Marketing the tax bill

If it don't go elsewhere, it goes here.
Timsup2nothin
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:24 pm

Marketing the tax bill

Post by Timsup2nothin » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:34 am

So, Dingbat Don had five families visit the White House and gush about the tax bill. The one I happened to hear had submitted their info for examination and D'ump, playing the role of game show host, excitedly informed them that they had won SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS. The proud winner informed us all that he planned to use this fifty dollar a month windfall to REMODEL THEIR HOUSE. Apparently D'ump's reality disassociation disease spreads rapidly upon exposure.

I'm hoping that someone splices in Ivanka finding out that the Trump family is winning TWO BILLION DOLLARS and telling us her plans for that.

User avatar
Cutlass
Site Admin
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:05 pm

Re: Marketing the tax bill

Post by Cutlass » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:54 am

It's easy enough to get someone to shill for things that the Republicans are pushing. After all, their entire existence at this point is reliant on people who don't understand what they're supporting.

hobbsyoyo
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:17 am

Re: Marketing the tax bill

Post by hobbsyoyo » Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:06 pm

Did anyone see Paul Ryan retweeting a woman who said she got a whopping $1.50 per paycheck out of the tax cut? It doesn't surprise me he's out of touch with reality but it does surprise me how insanely stupid that was.

I got $80 per paycheck and it's a pittance - especially compared to the damage this has done to our budget. And the fact that the tax cut is now being used as justification for slashing social spending is adding fuel to the fire. I'd happily give back the $80 and then some if it provides food and healthcare for those in need. Unfortunately, the only thing this administration wants to fund is military spending.

User avatar
Cutlass
Site Admin
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:05 pm

Re: Marketing the tax bill

Post by Cutlass » Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:20 pm

The GOPer leaders really are massively out of touch. This is the end game of increasingly living in an echo chamber for several decades. They don't even understand that most of the people who will take the most harm are GOPer voters. But then the GOPer voters will stick with them, because they think the colored people will be hurt even worse than they will.

Lexicus
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:52 pm

Re: Marketing the tax bill

Post by Lexicus » Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:12 pm

I think it's the Democrats who are massively out of touch. Republicans are "in touch" too well, because they own all the narratives around all the major issues. Discourse on so many things has become so thoroughly tied up with right-wing nonsense that it's very difficult to even speak clearly about political issues anymore let alone accurately diagnose problems or come up with solutions.

User avatar
Cutlass
Site Admin
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:05 pm

Re: Marketing the tax bill

Post by Cutlass » Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:14 am

I don't think the Democrats are so much out of touch, as incoherent. As a party they really don't stand for anything. This gives people no reason to go out of their way to vote for them. This means that particularly charismatic Democrats can do very well, but the party mostly does not.

GoodEnoughForMe
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:08 pm

Re: Marketing the tax bill

Post by GoodEnoughForMe » Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:09 am

Dems are more in touch than Republicans right now given their poll lead and general better approval rating in running things in generic candidate polls, but Trump's election showed us it's not so much that one is more in touch so much as none of them are in touch and everyone is angry.

hobbsyoyo
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:17 am

Re: Marketing the tax bill

Post by hobbsyoyo » Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:19 pm

I find a lot of truth in what Lexicus says. Far right ideology has been internalized to a great extent in our society such that the starting point of every political question is way out on the right fringe.

Lexicus
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:52 pm

Re: Marketing the tax bill

Post by Lexicus » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:53 pm

Cutlass wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:14 am
I don't think the Democrats are so much out of touch, as incoherent. As a party they really don't stand for anything. This gives people no reason to go out of their way to vote for them. This means that particularly charismatic Democrats can do very well, but the party mostly does not.
The party itself is largely composed of people from the professional class. Under Obama people in this class did very well. People outside it did not. And so I think "out of touch" is a good way to describe the situation. In the 2016 election I got the sense that many Democrats who supported Hillary were completely unaware of the hardships being faced by millions of Americans. And that's not to say that Trump and the Republicans were aware, or that voting for Trump was a rational response.

I also don't think that 'incoherent' is necessarily mutually exclusive with 'out of touch.' The Democrats are sort of incoherent, and the incoherence comes from the fact that they're basically trying to use totally reactionary framing to advance a fairly moderate program of social and economic liberalism.
hobbsyoyo wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:19 pm
I find a lot of truth in what Lexicus says. Far right ideology has been internalized to a great extent in our society such that the starting point of every political question is way out on the right fringe.
You want examples?
I think they want some examples, Pierce!
Okay, let's give them some examples. Troy, drop a beat.

The phrase "free market" has been twisted to mean essentially the opposite of its actual meaning. Any public figure who proposes a government regulation designed to facilitate free markets is asked why they hate free markets. The whole nonsense dichotomy of state vs private actors with state = socialism, private = capitalism, state = tyranny, market = freedom

All that is incredibly reactionary nonsense. It derives from PR that started in the 40s and 50s with the explicit goal of rolling back the New Deal.

2nd Amendment. I don't think I even need to elaborate. The slightest restriction on guns is portrayed as a step off an abyss of tyranny. The "right to firearms" that everyone always talks about was invented out of whole cloth by right-wing Supreme Court justices in like 2008.

White supremacy. White supremacy is the 'default' ideology of basically all mainstream discourse in the US. Whiteness is always the default. False concepts like "black on black crime" have readily entered popular consciousness and are accepted tropes for liberals as well as conservatives.

I'll quote some from this cool essay that was posted by a friend of a friend on social media:
Since around 1990, conservative rhetors have been systematically turning language into a weapon against liberals. Words are used in twisted and exaggerated ways, or with the opposite of their customary meanings. This affects the whole of the language. The goal of this distorted language is not simply to defeat an enemy but to destroy the minds of the people who believe themselves to be conservatives and who constantly challenge themselves to ever greater extremity in using it.
[...]
More importantly, conservative rhetors have been systematically mapping the language that has historically been used to describe the aristocracy and the traditional authorities that serve it, and have twisted those words into terms for liberals. This tactic has the dual advantage of both attacking the aristocracies' opponents and depriving them of the words that they have used to attack aristocracy.

A simple example is the term "race-baiting". In the Nexis database, uses of "race-baiting" undergo a sudden switch in the early 1990's. Before then, "race-baiting" referred to racists. Afterward, it referred in twisted way to people who oppose racism. What happened is simple: conservative rhetors, tired of the political advantage that liberals had been getting from their use of that word, took it away from them.

A more complicated example is the word "racist". Conservative rhetors have tried to take this word away as well by constantly coming up with new ways to stick the word onto liberals and their policies. For example they have referred to affirmative action as "racist". This is false; it is an attempt to destroy language. Racism is the notion that one race is intrinsically better than another. Affirmative action is arguably discriminatory, as a means of partially offsetting discrimination in other places and times, but it is not racist. Many conservative rhetors have even stuck the word "racist" on people just because they oppose racism. The notion seems to be that these people addressed themselves to the topic of race, and the word "racist" is sort of an adjective relating somehow to race. In any event this too is an attack on language.

A recent example is the word "hate". The civil rights movement had used the word "hate" to refer to terrorism and stereotyping against black people, and during the 1990's some in the press had identified as "Clinton-haters" people who had made vast numbers of bizarre claims that the Clintons had participated in murder and drug-dealing. Beginning around 2003, conservative rhetors took control of this word as well by labeling a variety of perfectly ordinary types of democratic opposition to George Bush as "hate". In addition, they have constructed a large number of messages of the form "liberals hate X" (e.g., X=America) and established within their media apparatus a sophistical pipeline of "facts" to support each one. This is also an example of the systematic breaking of associations.

The word "partisan" entered into its current political circulation in the early 1990's when some liberals identified people like Newt Gingrich as "partisan" for doing things like the memo on language that I mentioned earlier. To the conservative way of politics, there is nothing either true or false about the liberal claim. It is simply that liberals had taken control of some rhetorical territory: the word "partisan". Conservative rhetors then set about taking control of the word themselves. They did this in a way that has become mechanical. They first claimed, falsely, that liberals were identifying as "partisan" any views other than their own. They thus inflated the word while projecting this inflation onto the liberals and disconnecting the word from the particular facts that the liberals had associated with it. Next, they started using the word "partisan" in the inflated, dishonest way that they had ascribed to their opponents. This is, very importantly, a way of attacking people simply for having a different opinion. In twisting language this way, conservatives tell themselves that they are simply turning liberal unfairness back against the liberals. This too is projection.

Another common theme of conservative strategy is that liberals are themselves an aristocracy. (For those who are really keeping score, the sophisticated version of this is called the "new class strategy", the message being that liberals are the American version of the Soviet nomenklatura.) Thus, for example, the constant pelting of liberals as "elites", sticking this word and a mass of others semantically related to it onto liberals on every possible occasion. A pipeline of "facts" has been established to underwrite this message as well. Thus, for example, constant false conservative claims that the rich vote Democratic. When Al Franken recently referred to his new radio network as "the media elite and proud of it", he demonstrated his oblivion to the workings of the conservative discourse that he claims to contest.

Further examples of this are endless. When a Republican senator referred to "the few liberals", hardly any liberals gave any sign of getting what he meant: as all conservatives got just fine, he was appropriating the phrase "the few", referring to the aristocracy as opposed to "the many", and sticking this phrase in a false and mechanical way onto liberals. Rush Limbaugh asserts that "they [liberals] think they are better than you", this of course being a phrase that had historically been applied (and applied correctly) to the aristocracy. Conservative rhetors constantly make false or exaggerated claims that liberals are engaged in stereotyping -- the criticism of stereotyping having been one of history's most important rhetorical devices of democrats. And so on. The goal here is to make it impossible to criticize aristocracy.

[...]

Conservative remapping of the language of aristocracy and democracy has been incredibly thorough. Consider, for example, the terms "entitlement" and "dependency". The term "entitlement" originally referred to aristocrats. Aristocrats had titles, and they thought that they were thereby entitled to various things, particularly the deference of the common people. Everyone else, by contrast, was dependent on the aristocrats. This is conservatism. Yet in the 1990's, conservative rhetors decided that the people who actually claim entitlement are people on welfare. They furthermore created an empirically false association between welfare and dependency. But, as I have mentioned, welfare is precisely a way of eliminating dependency on the aristocracy and the cultural authorities that serve it. I do not recall anyone ever noting this inversion of meaning.

Lexicus
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:52 pm

Re: Marketing the tax bill

Post by Lexicus » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:25 pm

Totally by coincidence, I just saw this article bout how framing in the UK contributed to support for austerity and made it seem inevitable
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mic-policy

Post Reply