HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - Jan 8, 2005 - Printable Version
- Look Who's Talking
by Robin Buckallew
"Officer, I would like to report a theft..yes, the English language has been stolen, and is being used for nefarious purposes.who stole it? Why, the right wing...what do you mean, I can't report that as a theft?....well, who gave it to them, anyway? Doesn't it belong to everybody?....well, I don't remember giving it away..I see. If I don't protest for a certain period of time, it automatically becomes their property. So, we all gave it away, that's what you're saying?....Oh. Thank you, officer. I feel much better now." Ridiculous conversation? OK, a little surreal to be sure. But not as farfetched as you might think. Over the past couple of decades, the right wing has been retooling the English language to suit their purposes. Those of us on the other side, instead of challenging their usage, simply adopt the parameters of the conversation, start using their phrases and trying to argue against them, and lose every time. And it's not just language that we've turned over to them. It is the entire framework of debate. The right wing (both religious right and corporate right) put certain "facts" on the table, and then the rest of us structure the debate around those facts. Once we do that, we will never win. Once we accept their "facts" or their language, we have validated certain "truths" in the minds of the American public, and simply pointing out to the public that our interpretation of these "truths" is a better interpretation will never be enough. In order to ever have a hope of reestablishing the values and ethics we believe in, we must reclaim the language. This will not be an easy struggle, since people like Karl Rove now consider it their legitimate property. After all, it is an "ownership society", right? But the language was not bought and paid for, it was not deeded to anyone. It was kidnapped, and has been forced into slavery because even after we paid the ransom, the kidnappers refused to let it go. So, let's storm the castle.
As my first example of how the language has been hijacked, I present "partial birth abortion". This is a lovely phrase, cooked up to stir negative emotions in the most well-meaning of people. There is no such thing as partial birth abortion. This is a term, medically and scientifically, is nonsense. The actual term we should be using is "late term abortion". Unfortunately for the anti-choice folks, late term abortion is a rather dry, pedantic sounding phrase. Now, every time I hear the term the term partial birth abortion, I get images of babies poking their heads out of the birth canals and being clubbed like so many baby seals by ruthless doctors doing the work of Satan himself. This is not a true image, but it is powerful. It leads one to a feeling of revulsion and disgust. The pro-choice advocates should avoid the use of this phrase like the plague. We should also be very careful about the use of the phrase pro-life. This leads to the automatic antithesis of anti-life for the opponents. It brings up images of people who actively advocate abortion for fun and profit. This is as inaccurate a portrayal of the pro-choice movement as the idea of pro-life is for the anti-choice movement. For those abortion opponents who advocate killing of abortion doctors, I refuse to apply the term pro-life. For those abortion opponents who support the war in Iraq (or any other of the many wars that America has fought in order to establish hegemony over the world), I refuse to apply the term pro-life. I am not implying that all abortion opponents hold these views; indeed, many hold strong views that include abolishing the death penalty, working for peace around the world to end war and genocide, and protecting the lives of other species. But it is very possible to be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time, if one moves outside the rather narrow definition that is usually given to these phrases. Most of the individuals advocating safe and legal abortion access feel that this should be practiced as a last resort, and that the way to reduce abortion is to provide clear and concise education in birth control alternatives, and make sure that these alternatives are readily and easily available. As Bill Clinton put it, abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. The next time this debate arises, and someone refers to themselves as pro-life, and you as pro-abortion, gently channel the phrases to be more accurate. The real terms are pro-choice and anti-choice. What could be more American than pro-choice?
As another example of how the right has hijacked the terms of the debate, let's look at welfare reform. Ever since the welfare reform bill was signed by President Clinton in the mid-1990s, there have been a myriad of articles and books written about the effects. The authors don't always agree with each other in their conclusions. They don't even always agree with each other in their facts. But there is one thing that most of these authors seem to agree on - that the debate will center around the effects of welfare reform on the black, unwed mother who has been receiving welfare on a chronic basis ever since she was old enough to collect. These mothers usually have several children, and every writer is probably going to include at least one crack addict among their subjects. For this reason, any debate about the effects of welfare reform is impoverished in its scope and suspect in its conclusions. For some reason, the left has willingly accepted the right-wing version of the "welfare queen", as brought so vividly to life by Ronald Reagan. This, in spite of the fact that, statistically speaking, the average welfare recipient is white, suburban, and usually a single mother who is either recently divorced or widowed, displaced in some other way, or recently unemployed through the normal ravages that are part of riding the economic roller coaster. The average welfare recipient stays on welfare for under two years, while getting her life together to allow her to support her children once again. This portrait of traumatic upheaval is also the most common one for the black recipients of welfare. What has been the effect of welfare reform on this population? I wish I could tell you. Unfortunately, I fear that such a study is not on anyone's radar screen. The reason we are not seeing a debate on this topic is the unquestioning acceptance of the terms set down by the right wing.
Most of us are hearing a lot lately about the new "moral" revival in this country. President Bush has gotten a mandate for his policies based on moral values of a newly born-again population. The left is indulging in an orgy of endless self-flagellation for not adopting this strategy themselves. They have accepted the "truth" of this contention, but it is likely that the only end to all this intellectual brow-beating will end up being self-immolation for the progressives. So, next time you hear about the "moral mandate" (or even just "moral values" or "mandate"), here are some facts to keep in mind. Approximately 60% of the eligible electorate voted in the last election. This means that George W. Bush got his mandate from a whopping 30% of the population. John Kerry got nearly as much, with 28%. The number of people effectively voting none of the above constituted a plurality of the vote. In exit polls, 22% of the people voting claimed to have voted based on "moral values". Of those 22%, approximately 90% of those voted for George W. Bush. In summary, George W. Bush got the vote of just over 10% of the total population because he is such a good, Christian man. The same percentage of people voted based on opposition to the war, and most of those voted for John Kerry. Yet, the left is prepared to demolish its commitment to the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state to attract 10% of the population (while deserting its traditional base, because it is so sure this base will never desert them). Why isn't the right trying to appease those voters (the same portion as the "moral values" folks) who voted against the war? Because the right has set the terms of the debate, and the left is marching in lockstep along with them. Not only that, the left has accepted the term "moral values" as something other than the amorphous, ill-defined term that it is. Does everyone who claims to be moral mean the same thing? No one in their right mind would assume they do. But then, I am beginning to think that the Democratic leadership has long since taken leave of their senses, and taken most of the so-called left wing pundits with them. The true picture emerging from the exit polls is much more complicated than simply a bunch of religious yahoos voting for guns, God and gays. In fact, about three-quarters of the people voting for Bush believed the following: that Bush supported the Kyoto Protocol, that he was in favor of the International Criminal Court, that Saddam Hussein really did have WMDs, and/or that he was allied with Al Qaeda in the attack on 9/11. And they were staunchly behind him for these reasons. In short, it sounds like their ideas of moral values might be a little more in line with what we value, as well: clean air and water, accountability for war criminals, and keeping the world truly safe from terrorism. Once again, reclaim the debate.
Now, let's leave all this political and social rhetoric behind, and move to my favorite topic - the environment. Has the right wing hijacked the environmental debate? And are we, the nation's environmental movement, in any way responsible for that hijacking? The answers are yes, and yes. We spend most of our time in debate with our opponents agreeing with them. We agree that, yes we are elitist, but.. Yes, we are anti-business, but... Yes, we are harmful to the economy, but... I could go on for hours. Rarely a whisper of dissent about the basic premises, in spite of the fact that most of them are not true. Why? Are we ill-informed? Sometimes. Are we being nice? Most of the time. Do we think that by conceding the main point, we will get them in a better mood to listen? Doubtless this goes through many minds, though there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Do we believe what they say? Unfortunately, as often as not this is true. Why? Because few environmental scientists have a clear understanding of the economy. This is not meant to be an insult or an indictment, very few anything (including economists) have a clear understanding of the economy. It is a giant, multi-headed octopus of a thing, and behaves often in ways that baffle even the most learned of economic scholars. It is also unfortunate that to truly hold ones own in an environmental debate often requires a strong working knowledge of biology, geology, chemistry, physics, hydrology, meteorology..the list goes on and on. No matter what your realm of expertise, it is almost a given that the opponent will present a question from one of the other fields of endeavor, perhaps leaving you embarrassed and red faced over a clumsy stumbling answer. It is a rare and special scientist who is willing to simply say, "I can't answer that particular question" or "That isn't relevant to the topic at hand". And it is an even more rare and more special opponent who will accept such an answer gracefully. In fact, this particular tactic is a particularly valuable one for the opponent who wishes to make you look like a fool, and he will not give up his edge easily once he has attained it.
So, on to specific examples. The most commonly accepted truism in reporting today is that environmental protection costs jobs. Companies will present exhaustive lists of projected costs and related job losses that any proposed regulation will cause. These are nearly always accepted at face value. On the rare occasions that they have been examined closely, however, they have failed to hold up under inspection. The companies nearly always predict financial ruin. On those occasions when the regulations have been implemented, the predicted ruin has not come to pass. Still, we go on accepting these projections at face value. The company will also put out a great deal of information to demonstrate that their product, or their service, or their facility will not produce any real hazard to the community, and the environmentalists are just "scare-mongering". Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, a community often will choose to put their collective head in the sand and ignore warnings. The specter of lost jobs is simply so frightening to most people that they are willing to sacrifice their health and the health of their children to prevent such a catastrophe. They are able to justify this by simply denying that such a thing is possible. It is a dirty shame that the environmental movement has allowed the jobs issue to be hijacked in this manner. I'll let you in on a secret (it must be a secret, since I seem to read it only in a handful of journals that have a very narrow distribution). Many of the proposed alternatives of the environmental movement actually create jobs, not destroy them. The most environmentally sustainable methods of doing things tend to be labor-intensive, not technology based. Not only would jobs be created in this worldview, they would be much more healthful jobs, not working with chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides, or other nasty agents that threaten our ability to reproduce or our very life. Many people will argue that things will cost more in such a world, and I agree. Overall, things would possibly cost more. Anytime people are paid more, things will cost more. It is simply unrealistic to expect to live in a world where you make more money, but nothing increases in price. That only happens if you are part of an exploitative world, taking advantage of poor schmucks who make starvation wages to produce the products you enjoy. It is time for the labor movement, the environmental movement, the women's movement, and the civil rights movement to all get together, point out the fallacy of the lost jobs argument, sit down at a table together, and work toward a future where we can make these things work. It will not happen as long as we allow others to hijack the terms of the debate.
One more example. This is a crucial one, for it is blared across every right wing and left wing media outlet available. In fact, it was in The Nation that I read it last week. It seems we are being chastised for seeking renewable sources of power. The Third World, it seems, needs coal to develop their economies to bring a better life for their citizens. How cruel and heartless we left wingers in the First World are to stand in the way of the impoverished countries of the world getting just a little bit for themselves. It just makes me want to spit nails that we could be so thoughtless! But hold on a minute. Let's have a little side trip to reality (I hope this doesn't hurt too much). This argument seems hard to defeat, all right. But there are several problems with it. One, I think I need to see facts and figures that prove conclusively that it is cheaper to develop dirty sources of power than clean ones. This seems to be taken for granted, but I have not yet seen a cost comparison of how much it costs to build a coal fired power plant vs. a wind-driven power plant. And I mean an honest, thorough comparison, including such costs as health effects, crop losses from sulfur-loaded rain, and the cost of transporting the coal across country from where it is to where it needs to be. And changing gears to renewables becomes more expensive later on down the road if you already have the infrastructure in place for coal. We should know. This is one of the problems the United States faces in cleaning up the air. Our multibillion dollar infrastructure, which is now aging and needing significant upkeep, is not sufficient to deliver the sort of power that can be produced without significant environmental impact. So we use that as an excuse to maintain our polluting ways. If the Third World should begin their development with a more appropriate infrastructure for the times, it could have the effect of shifting the balance of power in the world. These countries might be able to outcompete us on the world market because they could deliver goods and services more efficiently, more cleanly, and perhaps even more cheaply. This, of course, we cannot tolerate. So we must encourage the Third World to develop in the twenty-first century using nineteenth century technology that will maintain their status, and not threaten ours. But first, we must get those pesky left wingers to think we are doing this for the good of the poor impoverished citizens of the developing nations. And we left wingers have gone right along for the ride. Oh, one other thing about the issue of using development to bring a better life to their citizens. Most of the development being encouraged by the leaders of the developed world is going to be used mostly for the purpose of paying back loans that the World Bank has made for giant development projects in those countries. Well, that seems only fair enough. After all, they borrowed the money and used it to improve the lives of their citizens. But that is not the whole story. You see, most of these development projects did little to bring improvement to the nations that got them. The first thing these projects (often dams) did was dispossess the people of the land that provided them with their living. This forced them into the cities, where often their only option is a life of poverty working in the sweatshops or factories that the mega-corporations have built there to take advantage of the cheap labor. The money that was borrowed to build these projects mostly ended up back in the pockets of the same multinational corporations that were encouraging the projects in the first place (back into the economy of the First World, in other words). Then, the IMF came in, demanded that the country restructure their economy and adopt new "austerity" measures to pay these loans back, and the First World corporations moved in and bought up nearly everything of value. Meanwhile, most of the benefits of the dams and other projects went into the service of the wealthy of the country, or sometimes into the tourist resorts peopled by our fellow citizens of the First World who want to visit these beautiful countries without any interruption of our comfortable lives by the ugly realities of poverty.
There are a multitude of other examples. I could go on for days about ways in which the debate has been hijacked and our own words turned to the service of our opponents. But I think you get my point. The advisors and consultants to President Bush know what the advisors of the left seem to have forgotten. If you let the other team set the terms of the debate, you are not going to win. If you repeat their slogans (even in an attempt to refute them), you have established the slogan in the minds and hearts of those hearing it. If we continue to go on with this charade, we will continue losing debates, elections, and eventually our hearts and souls. In fact, the stakes are higher than that. We could actually even lose our lives. So, let us endeavor to set out on a new path. We must never give into the temptation to use their language, to accept their facts without evidence. We must reclaim the language. Perhaps in time we will even manage to subvert the dominant paradigm.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).