In the last fifteen
years, through overexposure and lack of alternatives, liberals have learned a
neo conservative lexicon as thoroughly as have conservatives. In fact, through
language, neo conservatives have nailed in some planks in the Democratic
platform, where Democrats have refused to do this for themselves. Neo
conservatives have spoken and continue to speak of tenured radicals, political
correctness, big government, welfare states, socialism, tax and spend liberals,
the quota system, campus speech codes, tree-huggers, anti-family values
liberals, and everybody’s favorite femi-nazis (if this last one has outlived
usefulness for Limbaugh, I know it is still in vogue with his listeners). For
purposes of this article, we can call this collection of phrases the
“Neo-Conservative Derogatory,” and it is now, arguably more than ever, both
street-level, mainstream shorthand and default for political discussion and
understanding issues. Thomas Frank asks what is the matter with Kansas, but we
must honestly review the evidence of our own friends and enemies having used
these phrases in support of their politics wherever they may live. And
then we must ask ourselves: how can we get some of that there trickle down
linguistics for our OWN selves?
Who claims to have no
personal examples of a 1980s Gen X’er adopting Rushist values (circa the first
Gulf War), voting for Bush Number One, and spouting neo conservative rhetoric
as if it were the whole cloth of original thought? As someone who did these
very things as a 20 year old hailing from a family of rural Ohioans, I feel no
shame, but claim a firsthand account of the dawn of a strong, new political
language for the masses, emanating from the realm of Amplitude Modulation, Reason
Magazine and David Horowitz, and sprung from a fear that people wouldn’t be
able to get as rich as Gods, to claim the power and glory that was their due
after a Cold War win.
What if liberal pundits and press, bloggers and all members of MoveOn,
generally, agreed on a small crop of new phrases for the next 10 years or so?
Let me start small. And let me not become silly or unserious or recommend too
many phrases. These are a few intrusive thoughts I’ve been having recently, partly
inspired by the chattering debates surrounding George Lakoff’s new how-to
titled Don’t Think of an Elephant and partly through outrage over the
possibility that America’s only viable progressive party is quite possibly
going to give up on progressivism. Consider them part of the soul-searching
trend in Democratic circles post election. Also, these are very specific
suggestions for language change designed to get other liberals to think of
their own.
First, and because I am
at this point a single-issue liberal voter, which issue is The Environment, I
am proposing that “eco terrorism” must become at all times and in all cases
“eco justice”, because there really should never be allowed the “terrorist”
label anywhere near anyone on our side; that is, anyone who would vote for a
liberal Democrat. The efforts of Neo Conservative groups to associate
environmentalism with terrorism and conflate sabotage and civil disobedience
with a desire to spread terror are well documented. The very phrases “eco
violence”, “eco terrorism” and “eco extremism” belong to the Neo Conservative
movement and groups such as The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise,
whose executive director, Ron Arnold, first coined the term “eco terrorism”.
A new case in Maryland
in which over 10 million dollars worth of starter castles that had been built
on environmentally sensitive land were torched, is the latest case in which Neo
Con language has been used by all media across the political spectrum. With
investigations underway and the ash still smoldering, NPR and the New York
Times have already labeled the perpetrator a possible “eco terrorist”. Could we
not begin now, with this news story, to practice, whenever possible, and with
no discernible trace of self-consciousness, new turns of phrase, such as “Eco
Justice” on a massive, liberal-spherical scale?
The reasons for doing
so, in this specific instance, rest in the Give An Inch And They’ll Take A Mile
law of politics. When we think about it for a few seconds, it seems hugely
irresponsible for the liberal press to use the phrase “eco terrorist”, as it is
only a matter of time before smaller acts of environmental activism are
blacklisted as such by anti-environmentalists, i.e. the Republican Party,
causing all manner of mass hand-wringing, encouraging and justifying more
public anti-environmentalist sentiment, and generally giving a rollicking good
reason to demonize an ethic that stands in the way of Unrestrained Corporatism
(see below “The Party of Unrestrained Corporatism”).
We already have seen
the vulnerable nature of environmental activism in the era of the War on
Terror, with the recent allegations of FBI infiltration and harassment of
environmental organizations. Can anyone honestly say that it is such a stretch
to imagine a new chilling effect on anti WalMart town meetings and other
anti-sprawl or pro-animal rights (read “anti-free enterprise” in the Neo
Conservative Derogatory) activism? What will become of donations-based groups
like PETA when it becomes too dangerous to be listed as a member of such a
domestic terrorist organization? And when we begin to really struggle
with dirty air and when clear majorities activate on behalf of anti-SUV
organizations, will we still be asthmatically fighting over the philosophy of
free enterprise and the rights of the auto industry to do business? If neo con
thinkers in tanks and their politicians are able to live in cleaner parts of
the country while ozone days leave sun-belters housebound and gasping, one can
well imagine the debate remaining unchanged.
Furthermore, describing
an outright act of eco-terrorism, say, the Hummer dealership arson, as “eco
justice”, is politically safe, even in mainstream media. It carries the whiff
of innocently having used the language of tolerance, the language of the
justice-seeker himself as he acts on behalf of the ozone in a selfless and
symbolic act of moral principle. Some environmentalists, inhabited by the
spirit of their beliefs, can do no other in the name of clean air and clean
water. Hardly a terrorist, he is a driven believer, upholding the values of
Earth and of God in a culture that doesn’t value safety – the safety of a clean
country in which to live our lives, make our money, achieve home ownership,
worship as we see fit.
The arsonist or murderer
on behalf of Earth is the left’s abortion clinic bomber. Just as you would
never hear a Republican fundamentalist go out of his way to sully the name of
an anti-abortion activist because it is understood that in some way the bomber
is doing the moderate’s dirty work, so must we never castigate an environmental
radical who, with firm conviction, goes about the agenda in his own, illegal
way. Rather, we must treat this eco vigilante (beginning with the one who will
surely emerge from the Maryland incident) with the respect that his own
convictions demand, while never letting him get any closer than the arms length
at which he is officially held. Certainly, we don’t condone it, but neither do
we go out of our way to mouth the planted, neo conservative derogation
Sticking with the
environmentalist agenda for a while more, my next proposal concerns climate
change. It is not any longer helpful to curse so and so Republican senator or
president as a “flat earther” because he or she rejects the mainstream science
that makes the global warming case. The “flat earther” bit is a good one, and
we smile whenever someone can fit it in, but it is essentially whimsical
and reminiscent of the playful things we do to make our case, like walking on
stilts and launching Buy Nothing Days (both of which I dig, but hardball must
eventually be played).
Those who reject global
warming as a great hoax are not just flat earthers (how many 20 year old “swing
voters” will even understand this phrase?) but “anti-environmentalists”.
Republicans, in fact, and it should be okay to say this in public “do not like
the Earth”. What if we all practiced, all of us simultaneously, from Alternet
to the New York Times, on our cable commentary and when we call in to
our local public radio talk show, painting any Republican deregulator,
non-enforcer of EPA standards, or non-believer in human-induced climate change
an anti environmentalist? If pro-choice Democrats are increasingly anti-life
(or pro-abortion) in the Neo Conservative Derogatory, why cannot rabidly
pro-business Republicans be anti-environment, based solely on the fact that
they haven’t specifically spoken of being pro-environment? Because, do you not
agree that there is some utility to the “you are either with us or against us”
ultimatum, at least when it comes to dumbing down messages for constituent
consumption? Be honest. Republicans need to be automatically “anti environment”
until proven pro environment with a litmus test of believing in global warming
(or at least believing that emissions are dangerous for breathing and should be
controlled). Have they not done enough to deserve this plank in their platform?
Speaking of abortion,
this is a clearer victory for liberals when it comes to language politics.
Within the abortion battle, the term “pro choice” is arguably more recognized
than the Neo Conservative Derogatory favorites “anti life,” or even “pro
abortion,” if not more fashionable. This evening I heard Terry Gross going
through her chops like a talented machine of liberalism, she a leftist volley
of well-reasoned turns, polite inquiry, and rational confrontation, while her
guest, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbiship of Washington DC and head of the
task force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, a purveyor of well-worn
and suspect appeals to the Catholic church’s political neutrality and insistent
upon using the “anti life” phrase repeatedly. As Ms. Gross politely struggled
to put into words her confusion over this quite large vacuum where there should
be moral arguments from the Christian Church, that of the lack of discernible
Christian outcry against the war, yet still this enduring, pitched crisis over
abortion, each of her ducks calmly emerged in a row from water this bishop so
piously vied to turn murky. And then the Bishop was heard to decry Secularism.
“Secular” is destined
to become a mainstream slur in the fashion of the Neo Conservative Derogatory.
Secularists and non-fundamentalist Christians need to memorize a handful of
core philosophical sound bites where religion and morality are concerned.
Primary among them to keep in mind is this rhetorical question: Do you need
religion to be moral? The answer is no. Not only do you not need Jesus as your
personal savior to have morals, to act ethically, you needn’t believe in
any deity, savior, prophet or god. Secular morality is just as good as
religious morality, if a bit more stark. As British lecturer and freethinker
Charles Watts wrote in 1880 in an essay called Secular Morality: What Is It?
An Exposition and a Defence, “ . . . fidelity to principle and good service
to man should win the right to participate in any advantages either in this or
in any other world.”
This leads to my final
and potentially most dramatic semantic shift. We desperately need a more damaging
phrase than “Radical Right” for our esteemed opponents. Clearly, though the
taboo is still in place, Republican voters are increasingly proud of belonging
to the Radical Right. It gives them something to be a part of, as American
mainstream life swims in an increasingly homogeneous aesthetic. Along with the
Neo Conservative Derogatory there has grown up this sense that belonging to the
Radical Right ain’t a bad thing. It feels good to be related to an old boys
network of power and exclusion, especially if you feel powerless in real life,
on your commute, at your dinner table, while writing that credit card payment.
Can we not appellate
using some other unarguably blackening word that will paint all Republicans
with the black mark they work hard to deserve? “Fascist” won’t work –
strangely, saying “fascist” now makes the speaker seem unthinking, knee-jerk
and fascist themselves. It’s an empty Johnny Rotten slur. Liberals need to
begin calling Republicans not simply Republicans, but something that will
flatter the Christian Right and enrage the “fiscal conservative” wing at the
same time. I propose the term “Republican Fundamentalists” and/or “The Party of
Unrestrained Corporatism”. These don’t have to be capitalized necessarily, but
do remember that good capitals come to those who wait and who engage in the
necessary propaganda techniques. Whenever we happen to be holding forth on
Republicans, blogging about Republicans, thinking about Republicans or simply
shooting the breeze about Republican antics with our cohorts, we could practice
saying “republican fundamentalists” or, mysteriously not naming them by name
but saying “The Party of Unrestrained Corporatism”.
Here is the reasoning
for using these stand-in phrases for the value-neutral “Republicans”. If you
are of a certain age (say, in your 30s) the word “fundamentalist” has no good
connotations. You have heard this word not in a Christian, tolerant or
benevolent context. Rather, you’ve heard it in hundreds upon thousand of
television and radio broadcasts as part of phrases like “Shiite and Sunni
fundamentalist rebels,” or “radical Islamic fundamentalist organizations”. This
was the mother’s milk of your younger aural world, shaping a hatred of
fundamentalism since before you knew what the crap fundamentalism was.
There is no better time
for liberal pundits, writers, bloggers, talking heads, opinion editorialists
and Air America to begin tarring Republicans with this well-deserved name. Why?
Because Christian fundamentalist leaders are right this very moment claiming
the party as their own for having hand delivered victory unto Republicans
through their congregants. And, as a bonus, Christian calls for giving credit
where credit is due are in the mainstream press in a big way right now.
Republicans, especially moderate and secular Republicans are terrified of this
turn of events, because they know fundamentalist Christian beliefs (as opposed
to regular Christian beliefs) have minority status in America. Let us justify
their terror by ending the impotent and embittered ironic stances and instead
using heartfelt party rhetoric over and over and over and over again.
Just as Christian
Fundamentalists aggressively stake their claim to Republicans and their recent
victory and thus to the laws they will pass, so must progressives push from the
other side the same message. Bush Republicans, having used Christian
fundamentalism in the service of their true loyalty to the Party of
Unrestrained Corporatism, will begin to feel the hot breath of Ideology on
their necks when liberals begin to encourage the conflation of Christian
fundamentalism and the Republican Party through repeated use of the phrase
“Republican fundamentalists”. Think of how powerful the delivery of this one
phrase thousands of times without the usual smirking, smug, latest partisan
catchphrase, David Brooksian invisible quotes. I am suggesting using these new
labels in the manner of yell radio, with utter seriousness and casualness and
conviction and with not one ironic wink or impish twinkle, and for years and
years on end (but, of course, without the yelling). The Christian
fundamentalist yoke is not one Bush Republicans are eager to wear in the
mainstream because they know it has no lasting political value.
The second name for
Republicans is “The Party of Unrestrained Corporatism”. The future of
liberalism lies in demonizing all the downsides of corporate capitalism and we
can choose the word “unrestrained” for good, historic, political reasons. When
conservatives think of unrestrained, they think of very, very bad things. They
think of homosexuals who can’t restrain themselves from having sex with people
so young they don’t have pubic hair yet. They think of the unrestrained drug
use, drinking and violence of African American welfare mothers and their
imprisoned men. They think of the unrestrained American Hollywood elite, making
movies about homosexuals and liberal politics and living their lives of sex and
cocaine and secular yoga.
Neo Conservatives so
thoroughly rallied to the task of teaching even the most bone-headed how to
always, no matter what, support the Right Of Free Enterprise and the Freedom To
Do Business Without The Heavy Hand Of Regulation Dragging Our Spirits And
Profits Down, that anyone with AM radio probably knows that Adam Smith had
something to do with it. Neo conservatives gamely and with great success agreed
upon a surprisingly small number of simple arguments to teach through rote to
Americans. These Americans are now millions of foot soldiers for the ideals of
unregulated corporate America. These arguments, which draw no distinction
between mom n’ pop entrepreneurial spirit and global corporate interests, have
taught millions of Americans to see beauty in the architecture of sprawl, to
sympathize with their wealthy employers who might go bankrupt if they had to
chip in for employee health insurance, to spend with credit as an act of
patriotism, and to think of a minimum living wage as an impediment to the
economy. Unfortunately for environmentalists, these same people were also
trained in philosophically linking environmental protection with hating the
American way of life and impeding the free market.
But I am confident this
same majority of Americans could come to equate a lack of restraint with
corporate America instead, and learn to recognize this entity as one of the
most in need of restraint. However, I do not think this potential paradigm
shift can be made imminent through any normal channels of propaganda or party
effort. Yes, the Democratic Party must take on the roll of teacher about
capitalism’s failings with particular efforts to educate average Americans that
the corporate ethic is different from the capitalism of yesteryear, that at
some point big free enterprise works against the people who work 50 or 60 hours
a week for it, and that there is a lot more to America than profit. Yes,
progressives must plug on, carrying the same populist message.
But changing a few
phrases, even if lockstep language consensus were achieved, and even if
liberals were given all of AM radio to use as they saw fit for the next ten
years, won’t convert anybody who voted for Bush a few months ago, all other
things staying the same. Here is the cynical rub in this tables-have-turned
fantasy. The “American standard of living to which we are accustomed” and “our
way of life”, the late capitalist status quo, is the province of the Republican
majority, and folks still stand to profit from it, unabated. The progressive
message will not make sense to conservatives (or to the unpoliticized) until
the built-in failings of late capitalist culture reveal themselves. Some
futurist progressives like James Howard Kunstler, author of the magnificent
anti-sprawl books Geography of Nowhere and Home from Nowhere,
seem sometimes to be driven insane on their blog (link: www.kunstler.com)
entries, trying to understand how Americans can ignore all the warning signs of
their unsustainable society: how is it that anyone can justify an hour and a
half commute through a corridor of aesthetic ruin in a state of large personal
debt, let alone majorities of Americans justifying it?
Indeed, like
progressive prognosticators before me, I believe one of the following things
needs to happen in a satisfactorily permanent way before majorities begin
making connections to politics. You need only pick one: spiraling gas costs,
shoddy construction on a massive scale leading to personal financial ruin,
massive job losses for suburban commuters with mortgages, spiritual crisis
directly related to the bankruptcy of the consumerist religion, nuclear
terrorism in the United States, widespread killer air or water pollutants
and/or abrupt climate change. I believe these things are prerequisites for decisive
progressive election majorities. Not landslides, but clear-cut victories that
usher in new eras of liberalism.
I realize this takes
the will of the Democratic Party out of the equation somewhat. But I also think
at least one of these tragedies is inevitable. Do Americans have a Democratic
Party courageous enough to be that progressive alliance that millions of voters
turn to on a fateful day, as they suddenly recognize the solutions have been
being spoken about all along?
7:39:40 PM 
|
|
