A smart New Year’s resolution you can easily keep
Wordsmith and Republican strategist Dr. Frank Luntz has made a living recognizing the importance of words. He wrote the book Words that Work, on the subject — concluding “words matter.” We agree. And so, obviously, do those on the left. The word they despise is “liberal.” It’s a descriptive term they run from, since it clearly delineates who and what they are.
A time honored tactic of the left is obfuscation. Liberals revel in being able to conceal their true identity. They hide their haughty rancor and affect a pretense of concern, as they engage in class warfare and ever-greater spending — while levying higher taxes on the risk-taking job creators to gift their base with redistributed earning of others.
The word “liberal” precisely describes this well-honed proclivity. It’s no wonder they prefer the term “progressive” to obscure the truth.
Yet more and more frequently we hear supposedly conservative commentators using the word “progressive” to describe liberals — playing their game, with their rules, and facilitating their disguise.
Merriam-Webster and the Free Dictionary each define “progressive” in the kindest of terms — of advocating improvement, moving forward and making progress toward better conditions or making use of, or interested in, new ideas, findings, or opportunities — characterized by progress or by continuous improvement.
Do you think these soft phrases describe the liberal agenda?
As Luntz says, “Words matter.” Think about the deliberate choice of words used in advertising. If “progressive” carried a negative connotation, a large insurance company wouldn’t define itself with that name. Few who are pro-life would consider using the words “pro-choice” to identify those who are “pro-abortion,” because we know all too well that the “choice” they advocate is death of pre-born human babies.
Remember that in 2008, a relatively unknown Barack Obama sailed into the presidency on the single word “hope.” Earlier, Bill Clinton made book on the same word. Rush Limbaugh nearly lost his career over one word: “slut.”
Effective language is powerful, which is why the left disdains “liberal” and eagerly seeks cover with “progressive.”
Let’s not help them. This year, drop “progressive” when describing liberals. Let’s get back to calling them what they are.
I for one refuse to say Progressive, that is a word they use to soften their idiology. I have had some get upset with me when I correct them, especially when I hear a very conservative person use it. One actually told me that was the new acceptable ternimology, tisk tisk,
This post says what I’ve long thought, also. And like you CD9, I have made this important point to friends. I’ve concluded they think they are being hip using the latest terminology. I think they sound like fools, giving the liberals exactly the cover they desire.
Great points! I am so sick of hearing Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and other supposed conservatives use the word “progressive” ad nauseum. This must thrill the hell out of liberals.
O’Reilly is not a platform-based Republican. He is a registered Independent and has clearly stated on numerous occasions that he does not identify with any political party. To confuse him or some of the other Fox News hosts with the conservative vantage point is absurd.
By the way, in 2010, he reportedly was paid $20 million for espousing his largely “progressive” (O’Reilly is hooked on that word!!)ideas. We are being duped by Fox. Hannity and Greta Van Sistern lost me with their continual lovefest with McCain in 2010.
Haven’t you noticed that Fox has more paid liberal panelists than conservative? Just because they are not as far left as MSNBC and the mainstream alphabet networks, don’t confuse the Fox with conservatism. They originally hooked us with “fair and balanced.” Now they are mostly “unfair” and “unbalanced.”
Another term, “moderate”…needs to GO! R.I.N.O. is the accurate term, see also LIAR & HYPOCRITE…
Just read your comment on the word “moderate.” You are absolutely correct, Doc. I’ve NEVER used that word to describe liberals. It’s another word that takes the hard edge off what they are all about, which in my opinion is institutionalizing SOCIALISM.
Right on, Seeing Red!!! This misuse of language and facilitating the disguise perpetrated by liberals has been irksome to me, too. So glad to see this being pointed out. I’m sending this post to several people I know who view themselves as conservatives, but play the Demos game by letting them alter the language they speak. The only change they are effecting is aiding and abetting liberals as they continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the American voters. The past two elections should be enough to make us realize we need to draw sharp parallels between us, not soften who the enemy actually is. If you think “enemy” is too tough a word, look back over the past four years to see what is being done to the United States of America. Then picture the USA your grandchildren and theirs will inherit.
Thank you! This so clearly reflects my thoughts. Why would any conservative ever allow leftists define our conversation?
At one time Moderate, Progressive, and Liberal were all good words for politicians. Things have changed in their meanings and now they seem to describe the far left. Until and unless the Republicans can turn the tables on the Democrats and replace the ideas of the far right with the ideas of center right, the democrats will continue to win and Arizona will become a reliable Democrat state like California, New Mexico, and Nevada.
How about five examples of “far right” ideas and their “center right” alternatives Mr W?
1776:
I have asked Westnash in the past to define “far right”. He has failed to do so. Now you are asking him the same question in a different way. Don’t hold your breath, LOL!
“Far right” is a term coined by the Liberal left in an attempt to paint Conservatives as extreme. Westnash seeks to move Conservatives to the left by making the false claim that Conservatives can’t win elections. That claim doesn’t hold up.
If we look at the election for Mayor of Phoenix, we were not offered a Conservative Republican candidate. The Democrat won.
McCain, who is most definitely not a Conservative, ran for president on the Republican ticket and lost.
Romney, who also is not a Conservative, ran for president on the Republican ticket this time and lost.
So the record reflects that those Republicans who are, to use the terms of Westnash, “center right” are those who lose elections.
Republicans have tried the approach of Westnash and lost every time. Westnash will undoubtedly claim that those candidates who lost were not “center” enough, meaning they should have been even more to the left. Republicans can be certain of winning if they nominate for office the same candidates that Democrats nominate. That would be a “victory” but a Pyrrhic victory!
Certainly,
5 Far Right:
1. Refusing to compromise on Gun Laws in wake of the recent shootings and publicity.
2. Refusing to compromise on fiscal cliff issues.
3. Touting Joe McCarthy for anything but the buffoon he was.
4. Insisting on the full Military Budget.
5. Refusing to discuss the immigration issue and developing a “guest worker” program.
These are killer issues for the National Republican party.
Thank you for the insight Mr. W
Far Right:
1. Refusing to compromise on Gun Laws in wake of the recent shootings and publicity.
Great Britain and Australia currently regulate firearms in private hands almost to extinction. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html for a reasonable discussion and whether it’s worked or not.
2. Refusing to compromise on fiscal cliff issues.
This is a killer issue but not for the reasons you think. Obama refused to compromise and the REPs gave him virtually everything he wanted. He has pocketed that and is demanding more. If the Republicans continue to prove they can’t stand up to Obama the party will sustain damage. You should be happy about this. A complaint I hear frequently is that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties. For a dispassionate discussion on the agreement results, go here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/01/02/secrets-of-the-fiscal-cliff-deal/ and enjoy paying higher taxes starting now.
3. Touting Joe McCarthy for anything but the buffoon he was.
Actually there were Communists in the government and Hollywood. When the Soviet Union fell (during Reagan’s term) Soviet archive records became available proving many cases. “Intellectuals” on the Left were convinced that Stalin’s communism was the wave of the future. Even those who saw the millions who starved in Ukraine over the course of the famine he used to subdue his opponents refused to talk about it publicly. More at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038774/Holocaust-hunger-The-truth-Stalins-Great-Famine.html
4. Insisting on the full Military Budget.
We could absolutely do with a European style weak military if you don’t mind learning Arabic and praying five times a day. Actually, we haven’t fought a war to win since WWII. Personally I think it’s because if we had lost WWII the first people to hang would have been the folks in DC and they knew it. They haven’t been really threatened since so winning hasn’t been high on the priority list. If you don’t like guns or the military, let us know by posting a “This house is gun free” sign on your front lawn.
5. Refusing to discuss the immigration issue and developing a “guest worker” program.
I haven’t been to a Republican meeting where there wasn’t someone discussing the immigration issue. The Democrats won’t discuss the issue with Republicans because they think it’s the source of their next generation of voters and as long as there’s no solution they can use it to get out their current voters. The issue could go away in a New York Minute. If the Democrats would agree to control the border the Republicans would get to work on a guest worker program. Of course the Unions would never allow the Democrats to participate in that one.
None of these issues are “far right.” They are quite reasonable stands that are labeled “far right” because that moves the baseline making the Democrat’s preference for Marxist socialism look less “ultra left.”
“Far right” used to describe thinks like sterilizing welfare moms, or debtors prisons. “Far left” used to describe things like registering guns and confiscating property from the rich and giving it to the poor. Guess where we are just now…
Excellent, 1776! :-)
Words certainly do matter. At one time Moderate, Progressive, and Liberal were all good words for politicians. Things have changed in their meanings and now they seem to describe the far left. Until and unless the Republicans can turn the tables on the Democrats and replace the ideas of the far right with the ideas of center right, the democrats will continue to win and Arizona will become a reliable Democrat state like California, New Mexico, and Nevada.
The statement above by Westnash is an absolutely classic, textbook example of Communist propaganda at it’s finest! This is worth looking at and analyzing.
All lefitst arguments are false. They are intended to get the young, the vulnerable and the weak minded to do the bidding of the Liberal left. What, precisely, are the false premises underlying the statement by Wetnash above? The false logic goes like this:
1 – Republicans need to win.
2 – It’s the ideas of the “far right” which keep Republicans from winning.
3 – Therefore, if we replace the ideas of the “far right” with the ideas of the “center right”, Republicans will win.
Let’s have a closer look at this “logic”, shall we?
1 – “Republicans need to win.” Incorrect. John McCain and Jeff Flake are both Republicans. Conservatives don’t support either of them. The truth is that Conservatives need to win. If they happen to be Republicans that’s fine, but it isn’t necessary. What Conservatives are concerned about is the direction in which our country is headed. If the “Blue Goose Party” represents Conservative values, then we’ll support the “Blue Goose Party”.
This isn’t a football game where we choose a favorite team and root for that team no matter what. We are Republicans BECAUSE the Republican Party has traditionally represented Conservative views. If the Republican Party or individual Republicans abandon Conservative positions, then we no longer have any use for them. McCain and Flake are primary examples of this.
2 – “It’s the ideas of the ‘far right’ which keep Republicans from winning.” Oh, this one is a beauty, LOL!
You’ll notice that Westnash isn’t specific about positions. He simply uses the vague term, “far right”. The “far” part is designed to imply “far from normal”, somewhere out on the fringes of the bell curve. This is akin to blaming things on “they” or “them”. “You know, THEM!” What is the concept behind this?
The idea is to permit the reader to “fill in the blank”. There is something out there which is on the “right” and it is that which is keeping Republicans from winning, not something on the “left”! The next step, of course, is to “help” readers to fill in the blank. That is done by portraying mainstream Conservative positions and values as that “thing” on the “far right” which keeps Republicans from winning. Pretty slick, isn’t it?
3 – “Therefore, if we replace the ideas of the ‘far right’ with the ideas of the ‘center right’, Republicans will win.” This is the “close”. Westnash seeks to “close the deal”. But let’s examine where he has sought to take readers!
The underlying concept here is to move readers to the left in an incremental manner. This sort of incremental approach, or soft approach, is characteristic of the manner in which Communists operate. They understand that a “hard push” is too obvious and engenders resistance, backlash. So instead, they seek to “finesse” people to the left an inch at a time. They are in the game for the long haul and movement of an inch is quite satisfactory… as long as it’s an inch to the left!
Why is Westnash seeking to ply his trade here, in a Conservative blog? Because as long as there are Conservatives who refuse to capitulate, the Liberal leftists can NEVER prevail! They know that. They can make inroads but they will never take over as long as there are Conservatives who actively oppose their agenda. THAT is why Westnash is here! He seeks to work on the one obstacle to his Liberal, leftist dreams; Conservatives!
Sorry, Westnash. No sale! Pack up your goods and try somewhere else. The Conservatives here aren’t buying your snake oil!
First, let me address this comment posted by Westnash:
“Certainly,
5 Far Right:
1. Refusing to compromise on Gun Laws in wake of the recent shootings and publicity.
2. Refusing to compromise on fiscal cliff issues.
3. Touting Joe McCarthy for anything but the buffoon he was.
4. Insisting on the full Military Budget.
5. Refusing to discuss the immigration issue and developing a “guest worker” program.
These are killer issues for the National Republican party.”
Let’s look at #1:
“Refusing to compromise…” So those Conservatives who “refuse to compromise” constitute the “far right” and cost Republicans elections. According to Westnash, we need to “compromise”, then we are not the “far right” and Republicans will win. Win what, Westnash?
I don’t think there can be a more clear self-made case that Westnash is part of the Liberal far left. If there is one thing which defines Conservatives more than anything else it is their unwillingness to “compromise” on principles.
” Refusing to compromise on Gun Laws in wake of the recent shootings and publicity.” Let’s have a closer look at this statement.
Westnash wants us to “compromise on Gun laws”. Why? There is no explicit rationale offered. Westnash simply cites recent shootings and “publicity”. This is PRECISELY the “logic” use by the Liberal far left in seeking to enact more gun control legislation. In reality, there is nothing “logical” about it at all. It’s merely an excuse to implement a Liberal agenda.
#2: “Refusing to compromise on fiscal cliff issues.” There’s that admonishment that we need to “compromise” again. “Compromise” what, Westash? “Compromise” how, Westnash? You have offered us a “glittering generality” entirely lacking in substance. But the idea that Republicans need to “compromise”, rather than Democrats, comes through loud and clear!
#3: “Touting Joe McCarthy for anything but the buffoon he was.” Again, we have the classic Liberal leftist baseless attack on the late U. S. Senator Joesph McCarthy who was a decorated combat veteran and staunch anti-communist. You’ll notice that Westnash offers nothing to back up his statement, he just engages in an attempted superficial smear tactic. It is Communists and the radical Liberal left who hate McCarthy with the passion of Westnash BECAUSE he outed Communists in the U. S. AND in the federal government. That is verified fact.
#4: “Insisting on the full Military Budget.” Like all Liberal leftists, Westnash is constantly seeking to tear down and emasculate our military. Your proposals regarding military spending are entirely thoughtless, Westnash. You want an “across the board cut”. No. Any cuts have to be done in such a manner as to preserve our military strength and readiness. That requires a scalpel, not a meat cleaver.
#5: “Refusing to discuss the immigration issue and developing a “guest worker” program.” Thank you, Westnash, you just made my day, LOL!
Republicans have discussed the “immigration issue”. They have consistently stated that first, the border must be secured. That hasn’t happened and Obama is seeing to it that it won’t happen. End of discussion!
A “guest worker” program! Great shades of Garvan, LOL! Why that’s the sort of thing that McCain, Flake and Jerry Lewis support! It’s called “the Obama Liberal agenda”!
Thank you very much, Westnash, for making it clear, beyond all doubt, that you are a far left, radical, Obama Liberal. It isn’t that we didn’t already know that, it’s just nice that you’ve come clean.
“Eat Mor Chikin!”, Westnash!