|
“Use of language
is dangerous when there is no respect for it,” declared writer
Norman Mailer in an interview last year with an editor of the St.
Petersburg (Fla.) Times. “What characterizes the Bush
administration is their prodigious disrespect for it. As I once had
a character say in a novel, you can’t stop a man who’s never
been embarrassed by himself. And that’s George W. Bush. He looks
upon the language as a tool. It’s a good mallet and chisel to cut
into the sentimental needs of the American public who come around
like hound dogs to certain words, like patriotism, America, flag and
security. I always say that America is the real religion of this
country.”
Mailer, one of the
more pugnacious voices of that generation of writers working in the
1960s to adapt an American literary tradition in what was fast
becoming an America of immediacy, has been around the block a few
times. What was his most well known book, White Negro, if not a
novel about language, the beat of jazz-speak cast against the
American racial schism? And Mailer is no stranger to politics,
having covered the political conventions of his times, the
Democratic National Convention of 1968 coming foremost to mind.
As good as the
above quotation sounds, however, can we really agree with Mailer
that the Bush administration has "a prodigious disrespect"
for language? If Republicans like Bush have no respect for language,
how did it come to be that the left, more often than not, finds
itself backed into a linguistic corner? How did "liberal"
become such a dirty word?
Throughout the
1990s, the liberals of the world were treated as if the term was a
synonym for child molester -- and it's only gotten worse in the Bush
years. Conservatives have taken over all branches of government and
much of the media, despite protestations that things are otherwise.
The Fox Network has set a new low standard for what is considered
"fair and balanced" news reporting simply by repeating the
claim that its arch-conservative spin -- faxed daily from GOP buzz
factories -- is "fair and balanced." In this context, even
Tom Brokaw and GE-owned NBC take their share of “the liberal
media” knocks. If Brokaw is part of the liberal media, what does
that make the Washington Post? The Maoist media?
In Wisconsin, a
steady stream of right wing radio blather paints the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel as "that bastion of liberalism" in the
state, which is about as accurate as Fox claims to “fair and
balanced” reporting. Liberals may cringe as these and other
slogans are pitched at us in politics every day, but we shouldn’t
dismiss them as disrespectful to language. On the contrary,
sloganeering is the language, and conservatives have taken to it
with more zeal than liberals have. This is nothing new, and there
are many examples of the right’s dedication to the language game,
the Bush administration effort to sell social security reform as the
building block of an “ownership society” being only the latest,
and one of the more highly orchestrated campaigns.
Take a look at how
conservatives and liberals in local media play the game. The slogan
of WTMJ radio’s leading right wing talker, Charlie Sykes, is
"Standing up for what's right." Sykes is on the right, no
doubt about that, and whether or not listeners think he’s in the
right, saying so makes for a very direct and effective slogan. Best
of all for Sykes, by claiming to be right, he is often freed of the
need for being correct. He's no more a journalist than Rush Limbaugh
can be compared to Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite. He's a
“pundit,” owing nothing to truth and everything to the GOP
political apparatus that acts as WD-40 of the jaw and tongue.
Meanwhile, Shepherd
Express columnist Joel McNally, well established as a leading
liberal voice in Milwaukee, writes his column under the heading
"Taking Liberties." What does this title suggest to his
readers? Are they to understand that McNally might take liberties
with the facts? Or with the truth? Is he “taking liberties” in
general with his readers? Or is he worried that “they” are
taking liberties? Of course he's not taking liberties. Is he
defending liberty? That might be the idea, but that’s not what the
title communicates. Like it or not, it says nothing affirmative
about what McNally writes, and lacks the precision impact of
Sykes’ “Standing up for what’s right.”
Not far from
McNally’s column in the Shepherd Express, readers can also find
Dave Berkman’s “Media Musings.” Dave’s doing what? He’s
“musing” about media? Does this mean he’s daydreaming while
writing his column? What does the title “Media Musings”
accomplish? It soft-peddles a column filled with aggressive,
no-holds-barred commentary from the Left; it's namby-pamby, playing
into the propaganda that already attacks liberals for being soft,
for being moral relativists if they have any morals at all. Again,
the Sykes slogan is more effective, while the Berkman tag is off
target, and doesn’t reflect the content of the column. Who would
Mailer say has more respect for language? If, as Mailer says,
language can be “a good mallet and chisel,” whose tools are
hitting their marks?
THE PRO-PROFIT
‘NINETIES
America entered the
21st Century on a wave of unprecedented growth in the economy while
the country was being presided over by a Democrat. Sure, he was a
centrist Democrat, successful at employing some very conservative
tactics and adopting conservative stances, but he was still a
Democrat and a true, bleeding-heart liberal. Yet he was vilified for
a sexual impropriety, and much of the good he had done was painted
over with the brush of immorality. This moral outrage was the pole
that the Republicans used to put up their “big tent.” The door
was open for Bush to step in with his aw-shucks, no-nonsense
demeanor and snow the American public into believing that the
conservative agenda -- moral uprightness, “small government,” a
narrow world view and, worst of all, “privatization” -- was in
their best interests.
The last item on
this list, privatization, was largely discredited in the Reagan
years, when “trickle down” economics simply ushered in a state
that was increasingly run by corporations. We don’t hear the words
“trickle down” any more. That’s because the profits didn’t
trickle down. Instead, we spent the 1990s hearing about
“privatization” of everything from health care to education to
social goods. When the conservatives say, “we want smaller
government,” what they are actually saying is “we want more
privatization.” With “privatization,” we are told, we are free
to choose services in a competitive market. And, don’t forget,
“choice is freedom.”
The mantra that
“choice is freedom” has been pounded into our heads so much that
most people have failed to recognize what this trade off actually
means. In health care, for example, more choice -- a.k.a.
“privatization” -- was supposed to lead to better care at lower
costs. Instead what we’ve realized after nearly 25 years of
for-profit health care is a system that favors the shareholders over
the “consumer” (a term that needs to be revised immediately). We
have seen record profits for drug makers at the expense of actual
healing, and a health care environment that favors procedures over
prevention. Medication over medicine.
At present, our
system can't help you lower your risk of heart attack, except with
Cheerios; it can only wait until you have one. If you survive the
heart attack, you are permitted to have invasive, dangerous surgery
and a lifetime of heart medications at governmentally-sanctioned,
inflated prices. More freedom has actually led to reduced care and
more cost.
PRO-PUBLIC OVER
PRO-PROFIT
Progressives need
to call this system by its real name. The conservatives have settled
on the term “privatization,” or, more recently,
“personalized” health care, just as they have settled on the
labels like “pro-life.” These terms tell only half the story at
best. Progressives need to speak out, not against privatization, a
word that has come to mean good things -- choice, savings and
quality. But we do have to call it like it is -- “For-Profit.”
This is the truth, after all, and the real goal of any corporation.
The managed-care corporations are not there to help you feel better;
they're there to make money off you feeling bad. If you have one or
several common social fears, they sell you drugs. Are you too fat?
Drugs. Are your kids fidgety and hyper? That's not normal; they
should be able to sit for hours at a time quietly so they can
fulfill your wish fantasies. Drug the little buggers. The
corporation will profit, and you, the consumer, will be free to
choose. Prozac or Zoloft? Eli Lilly or Pfizer? Your life improves
somewhat, the CEO's life improves exponentially and the shareholders
rejoice. This is all that freedom buys these days.
The progressive
agenda needs to call this sick system by its real name: For-Profit
or Pro-Profit, or, better yet, “Anti-Health” or “Anti-Care.”
Progressives need to mobilize the faithful to get the Pro-Public
health care message out there, even as the Bush Administration
pushes the idea that there is a Social Security crisis ahead and
wheels the Pro-Profit language game into full spin. Bush proposes
that we privatize Social Security by building an “ownership
society” where every worker would get to play his or her
retirement accounts on the stock market. The current market, it
should be pointed out, is a no-growth market already overburdened
with public debt caused by the President's tax cuts for the rich and
an ill-conceived war.
But there would be
profits to be had with the new Social Security capital on the
market, an influx of millions of penny accounts. The players on The
Street would love to have all this new money to work with -- there's
not much coming from anywhere else. As in health care, Social
Security investment would be managed so that the “owners” of the
small accounts have choices and “freedom.” They would get to
pick which CEOs get rich. As in health care, there would be
corporate profits, but not to the benefit of Social Security’s
“consumer,” the retiring “owner” of the penny account. And
if the market tanks? Ask the shareholders of tech stocks what
happens when the bubble bursts. You lose, period. The money
evaporates. In fact, you could end up owing on margin calls.
Many economists
agree that the Social Security “crisis” is phony. These same
economists say that the skyrocketing costs of Medicare in the
Pro-Profit health system will create a budget crisis in the U.S. by
2050 if nothing is done to fix it. Bush, they say, is out to fix the
wrong system. But we can learn some lessons in language now that the
focus is on our public retirement program. The public needs to
understand that big government isn't nearly so bad as “big
corporate,” and when the left talks about Social Security or
health care, we should be touting the benefits of For-Public over
For-Profit. In health care, this means that we create system that
favors prevention, regular check-ups and health education, and
spreads the money that goes into the system to where it's needed
rather than lining the pockets of CEOs and shareholders. As America
works toward a Pro-Public health care system, Social Security must
remain in the public trust.
Conservatives, and
a growing number in media, may respect little more than a cliff
notes version of any debate or issue, and often less than that. But
even when bungled by President Bush, the cliff notes and slogans,
patched together, have been an effective language for the right.
It’s antiquated and just plain wrong to think that the right’s
“mallet and chisel” approach shows a “prodigious disrespect”
for language, not when the mallets and chisels are hitting their
marks with repetitive precision. Was there a time when complexities
mattered in a political debate? Probably not since the invention of
the television. Even in Norman Mailer’s day, intricacies were
chiseled into simpler messages behind the scenes. And in Mailer’s
day, he would be one of the first to head to the bar, leaving behind
the aggravation of a roomful of liberals failing to agree on the
finer points of their politics.
For reference:
Mark Weisbrot and Dean Baker’s “Social Security: The Phony
Crisis” (University of Chicago Press) and “What Crisis? If It
Ain’t Broke Don’t Fix It,” Washington Post National Weekly
Edition, Jan. 31-Feb. 6. Weisbrot and Baker are co-directors of
Washington D.C.-based Center for Economic and Policy Research.
http://cepr.net
|
