Too Much 'Gression

The American Thinker has a couple of good articles today that I recommend.

The Regressives

In his article, "The rectification of names: progressive," Thomas Lifson discusses a theme that leftist propaganda makes it necessary to revisit from time to time: the use of euphemism. Here, Lifson examines the use of the term "progressive" by the left. On the way to examining the various associations we are supposed to transfer to the left's agenda because it is called "progressive," Lifson presents this interesting nugget: "A large insurance company (whose principal owner is a major funder of MoveOn.org and other left wing causes) is named Progressive, so the label is already supported by a fair amount of advertising aimed at generating a friendly image." He says that this is "probably a coincidence," but I'm not so sure. The young adults in their commercials often look like hippies to me.

As the editor points out before the article, "Euphemism is a tool of misrepresentation and ultimately of control, stripping away accurate and evocative connotations, and substituting false associations." Lifson hits this nail on the head:

"Economic progress is the last thing in which political progressives are interested. They fight a rearguard action to preserve from progress the entrenched interests which donate money to them, and which depend on government favor to guarantee their security in an uncertain world. Progressives cloak their economic policies in the garb of compassion, an effort to ameliorate the pain that comes with change. They don’t dare advocate the logical end point of their economic inclinations, because 'socialism' has even a worse odor than liberalism."

He names the correct motivation behind the use of the term "progressive" by the left, which apparently recycles not just old ideas, but euphemisms. (The term was also popular before and during the Great Depression.) But he could have made an even more interesting point: that the left's use of language is beginning to backfire on itself!

Take Mother Jones' favorite linguist, George Lakoff. His main theme is not that the Democrats might want to reconsider parts of their agenda, but that they just need to repackage it:

"... [I]f you take a word like 'relief,' the frame includes an affliction, an afflicted party, a reliever who takes the affliction away -- a hero. If anyone tries to stop him, they’re a villain. This comes into politics when you add 'tax' to 'relief' and you get 'tax relief,' where you see taxation as an affliction. That’s a conservative metaphor: the people who want to get rid of taxes are heroes and the people who don’t are the villains. When words like 'tax relief' are repeated over and over again, they come to be the normal way to talk about taxes. When that happens, it means it has become part of your brain. It is physically instantiated in the synapses of your brain. Therefore, it becomes normal; it becomes part of common sense. To get it out, the only thing you can do is to get some other view of taxes that is ultimately stronger."

Note that there is not one iota of consideration for the idea that maybe taxes could be demonstrably, objectively bad for the taxpayer. That is partly understandable: the quote comes from an article in Mother Jones. But might the article reflect something else? Lakoff certainly isn't accusing anyone of having a substantive argument against taxation that needs rebuttal. That should normally be a consideration for someone involved in an intellectual debate. But Lakoff seems to regard people, or at least most people, as being determined by their environment: the only way for us to "normally" regard taxes as bad is for our skulls to be hammered incessantly by propagandistic phrases like "tax relief." Lakoff the propagandist has become seduced by his own method! This is very interesting and shows a weakness in the Left.

Ann Coulter reports extensively on the saturation of our culture by left wing propaganda in her book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right. Perhaps one interesting consequence of the fact that most major media constantly bombard everyone with propaganda is that it is now working against the left. Conservatives and libertarians have access to (and preserve their sanity by using) a vast array of alternative media sources. Liberals do, too, but doubtless do not have nearly the need or desire to use them. The result? The phenomenon variously known as "cocooning" or the "false consensus effect" becomes intensified: liberals know mainly or only other liberals and hear little other than their own opinions, including the idea that people who disagree only do so because they have fallen victim to propaganda! Returning to Lakoff, let's ask this question: "Does Lakoff think the idea that taxes are harmful needs to be addressed on an intellectual level?" If he does, why does he waste time on propaganda at all? If he does not, why does he feel the need to give his fellow travelers (the readership of Mother Jones) a pseudoscientific rationale for propaganda? Shouldn't they already agree on the utility of the method? I submit that Lakoff is propagandizing his own audience! And I regard the interview excerpted above as evidence that the left is becoming further estranged from reality, and that it is dying as an intellectual movement. As Coulter points out near the end of Slander, all the new ideas and interesting discussions are happening in conservative and libertarian quarters these days. Is this really so surprising?

The left is dying at its own hand.

Agression

Let me join Matthew May's "Amen Corner!" In "Not Enough," he echoes my sentiment about Ron Artest's role in the recent Pacers-Pistons brawl: Ban him for life!

But does the brawl really represent a dangerous trend in society, as May asserts? After all, Ty Cobb famously beat up a crippled fan back in 1912 and he wasn't banned from baseball for life. First of all, this was arguably worse. Second, Cobb's attack wasn't part of a gangsta persona to be emulated by kids all over the country, either.

The article is worth a read, especially if you, like me, didn't give a rat's behind about the incident beforehand and thus didn't know just how bad it really was.

-- CAV