I wrote a previous post about metaphor use in politics. So my question now is, what constitutes a good or bad metaphor?
Here is an opinion piece by Paul Krugman. One of the metaphors in politics right now is "the economy is a stalled engine." The implications are that we need to jump start the engine, give it a quick burst of energy, and everything will be good again.
Well, first I suppose I should say my piece about the Obama -McConnel tax cut deal. It's great that they're trying stimulus, but the tax cuts for the wealthy are a terrible idea. MPC decreases as you deal with people who have higher and higher incomes, since there just isn't as much stuff for them to spend their new tax break money on, which means that the tax cuts on the wealthy won't actually generate much more spending. Tax cuts for the poor, who actually do need to spend a larger portion of their income in order to continue with their daily lives and thus have a higher MPC, will result in a larger increase in spending, since the poor are more likely to spend any money they would receive from tax cuts.
Of course, simply giving the wealthy tax cuts wouldn't be that much of a problem... if it wasn't for the deficit. Both the Democrats and Republicans use deficit reduction to support their arguments, but so far all we've seen is increases in the deficit. This tax cut on the wealthy simply serves to pile onto that deficit. Now, in my opinion, we shouldn't be so concerned about the deficit right now: Japan was worried about their deficit, and raised taxes too soon; they went into a recession and haven't come out for 20 years. We should really be trying to fix the recession first, and then later try and solve the deficit. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should pile onto the deficit; we should, however, as Krugman says, get the most bang for our buck. Tax cuts for the wealthy aren't the way to go for that.
As for the simulus itself, what we need right now is increased spending. Stimulus spending, or government spending, is spending. Therefore, it's good, and it's what we need right now. However, as Krugman says, we do need more spending, not the miniscule amount we're getting now.
So, anyway, the metaphor. So far I've mentioned immigration as dangerous waters, medical care as war, and the economy as a stalled engine. Which metaphors are good, and which ones are bad?
Well, in my previous post, I basically said that immigration as dangerous waters was a "bad" metaphor, since it skewed peoples perspectives on immigrants. All metaphors skew perspectives, since they are representing things in terms of other things. Political metaphors, especially, are designed to skew the perspectives of voters. Does this make all political metaphors bad?
Paul Krugman thinks that the economy as a stalled engine metaphor is a bad one. After all, the economy is not a stalled engine, and should not be given a jump start like a stalled engine. Krugman is right; the economy needs more, longer lasting stimulus spending, not a short boost. However, this argument can be applied to most metaphors: A is not B, and A should not be treated as B. So what differentiates good and bad metaphors? In the end, all metaphors fall short in some aspect, since two unlike things are necessarily different, and thus a metaphor will not be a perfect comparision in at least one way. I believe that the quality of a metaphor is entirely reliant on how people use it, and how people interpret it. I think the economy as a stalled engine, then, is a fine metaphor: sure, the economy needs more than just a jump start. But you know what? With the congress we have now, we're not going to get much more. So let's get a jump start: it's better than nothing.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Dichotomy
We're stuck in a recession, countries are defaulting on debt, China is buying up our debt, global warming is threatening to kill us all, Iran may be going nuclear, and North Korea is stirring something up-maybe.
No big deal.
Right?
Well, I mean, the US isn't really taking any sort of action, so these issues are probably small and will probably away.
...No.
We're on the brink of disaster (or perhaps we've already fallen off the brink), and our government won't do anything. Why? As you probably know, we have a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. And that's about it. We're done.
Democrats have one set of policies, goals, and ideas, and Republicans have an another set of goals (which involves blocking anything that Democrats stand for). As that stands, nothing is going to get done, because Republicans can use their majority in Congress to block anything from getting passed. No tax increases on the wealthy, no more stimulus, no nothing. To be fair, the Republicans have been making suggestions. These suggestions involve the removal of policies that Obama has put in place. Suggestions that were supposed to help us.
Obama has tried to compromise with the Republicans (or so it appears, anyway, although Obama isn't rolling back his previous policies, that's for sure). This compromise results in watered down bills that won't do much to help the economy. It appears as though his compromising and policies, while not really gaining Republican support, are alienating some of his Democratic base.
In short, the split between the two parties is so large, the animosity between the two parties so great, that even when they claim to have the same goal (i.e. help America), they beat each other up and block each other's actions. And we are desperately in need of some Federal action at this point (the Federal Reserve can only do so much; interest rates are already basically at zero, and the Fed is buying bonds to inject money into the economy. There's not much more that can be done with monetary policy. We need some fiscal policy now.). Otherwise, we're goners.
No big deal.
Right?
Well, I mean, the US isn't really taking any sort of action, so these issues are probably small and will probably away.
...No.
We're on the brink of disaster (or perhaps we've already fallen off the brink), and our government won't do anything. Why? As you probably know, we have a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. And that's about it. We're done.
Democrats have one set of policies, goals, and ideas, and Republicans have an another set of goals (which involves blocking anything that Democrats stand for). As that stands, nothing is going to get done, because Republicans can use their majority in Congress to block anything from getting passed. No tax increases on the wealthy, no more stimulus, no nothing. To be fair, the Republicans have been making suggestions. These suggestions involve the removal of policies that Obama has put in place. Suggestions that were supposed to help us.
Obama has tried to compromise with the Republicans (or so it appears, anyway, although Obama isn't rolling back his previous policies, that's for sure). This compromise results in watered down bills that won't do much to help the economy. It appears as though his compromising and policies, while not really gaining Republican support, are alienating some of his Democratic base.
In short, the split between the two parties is so large, the animosity between the two parties so great, that even when they claim to have the same goal (i.e. help America), they beat each other up and block each other's actions. And we are desperately in need of some Federal action at this point (the Federal Reserve can only do so much; interest rates are already basically at zero, and the Fed is buying bonds to inject money into the economy. There's not much more that can be done with monetary policy. We need some fiscal policy now.). Otherwise, we're goners.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Euphemisms
Some people say that politicians are sneaky people who say one thing and do another. Lots of promises are made to get elected, few promises are followed through with, politicians flip-flop on issues if their stance is unpopular; that sort of thing. Last post I discussed how politicians used metaphors in order to frame our thought, in order to gain our support.
Let's talk euphemisms.
Politicians don't have to tell untruths, sometimes. They can tell us the truth and many of us won't get it. For example, when politicians talk about their own plans, if said plans involve tax increases, they won't actually use the words "tax increase." Because tax increases are bad, because citizens don't want to pay higher taxes. Instead, they will say "revenue enhancement." Revenue enhancement is the process of increasing government revenues... by increasing taxes. Revenue enhancement is synonymous with tax increase, but since tax increase is a buzzword with negative connotations, politicians will use revenue enhancement when talking about their own plans. When trying to attack other politicans' plans, however, they WILL use the term "tax increase," due to similar but inverted logic.
Euphemisms are everywhere in politics. Pro-life and pro-choice both seem like good things, and you'd think you'd like to have both life and a choice, but these two concepts are actually mutually exclusive; the euphemisms simply make them seem like they're something that they're not.
Euphemisms, like metaphors, are used to shape the way we think. However, if you recognize what the euphemisms replace, these are fairly easy to see through.
Let's talk euphemisms.
Politicians don't have to tell untruths, sometimes. They can tell us the truth and many of us won't get it. For example, when politicians talk about their own plans, if said plans involve tax increases, they won't actually use the words "tax increase." Because tax increases are bad, because citizens don't want to pay higher taxes. Instead, they will say "revenue enhancement." Revenue enhancement is the process of increasing government revenues... by increasing taxes. Revenue enhancement is synonymous with tax increase, but since tax increase is a buzzword with negative connotations, politicians will use revenue enhancement when talking about their own plans. When trying to attack other politicans' plans, however, they WILL use the term "tax increase," due to similar but inverted logic.
Euphemisms are everywhere in politics. Pro-life and pro-choice both seem like good things, and you'd think you'd like to have both life and a choice, but these two concepts are actually mutually exclusive; the euphemisms simply make them seem like they're something that they're not.
Euphemisms, like metaphors, are used to shape the way we think. However, if you recognize what the euphemisms replace, these are fairly easy to see through.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Metaphors in politics
Recently, I read "Immigration as Dangerous Waters" by Otto Santa Ana, which was a part of "What's language got to do with it?" by Keith Walters and Michal Brody. As I read it, I thought to myself, "Huh, this is exactly the kind of stuff I wanted to write about in my blog," so here I am.
Otto writes about the metaphors used in speeches and debates over immigration. According to Otto's data, 58.2% of immigration metaphors were "immigration as dangerous waters," and 23.2% were "immigration as war."
If you're thinking, "huh?" I'll give you a couple examples and you should get the idea. For immigration as dangerous waters. This example mostly equates immigration to flooding (e.g., a flood of immigrants, a tidal wave of immigrants, an unrelenting tide of immigrants, etc.), and even directly parallels the effects of Hurricane Katrina to the potential effects of immigration. For immigration as war. This is a more humorous example; if you want more serious ones, it wouldn't be too hard to find them. In any case, the cartoon makes the metaphor obvious: immigrants are "invading" our country, and we need to "defend our borders" or "secure our borders."
This way of speaking about immigration is pretty common; so much so that many of us hardly even recognize that this is a metaphor. The language is ingrained into us so that we think of this as a natural way to talk about immigration. But speech can often influence how we view a topic. What are the consequences of viewing immigration as dangerous waters or as a war?
If we view immigraiton as dangerous waters, according to Otto Santa Ana, we dehumanize and collectivize immigrants into a large conglomeration of inorganic matter (water). We lose sight of what we are actually dealing with; the lives of real human people, real individuals. This way of speaking about immigrants also denies them any kind of real value; a tidal wave can't perform cheap labor or participate in capitalism or increase the US GDP. Instead, dangerous waters are harmful and destructive; they wash things away. In the case of immigration, these "dangerous waters" might be washing away anglo-American dominance or jobs or culture.
If we view immigration as war, we take it one step further; immigrants aren't particles of inorganic matter which do harm but are essentially neutral (since inorganic matter doesn't have feelings...). Instead, immigrants become "the enemy." I think it's pretty clear what the effects of labeling a group "the enemy" are.
Notice that the two dominant examples of immigration metaphors are mostly anti-immigration. There may be many reasons for this, but one of the most prominent ones I think it that the anti-immigration stance is largely conservative or Republican, and the Republican party has much stronger rhetoric than the Democratic party.
There are many metaphors that I notice now that I wouldn't have noticed before, since they are so deeply embeded in our language. For example, health care as war (fighting disease, war on cancer, war on AIDS, breakthroughs in medicine, invasive procedures, defensive medicine, brave patients, etc.)
What other metaphors have you noticed in politics?
Otto writes about the metaphors used in speeches and debates over immigration. According to Otto's data, 58.2% of immigration metaphors were "immigration as dangerous waters," and 23.2% were "immigration as war."
If you're thinking, "huh?" I'll give you a couple examples and you should get the idea. For immigration as dangerous waters. This example mostly equates immigration to flooding (e.g., a flood of immigrants, a tidal wave of immigrants, an unrelenting tide of immigrants, etc.), and even directly parallels the effects of Hurricane Katrina to the potential effects of immigration. For immigration as war. This is a more humorous example; if you want more serious ones, it wouldn't be too hard to find them. In any case, the cartoon makes the metaphor obvious: immigrants are "invading" our country, and we need to "defend our borders" or "secure our borders."
This way of speaking about immigration is pretty common; so much so that many of us hardly even recognize that this is a metaphor. The language is ingrained into us so that we think of this as a natural way to talk about immigration. But speech can often influence how we view a topic. What are the consequences of viewing immigration as dangerous waters or as a war?
If we view immigraiton as dangerous waters, according to Otto Santa Ana, we dehumanize and collectivize immigrants into a large conglomeration of inorganic matter (water). We lose sight of what we are actually dealing with; the lives of real human people, real individuals. This way of speaking about immigrants also denies them any kind of real value; a tidal wave can't perform cheap labor or participate in capitalism or increase the US GDP. Instead, dangerous waters are harmful and destructive; they wash things away. In the case of immigration, these "dangerous waters" might be washing away anglo-American dominance or jobs or culture.
If we view immigration as war, we take it one step further; immigrants aren't particles of inorganic matter which do harm but are essentially neutral (since inorganic matter doesn't have feelings...). Instead, immigrants become "the enemy." I think it's pretty clear what the effects of labeling a group "the enemy" are.
Notice that the two dominant examples of immigration metaphors are mostly anti-immigration. There may be many reasons for this, but one of the most prominent ones I think it that the anti-immigration stance is largely conservative or Republican, and the Republican party has much stronger rhetoric than the Democratic party.
There are many metaphors that I notice now that I wouldn't have noticed before, since they are so deeply embeded in our language. For example, health care as war (fighting disease, war on cancer, war on AIDS, breakthroughs in medicine, invasive procedures, defensive medicine, brave patients, etc.)
What other metaphors have you noticed in politics?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Voting
In English class, we read a book called The Poisonwood Bible.
In the book, there were two instances of voting. One in which the Congolese vote on whether they should believe in Jesus or their native gods, and one in which they vote on whether or not Leah should be allowed to participate in a hunt. The controversy in the second issue was that Leah is a woman, and women don't hunt, according to Congolese tradition.
In the case of the Jesus vote, Jesus lost by a wide margin. Of the Prices, only Ruth May had the guts to vote, and likely only because she wasn't fully aware of the significance of the vote, being a young child. Ruth May voted for Jesus, but this is only because she was the daughter of a preacher who had been stuffing Jesus down her throat since she was an infant. As far as we know, Ruth May was the only one who voted on blind faith (well, maybe blind-er faith).
This vote was interesting because all the villagers had their own opinions, and voted on them. If we had to correlate this with the American political system, the villagers would basically be independents, and Ruth May would really be the only one playing party politics. This is a stark contrast from the American politics, which is highly partisan. Compared to the huge margin of something on the order of five times more votes for native gods than Jesus, the recent midterm election vote, as with most votes in the United States, had a relatively small margin. Even among the independents, who don't associate themselves with specific parties, there was a relatively small margin between votes for Republicans and Democrats.
The difference in the magnitudes by which the winning party won in both votes could be attributed to party politics and to the complicated nature of United States politics. Perhaps more to the core of the issue though is that the United States runs on a representative democracy, or a republic, and the villagers actually had a democratic vote, where the villagers expressed their will on a particular issue. The fact that the margin of victory in US elections is small could be due to the nature of our political system; we're not always sure what we're getting when we vote for a particular person or party, and thus there is much confusion when it comes to voting, especially when partisan media is thrown into the mix. If we were to simply have democratic votes on every single issue, I predict that we would get a lot more decisive results. However, due to the time that would be consumed in this process and how informed the voters would have to be in order to make a meaningful vote, this is simply not feasible.
In the hunting vote, Leah won the right to go on the hunt. Leah won by a smaller margin than did the native deities. Perhaps this was because this was because a woman hunting was a change from the norm. Perhaps this was a reflection of some of the issues in the US system, since partisanship began to develop in the village, with schoolteacher Anatole leading one party and the tribe leader leading the other party.
So yeah. Partisanship leads to split votes. Partisanship is perhaps unavoidable in a representative democracy. And due to the nature of party politics, dynamic action and change is unlikely. Here's to the next two years.
In the book, there were two instances of voting. One in which the Congolese vote on whether they should believe in Jesus or their native gods, and one in which they vote on whether or not Leah should be allowed to participate in a hunt. The controversy in the second issue was that Leah is a woman, and women don't hunt, according to Congolese tradition.
In the case of the Jesus vote, Jesus lost by a wide margin. Of the Prices, only Ruth May had the guts to vote, and likely only because she wasn't fully aware of the significance of the vote, being a young child. Ruth May voted for Jesus, but this is only because she was the daughter of a preacher who had been stuffing Jesus down her throat since she was an infant. As far as we know, Ruth May was the only one who voted on blind faith (well, maybe blind-er faith).
This vote was interesting because all the villagers had their own opinions, and voted on them. If we had to correlate this with the American political system, the villagers would basically be independents, and Ruth May would really be the only one playing party politics. This is a stark contrast from the American politics, which is highly partisan. Compared to the huge margin of something on the order of five times more votes for native gods than Jesus, the recent midterm election vote, as with most votes in the United States, had a relatively small margin. Even among the independents, who don't associate themselves with specific parties, there was a relatively small margin between votes for Republicans and Democrats.
The difference in the magnitudes by which the winning party won in both votes could be attributed to party politics and to the complicated nature of United States politics. Perhaps more to the core of the issue though is that the United States runs on a representative democracy, or a republic, and the villagers actually had a democratic vote, where the villagers expressed their will on a particular issue. The fact that the margin of victory in US elections is small could be due to the nature of our political system; we're not always sure what we're getting when we vote for a particular person or party, and thus there is much confusion when it comes to voting, especially when partisan media is thrown into the mix. If we were to simply have democratic votes on every single issue, I predict that we would get a lot more decisive results. However, due to the time that would be consumed in this process and how informed the voters would have to be in order to make a meaningful vote, this is simply not feasible.
In the hunting vote, Leah won the right to go on the hunt. Leah won by a smaller margin than did the native deities. Perhaps this was because this was because a woman hunting was a change from the norm. Perhaps this was a reflection of some of the issues in the US system, since partisanship began to develop in the village, with schoolteacher Anatole leading one party and the tribe leader leading the other party.
So yeah. Partisanship leads to split votes. Partisanship is perhaps unavoidable in a representative democracy. And due to the nature of party politics, dynamic action and change is unlikely. Here's to the next two years.
Monday, October 25, 2010
The Constitution
The Tea Party has brought the Constitution to the forefront of American politics. If you're not familiar with this topic, here are some links.
There are many ways I can go with this blog post, but I'm going to focus on the implications, the impact, the power of bringing the word "Constitution" into the fray.
The Constitution is a powerful concept. Constitutionality is the basis on which laws are judged. The Constitution is what our government is based on. Students learn about the Constitution in school. And now, political debate serves to further the prominence of the Constitution.
From what I have seen, although many people know of the Constitution and believe the Constitution to be significant and important, not many people know what is actually written in the Constitution. Many only know of couple of the articles in the Bill of Rights, and do not know the exact wording of said articles. With the internet, this isn't such a problem, since all this information can be looked up. However, I have found that many people do not bother to even look up said information.
So here we have this concept that many people believe to be important and powerful, which many people do not understand. The situation is just oozing with exploitative potential.
Tea Party candidates bring up the idea that the Constitution is on their side, and try to win support via their Constitutional legitimacy. In case you were about to write off the Tea Party as a joke and that nobody would believe their arguments, note that the Tea Party has more positive than negative associations, according to the Global Language Monitor. It is entirely possible that their Constitutionality argument may prove to be somewhat effective.
The kicker? The Constitution is not a very specific mandate on how Americans should run their nation; the founding fathers did not know what the world would be like in 2010. The Constitution is and was meant to be a guideline for how to run our nation. As a result, it leaves much room for interpretation. As a result, their interpretations of the Constitution may not be "wrong." (although the sources I linked to may, in fact, say that their interpretations are wrong.) So besides the fact that the Constitution is powerful and well-known, and besides the fact that many people do not actually know what is written in the Constitution, the Constitution is ambiguous enough that many different but perfectly legitimate arguments can be made using the Constitution in order to support very differing or or even radical points of view. Triple whammy. At the same time, opposition to the Tea Party can use these same aspects of the Constitution to make solid counterarguments. But the Tea Party brought up the issue first. Will that give the Tea Party authority and legitimacy on the topic of the Constitution in the eyes of Americans?
There are many ways I can go with this blog post, but I'm going to focus on the implications, the impact, the power of bringing the word "Constitution" into the fray.
The Constitution is a powerful concept. Constitutionality is the basis on which laws are judged. The Constitution is what our government is based on. Students learn about the Constitution in school. And now, political debate serves to further the prominence of the Constitution.
From what I have seen, although many people know of the Constitution and believe the Constitution to be significant and important, not many people know what is actually written in the Constitution. Many only know of couple of the articles in the Bill of Rights, and do not know the exact wording of said articles. With the internet, this isn't such a problem, since all this information can be looked up. However, I have found that many people do not bother to even look up said information.
So here we have this concept that many people believe to be important and powerful, which many people do not understand. The situation is just oozing with exploitative potential.
Tea Party candidates bring up the idea that the Constitution is on their side, and try to win support via their Constitutional legitimacy. In case you were about to write off the Tea Party as a joke and that nobody would believe their arguments, note that the Tea Party has more positive than negative associations, according to the Global Language Monitor. It is entirely possible that their Constitutionality argument may prove to be somewhat effective.
The kicker? The Constitution is not a very specific mandate on how Americans should run their nation; the founding fathers did not know what the world would be like in 2010. The Constitution is and was meant to be a guideline for how to run our nation. As a result, it leaves much room for interpretation. As a result, their interpretations of the Constitution may not be "wrong." (although the sources I linked to may, in fact, say that their interpretations are wrong.) So besides the fact that the Constitution is powerful and well-known, and besides the fact that many people do not actually know what is written in the Constitution, the Constitution is ambiguous enough that many different but perfectly legitimate arguments can be made using the Constitution in order to support very differing or or even radical points of view. Triple whammy. At the same time, opposition to the Tea Party can use these same aspects of the Constitution to make solid counterarguments. But the Tea Party brought up the issue first. Will that give the Tea Party authority and legitimacy on the topic of the Constitution in the eyes of Americans?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Midterm elections
With the midterm elections coming up, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at what people are talking about in politics. Thanks to the Global Language Monitor's Narrative Tracker, I was able to find a list of the top 30 most-frequently-electronically-discussed topics relevant to American politics. Here it is, straight from GLM:
"1. Narrative – Idea of the narrative is a strong No. 1
2. Lower Taxes – 600% higher than Raise Taxes (No. 10)
3. Obama Muslim Connection - Two weeks before 2008 Election it was No . 6
4. Conservatives – Stand at 43% of sample citations
5. Climate Change – Always one of Top 5
6. Liberal - Liberal/Progressives stand at 33% of Citations
7. Recession (linked to Obama) – Over 4x the number that link to GWB (No.20)
8. Hillary Clinton – Hillary Ascendant
9. Tea Partiers – Very strong for a recent phenomenon
10. Obama Aloof, detached, Professorial – Reached peak in reaction to his handling the Gulf Oil
Spill
11. Raise Taxes – Only 16% of lower taxes (No. 2)
12. Progressive – 74% of Liberal citations; Liberal/Progressives stand at 33% of Citations
13. Deficit Spending – Close to Out-of-Control Spending (No.15)
14. Independents – Independents stand at 20% of citations
15. Out-of-control Spending — Spending is widely viewed as out-of-control
16. Sarah Palin – Apparently, opposition only makes her stronger
17. Healthcare Mandate – Nearly triple the concern for HC Reform (No. 21)
18. Change you can believe in – Not so much, these days
19. Iraq War – Far from top of Mind
20. Recession (linked to Bush) – Warning to Dems, this is fading from view
21. Healthcare reform – Comes in just a bit higher than the Gulf Oil Spill
22. BP Gulf Oil Spill — The BP SpillCam was the No. 1 Television Word (Teleword) of the Year
23. Anti-incumbent — It’s not just a matter of anger; lower than pundits have it
24. Obama “oil spill” response — Major factor in negativity of overall narrative
25. Al Qaeda – Low ranking reflected by several polls, also
26. George Bush — Not much value in running a ‘Not Bush’ Campaign
27. Wall Street Bailout – Bush, Bailout, Pelosi and Limbaugh, Cheney (and Reid) line up closely
28. Grand Zero Mosque – More than 110 times the number of citations for 51 Park Place
29. Nancy Pelosi — Off the radar nowadays
30. Rush Limbaugh – Interesting pairing at Nos, 29 and 30, no?"
Many of these words relate to Obama. Not surprising; he is the President. Perhaps more pertinent is the fact that many of these words relate to Obama as person, instead of to Obama's policies. The narrative Obama painted for himself, Obama's Muslim connection, Obama's aloof, detached, Professorial style/personality, etc. deal with him as a person. Why is there more talk now about Obama as a person? Perhaps it is because in 2008, very few people knew about Obama as a person, but many were willing to take a gamble on change. Now, after electing him, we may be trying to get to know him; or perhaps use our lack of understanding about Obama to portray him in a negative light.
Note that many of these "buzzwords" pertaining to Obama as a person are not meant to be viewed positively. Obama's narrative, which he painted using 2 autobiographies and his speeches, could now begin to more thoroughly examined, and perhaps undone. Associating Obama with Muslims taps into Islamophobia in the states stemming from 9/11, and perhaps generates mistrust from American non-Muslims, and specifically Christians (who make up over 50% of the United States). Calling Obama aloof and/or detached [as opposed to, say, professional and objective] paints a picture of an incompetent aristocratic ruler who is not aware of the needs of his people. Aloof/detached are associated with uncaring, uninterested, and uninformed. These are not qualities one would like to see in a President, and are meant to drive people away from voting for the party that Obama is associated with. The Democrats, in case you were wondering.
Apart from Obama as a person, there seems to be much talk over how Obama's policies are not good, ineffective, or bad. There seems to be much concern over tax policies and government spending, as both raise/lower taxes and deficit/out-of-control spending are on the list. The recession seems to be associated more with Obama than with Bush now, possibly because of the health care bill that was passed, increasing our deficit, or possibly because of a lack of action on the government's part to alleviate the recession.
In any case, there seems to be much negative portrayal of Obama and thus of the Democratic Party. I would expect the Democrats to lose seats. The question is, if the Democrats lose seats, who will actually be there to take the seats?
"1. Narrative – Idea of the narrative is a strong No. 1
2. Lower Taxes – 600% higher than Raise Taxes (No. 10)
3. Obama Muslim Connection - Two weeks before 2008 Election it was No . 6
4. Conservatives – Stand at 43% of sample citations
5. Climate Change – Always one of Top 5
6. Liberal - Liberal/Progressives stand at 33% of Citations
7. Recession (linked to Obama) – Over 4x the number that link to GWB (No.20)
8. Hillary Clinton – Hillary Ascendant
9. Tea Partiers – Very strong for a recent phenomenon
10. Obama Aloof, detached, Professorial – Reached peak in reaction to his handling the Gulf Oil
Spill
11. Raise Taxes – Only 16% of lower taxes (No. 2)
12. Progressive – 74% of Liberal citations; Liberal/Progressives stand at 33% of Citations
13. Deficit Spending – Close to Out-of-Control Spending (No.15)
14. Independents – Independents stand at 20% of citations
15. Out-of-control Spending — Spending is widely viewed as out-of-control
16. Sarah Palin – Apparently, opposition only makes her stronger
17. Healthcare Mandate – Nearly triple the concern for HC Reform (No. 21)
18. Change you can believe in – Not so much, these days
19. Iraq War – Far from top of Mind
20. Recession (linked to Bush) – Warning to Dems, this is fading from view
21. Healthcare reform – Comes in just a bit higher than the Gulf Oil Spill
22. BP Gulf Oil Spill — The BP SpillCam was the No. 1 Television Word (Teleword) of the Year
23. Anti-incumbent — It’s not just a matter of anger; lower than pundits have it
24. Obama “oil spill” response — Major factor in negativity of overall narrative
25. Al Qaeda – Low ranking reflected by several polls, also
26. George Bush — Not much value in running a ‘Not Bush’ Campaign
27. Wall Street Bailout – Bush, Bailout, Pelosi and Limbaugh, Cheney (and Reid) line up closely
28. Grand Zero Mosque – More than 110 times the number of citations for 51 Park Place
29. Nancy Pelosi — Off the radar nowadays
30. Rush Limbaugh – Interesting pairing at Nos, 29 and 30, no?"
Many of these words relate to Obama. Not surprising; he is the President. Perhaps more pertinent is the fact that many of these words relate to Obama as person, instead of to Obama's policies. The narrative Obama painted for himself, Obama's Muslim connection, Obama's aloof, detached, Professorial style/personality, etc. deal with him as a person. Why is there more talk now about Obama as a person? Perhaps it is because in 2008, very few people knew about Obama as a person, but many were willing to take a gamble on change. Now, after electing him, we may be trying to get to know him; or perhaps use our lack of understanding about Obama to portray him in a negative light.
Note that many of these "buzzwords" pertaining to Obama as a person are not meant to be viewed positively. Obama's narrative, which he painted using 2 autobiographies and his speeches, could now begin to more thoroughly examined, and perhaps undone. Associating Obama with Muslims taps into Islamophobia in the states stemming from 9/11, and perhaps generates mistrust from American non-Muslims, and specifically Christians (who make up over 50% of the United States). Calling Obama aloof and/or detached [as opposed to, say, professional and objective] paints a picture of an incompetent aristocratic ruler who is not aware of the needs of his people. Aloof/detached are associated with uncaring, uninterested, and uninformed. These are not qualities one would like to see in a President, and are meant to drive people away from voting for the party that Obama is associated with. The Democrats, in case you were wondering.
Apart from Obama as a person, there seems to be much talk over how Obama's policies are not good, ineffective, or bad. There seems to be much concern over tax policies and government spending, as both raise/lower taxes and deficit/out-of-control spending are on the list. The recession seems to be associated more with Obama than with Bush now, possibly because of the health care bill that was passed, increasing our deficit, or possibly because of a lack of action on the government's part to alleviate the recession.
In any case, there seems to be much negative portrayal of Obama and thus of the Democratic Party. I would expect the Democrats to lose seats. The question is, if the Democrats lose seats, who will actually be there to take the seats?
Monday, October 4, 2010
On Obama's Record
According to Stephen Walt, Obama's record looks terrible, but is not really as bad as it looks.
Obama's record does look terrible. For many Americans, words like "Iraq," "Iran," "Afghanistan," "Palestine," and "recession" are negatively associated with Obama's policies. These words carry much weight to Americans: the memories of those who died in 9/11, the lives of the Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, job loss, increasing income and wealth gaps between the poor and the wealthy, poverty, etc. America's failures abroad and it's economic troubles at home deeply unsettle it's citizens. And unfortunately for Obama, the President is usually the one who takes the most flak or praise (deserved or undeserved) for the current state of America, and especially its economic condition. As it is, Obama is taking a lot of blame for our situation.
Have Americans forgotten Bush? The one who previously took the brunt of the anger over our wars abroad? I doubt it. So then, why are Obama's ratings going down as much as they are? Well, first of all, it's as I said previously; America isn't doing well, and Obama is the President. He will take blame simply because he is the one who is perceived to be in charge.
However, perhaps more disconcerting to Americans is the lack of "change we can believe in." Change and hope are powerful messages, especially in tough times; this message was amplified by repetition by Obama and the Democratic Party. But, if after all the rhetoric, there has not been "change we can believe in," perhaps Americans are rightfully offended by Obama's record. A small stimulus package was passed along with a scaled-down version of health care reform: too much change for some, not enough change for others. The war in Afghanistan was escalated: change we can believe in? We're currently pulling out of Iraq tentatively following a schedule set by Bush in 2008. And there is much controversy over when/if/how we should pull out. And although Obama wishes for "two-states for two peoples" and peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, Israel continues building settlements in areas that Palestine desires, fueling tensions between the two nations.
Walt does a nice job of covering what Obama does well that he doesn't get much credit for, because rather than causing something good to happen, he potentially prevented something bad from happening. Our economy perhaps didn't fall as badly as it could have. And yes, we technically came out of the recession in 2009 based on the GDP. However, to say that Obama's record may be better than it looks may be a stretch; should Obama be praised for his small moves, whether you believe they were good moves, bad moves, or maintained the equilibrium, when he promised "change we can believe in?"
Obama's record does look terrible. For many Americans, words like "Iraq," "Iran," "Afghanistan," "Palestine," and "recession" are negatively associated with Obama's policies. These words carry much weight to Americans: the memories of those who died in 9/11, the lives of the Americans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, job loss, increasing income and wealth gaps between the poor and the wealthy, poverty, etc. America's failures abroad and it's economic troubles at home deeply unsettle it's citizens. And unfortunately for Obama, the President is usually the one who takes the most flak or praise (deserved or undeserved) for the current state of America, and especially its economic condition. As it is, Obama is taking a lot of blame for our situation.
Have Americans forgotten Bush? The one who previously took the brunt of the anger over our wars abroad? I doubt it. So then, why are Obama's ratings going down as much as they are? Well, first of all, it's as I said previously; America isn't doing well, and Obama is the President. He will take blame simply because he is the one who is perceived to be in charge.
However, perhaps more disconcerting to Americans is the lack of "change we can believe in." Change and hope are powerful messages, especially in tough times; this message was amplified by repetition by Obama and the Democratic Party. But, if after all the rhetoric, there has not been "change we can believe in," perhaps Americans are rightfully offended by Obama's record. A small stimulus package was passed along with a scaled-down version of health care reform: too much change for some, not enough change for others. The war in Afghanistan was escalated: change we can believe in? We're currently pulling out of Iraq tentatively following a schedule set by Bush in 2008. And there is much controversy over when/if/how we should pull out. And although Obama wishes for "two-states for two peoples" and peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, Israel continues building settlements in areas that Palestine desires, fueling tensions between the two nations.
Walt does a nice job of covering what Obama does well that he doesn't get much credit for, because rather than causing something good to happen, he potentially prevented something bad from happening. Our economy perhaps didn't fall as badly as it could have. And yes, we technically came out of the recession in 2009 based on the GDP. However, to say that Obama's record may be better than it looks may be a stretch; should Obama be praised for his small moves, whether you believe they were good moves, bad moves, or maintained the equilibrium, when he promised "change we can believe in?"
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Language Issues in American Politics
The 2008 presidential election was a fun time. I remember when some of my friends updated their Facebook statuses: "If Obama gets elected, we will become socialist. My grandmother lived in a socialist nation and it was bad. Obama better not get elected." Either my friends were doing their best to influence the opinions of others using the stigma of socialism, or else they themselves were duped into believing what they wrote by the Republican designation of Obama's tax plans, health care plans, and his moderate/liberal agenda as socialism. Either way, the Republican designation of Obama's agenda as socialism was a clever (if underhanded) smear. Words, like socialism, and symbols carry stigma, associations, connotations, and allusions that will drive people to think in a certain way, even if they are unsure of what the words actually mean.
Obama is now president. Does the United States now run under a socialist economic model? Or, since some people probably associated socialism with the Soviet Union, has the United States become like the Evil Empire and adopted a totalitarian political model? If the answer to either question is yes, you may want to pick up a dictionary [or use Google] and look up the definitions to one or more of the words I have used, and then you too can begin to pick up on the truth and fiction of political struggles. It should have been obvious that the United States would not turn into the United Soviet Socialist States due to a single presidential election, especially considering that the president is not a unilaterally authoritarian figure in our society. So why were we worked up so much over the word socialism? Because, as a society, many of us don't understand the intricacies of what is being talked about in politics. So when we hear something we understand (or think we understand), like "Socialism," we jump on it. Socialism, evil, bad, hate. Politicians take advantage of this tendency of ours. And so, I am creating this blog to illuminate some of these language issues in American politics.
I am Albert Xiao. I am a senior in highschool. I am not a political genius. I am a guy with a dictionary and the desire to clean up the mud slung in the political rhetoric of today.
Obama is now president. Does the United States now run under a socialist economic model? Or, since some people probably associated socialism with the Soviet Union, has the United States become like the Evil Empire and adopted a totalitarian political model? If the answer to either question is yes, you may want to pick up a dictionary [or use Google] and look up the definitions to one or more of the words I have used, and then you too can begin to pick up on the truth and fiction of political struggles. It should have been obvious that the United States would not turn into the United Soviet Socialist States due to a single presidential election, especially considering that the president is not a unilaterally authoritarian figure in our society. So why were we worked up so much over the word socialism? Because, as a society, many of us don't understand the intricacies of what is being talked about in politics. So when we hear something we understand (or think we understand), like "Socialism," we jump on it. Socialism, evil, bad, hate. Politicians take advantage of this tendency of ours. And so, I am creating this blog to illuminate some of these language issues in American politics.
I am Albert Xiao. I am a senior in highschool. I am not a political genius. I am a guy with a dictionary and the desire to clean up the mud slung in the political rhetoric of today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)