[Dialogue] Using language to our advantage

[cdhahn3031@insightbb.com]

We Democrats always seem to trap ourselves in rational statements spoken in 
rational language, rather than opting for the symbolic. We thought that if we 
explained just one more time that this president had lost more jobs than any 
other president since Herbert Hoover, etc., etc., surely they would get it. For 
those of you who did not read the piece on Orwellian language on the Rockridge 
Institute website, I am posting it here along with a couple of responses that 
came from Democratic colleagues from my Texas days. You gotta read these two 
responses.

How about "The Radical Wrong"?

Doris Hahn



The Radical Right's Weakness by The Rockridge Institute
 
The radical Right's messaging and framing infrastructure doesn't seem so 
fearsome if you know how to spot its weaknesses.

The radical Right is acutely aware of cases where the general public has 
progressive values and would ordinarily reject their agenda. The Right’s 
approach to such cases is deception, often through the use of Orwellian 
language  language that means the opposite of what it says.

For example, the term compassionate conservatism is used because leaders on the 
Right have traditionally been considered mean and lacking in empathy toward 
people who are needy, poor or oppressed. The term compassionate suggests that 
conservatives do care about such people, although their policies go in exactly 
the opposite direction. And indeed, certain conservative theorists are open as 
to what compassion is to mean, namely that removing “interference,” especially 
by the government, allows disciplined people who are seeking their self-
interest to become prosperous.

This use of language is no accident.  

Frank Luntz and his associates are well paid to devise such language. What does 
Luntz advise? 
•	When talking to women, use words women like, such as love, from the 
heart, and for the children – no matter what is being said. 
•	When talking about our environment, use the words healthy, clean, and 
safe – even if you’re advocating policies that increase pollution. 

In it, Luntz acknowledges that the scientific evidence does not support the 
conservative position on global warming. What does he suggest? 

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is 
still a window of opportunity to challenge the science."

And Luntz is listened to.
 
This strategy has been adopted in how the Right talks about the “Clear Skies 
Act,” which increases pollution and mercury contamination, and the "Healthy 
Forests Act," which permits clear cutting and the destruction of forests. 

This is part of a major strategy. The radical Right knows that it does not have 
a majority that accepts its worldview. If most Americans really believed what 
the radical Right does, no resort to such distortions would be necessary. 

This is crucial for progressives to understand, because Orwellian language 
reveals weakness. 

Progressives commonly wring their hands in despair when conservatives use 
Orwellian language. They shouldn't. The use of Orwellian language signals to us 
where conservatives are weak. Forget that their deceptiveness is immoral. The 
point is that they are weak and are revealing their weakness. If they had 
public support, they could freely call their initiative the Dirty Skies Act.

Progressives can use the Right’s Orwellian weaknesses to our advantage. We can 
focus the public’s attention on it by highlighting the discrepancies between 
what the radical Right says and what it does. Do not hesitate to rename their 
Orwellian legislation. For example:
•	Do not call it the “Clear Skies initiative.” Call it the “Dirty Skies 
initiative.” 
•	Do not call it “Healthy Forests.” Call it “No Tree Left Behind.” 
•	Do not call it “Compassionate Conservatism.” Call it “Callous 
Conservatism". 



 ________________________________________

Response # 1:

That is one of the reasons I want to start a HATE RADIO campaign.
 
These guys filling up the airwaves are just that. They are not RW talk radio, 
or conservative radio, they are HATE radio. So if we don't call them that they 
get away with talking bigotry and hate under the guise of RW or Conservative 
which are respectable words. I have every intention of changing that.  
 
WWJD
Turn off HATE RADIO
SEE these
http://www.cafepress.com/tesibria/421826
 
We have to refer to Hannity and Limbaugh as HATE TALK.. Any catchy wording any 
of you have fill me in, because I am working in this nationwide. 
 
 I was raised right in the best of Southern Baptist traditions, and have 
relatives that are Evangelicals, and know plenty of these kinds. Hate is as 
much of a swear word as any they have in the book. Hate Crime legislation 
passed because it was called "Hate Crime."  Americans do not like HATE.
 
We need to call it what it is in language that will tickle the ear of the Far 
right that are buying into the stuff from these guys so they will "turn it off"
 
 ________________________________________

Response # 2:

11-11-04

Along these lines…
I’ve been using ‘church talk’ at church as regards the elections.  Wednesday 
night after church, one old guy whom I knew to be a rabid Republican asked me 
how I was, and I said I was sad and disheartened because of the election, 
because I saw no end to the mass murdering of thousands of God’s children with 
another 4 years of the same group of men whose hearts seemed to be so hardened 
against Jesus’ command to love one another and pray for our enemies.  He was a 
little taken-aback, and said I should pray about it, and, if they needed to 
be ‘turned around’, God would do it. 
So yesterday the same man came up to me and asked me if I was feeling any 
better about the elections.  I said yes, that his suggestion to pray had 
worked, that Ashcroft had already quit!   My next task would be to pray about 
Carl Rove, and work my way up to the president. He just stood there with his 
mouth open for a few seconds, and then said something like, “God bless you”, 
and walked away.