear ourselves bitchi and moan. In other words, it undercuts the notion that we speak from a place of moral conviction.
Please, please, please, let's not let them get away from it this time. For a response, how about "I'm passionate about what I believe in. It's too bad you don't think it's ok for people to be passionate unless they happen to agree with you." Or is that already too defensive? Any other suggestions . . . ?
5 Comments:
I don't think we need to defend ourselves...they don't bother doing this.
I think the best way to proceed is just to change the subject and accuse them of something, like "destructively lazy, sending their sons off to be killed or permanently crippled in a foreign war." They're inflexible, they're paranoid and overly defensive, they're closing down the debate and dissent which is the foundation of our democracy, out of fear.
I agree with you on the Lakoff -- don't move to the right. And I think that includes, don't try to defend yourself against ridiculous charges, because you'll just end up substantiating or legitimizing those charges by treating them as if they were intended as part of a rational discussion.
I'm calling them "reckless conservatives" from now on. The brilliance of the Republican framing of liberal or even Democratic issues is finding language that clings to a strand of assumed identity: they're liberal and their complaining ergo they must be angry. Currently, the conservatives are building up huge deficits, invading countries, murdering innocents, ignoring global warning, etc. Okay, how about "dangerous conservatives."
Great point, Tim. Thanks! I don't think I've ever heard them on the defensive; they simply find a new way of speaking that puts their opponents on the defensive.
It seems that we sometimes argue as though someone is writing down and will publish the "debate", and we therefore want what we say to hold up under rational scrutinty. I suppose it's a harder habit to break than meets the eye . . .
Thanks, Curt!
"Dangerous conservative" . . . not bad, but it doesn't have that mocking/condescending tone that they're so good at. I kind of like "reckless conservative" though.
But then they aren't really conservative at all. I think whatever we come up with would have to point that out. All of a sudden I'm reminded of a guerilla theatre troupe in the Castro that staged a "Republican Orgy in Iraq". Most of the participants wore homemade Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc., masks, and oil-tanker and missle-shaped dildos (over grey suits, of course). A guy dressed up like Saddam emceed to 70's porno music . . .
If we could come up with a phrase that somehow captured their extreme disinhibition. Reckless is close, but one can be just accidentally reckless, not necessarily in a gluttonous way . . . and I think drawing attention to that sense of gluttony might be an effective way of putting those who laud their "conservative values" on the defensive.
Fred Block calls them "pessimistic conservatives", which I supposed counters Bush's constant claims of "optimism," the media strategy (successful, unfortunately) to counter liberal accusations of Republican pessimism, lazy-thinking, and jump-to-the-gun impatience. Perhaps the problem (David Brock might agree with this? I just listened to a disturbing interview with him about his new book, The Republican Noise Machine: Right-wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy) is that the Republicans are comfortable and cozy with hype, to the point of self-hypnosis, while liberals are still uncomfortably aware of hype as rhetoric. Republicans draw their coziness with hype from the religious right, which embraced media hype with fervor as soon as they saw its proselytizing value.
jean
Post a Comment
<< Home