Language patrol

Recently I saw where someone in a discussion suggested that the reason we get our butts kicked by the rightists on such a regular basis (or, I would add, at least seem to) is that we have not been aggressive enough in responding to them; "aggressive" here understood in the sense of "determined, energetic, creative," rather than physically violent. I agree with that and I hope to get more into the topic within the next few days (bummer - now I suppose I have to), but what I wanted to raise here is that there's another good reason: We are too flaming good at own goals. Or, since we talking about the US, I guess I should say shooting ourselves in the foot.

I mean, even when we get a good idea, we screw it up. Take language. There's been a lot of talk lately about framing, about the fact that how an issue is presented affects how it's perceived. George Lakoff, who has done much to promote the idea among the left, has become a lionized intellectual hero to some.

Now, from my perspective, this talk is old hat. As I noted in February, I've been going on about this very idea for over 20 years. Over 30, in fact: In a 1973 essay called "A Personal Declaration of Linguistic Independence," I wrote about the use of labels to constrict and dismiss arguments and said that the first rule of effective communication is "What you say is not as important as what the other person hears."

So if we're finally paying attention to how we say things as well as to what we say, good and damn well about time.

One of the bits that caught our fancy was the separation of people into "reality-based" and "faith-based." A hefty number of lefty bloggers began declaring themselves "a proud member of the reality-based community" or some such.

Well, okay, while just as all categories tend to do, the terms are rather over-generalized, they're still useful to a certain extent - if they are used within their intended context, that is. Which, of course, we can't seem to do; instead, taken with our own cleverness, we assume we now have a handy-dandy phrase with a potent meaning which everyone understands the same way we do. Thus, we have this, from a March 28 article on Working for Change:

"In the Schiavo case," wrote one of Michael Schiavo's lawyers, Jon Eisenberg, following the money "leads to a consortium of conservative foundations, with $2 billion in total assets, that are funding a legal and public relations war of attrition intended to prolong Terri's life indefinitely in order to further their own faith-based cultural agendas."

No, no, no! You don't call something "faith-based" unless you're using it in direct contradiction to something "reality-based." For most Americans, saying something is based on their "faith" is not a criticism. It's at worst neutral and for many, an endorsement of its value.

(In fact, when I think of everyone from Dorothy Day to Martin Luther King, Jr., to Dan and Phil Berrigan to the Plowshares activists and beyond, when I think of the people I've personally known whose religious faith provided the foundation for a life of decency and courage in the cause of humanity, even I, despite being an atheist, can't accept the description of something as "faith-based," standing alone, as a valid criticism.)

So I call for an end to "reality-based versus faith-based" rhetoric since we can't seem to do it right. Instead, call it, I dunno, "fact-based versus assumption-based" or "truth-based versus fantasy-based" or something. Call it "open-minded versus closed-minded" or "broad-minded versus narrow-minded." At least then when we get sloppy again and break the terms apart, the quote above might refer to a "fantasy-based cultural agenda." I actually don't think those are the best terms, I'm sure others can come up with better ones, but it's a damn sight better than imagining we're going to move anyone by attacking people for basing their cultural agendas on their faith.

The problem is, simply assuming your listeners will understand a phrase, especially one ("faith-based") that has become a slogan as much as an adjective, the same way you mean it violates my first rule of effective communication. It's really sad how incompetent we on the left have become at expressing our ideas in the kind of language by which non-politically-involved people can be moved.

It wasn't always that way. William Jennings Bryan, before his fear of modernity and science turned him bitter, was a brilliant orator on behalf of progressive causes whose speeches, laced with religious references, sound stilted to us today but suited perfectly the style of the time. So, too, with Eugene Debs, whose style was bombastic but whose words and meaning were crystal clear to the workers on whose behalf he struggled. So, too, right up through the '60s there were those who understood the language of Main Street.

But for some reason, in the past couple of decades we have lost the touch. We have lost our sense of drama, we have lost our skill at rhetoric, we have lost our grasp of symbolism. My own belief is that, caught off-guard by the rise of the right, we on the left became obsessed with "regaining the majority," which in practice all too often has meant becoming little more than camp followers of the Dummycrats even as they slide further and further to the right. Victims of a political Stockholm Syndrome, we have also tied ourselves to their style of - if I can distort the word far enough to fit - opposition. Thus, we persist in thinking of political debate as a quiet exchange of well-crafted ideas, punctured only by "tut-tut"s and "hear, hear"s. We sometimes wail in defiance of a sound-bite world but refuse to face its reality - with the result that we get repeatedly rolled in what debates do occur. It's not just that the right engages in propaganda, it's that we don't.

prop·a·gan·da - n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause.

The word itself has taken on a negative connotation ("Our side 'informs,' their side engages in 'propaganda.'") so it's probably not wise to call what we do, or rather should do, by that name, but the point is valid: We fail to systematically push our view. Our view. Our view - that does not mean "understanding" the rightists' views or "seeking common ground" with the bigots, bosses, and bullies, it means saying what we think without reservation or apology. It means focusing on attack, not defense, and being unafraid of being attacked in response.

That brings up another basic principle: Never, never simply defend. Defense must always be combined with attack. Emanuel Lasker, an early 20th century world chess champion, advised in one of his books on the game that no move should be purely defensive; every move should carry some threat, however small. That same advice should be applied to our politics, except that we should not settle for a "small" threat (or, more exactly, counterattack). I've quoted this passage before, but it bears repeating:

The fact is, the movement for peace and social justice in this country has been at its strongest and most influential when it has spoken the truth without giving a flying damn if anyone was "offended" or not. We didn't build a movement against the Vietnam War by harping on the "shortcomings of both sides" but by blasting it for what it was.... We didn't build movements for civil rights, women's equality, or a cleaner environment by worrying about how we'd be received by bigots, sexists, or greedy corporate bosses - or who we'd "turn off" if we labeled the discriminators and despoilers for what they were. - Lotus, April 1991

Now, I'm fully aware of the fact that in our blogs, we can issue ringing condemnations with the best (or worst) of them. I'm not talking about that, nor am I talking about the sophomoric and usually sexual insults that get tossed about on message boards which are really just exercises in who can scream the loudest the longest - or, more precisely, who has more time to waste and fewer worthwhile things to do. I'm talking about our public statements, our public actions, and those of our "leaders," who are most prominently figures among the Dimcrats - and in many cases are our misleaders, not in the sense of deception but in the sense of taking us down blind alleys or up tortured paths that lead nowhere.

(Of course, it can be legitimately asked what other leaders there are we could look to. Ralph Nader, who did not deserve the vituperation he got for running in 2004 - and whose effect on the outcome was, as I will note I predicted from the very beginning, negligible - put himself out of the running as far as I'm concerned with his bizarre statement on the Terri Schiavo tragedy. And I'm not impressed with Jesse Jackson's last-minute leap into the fray, either. Any suggestions?)

I've begun to ramble here (begun?) so I'll cut this off except to note that something else I've said before that bears repeating is that we are on our own. And the sooner we, that mass of ordinary people just like the ordinary people who made up the movement of the '60s, a movement that, I wrote to a friend several years ago,

over a several-year span was powerful enough to end the draft, limit and finally stop a war, force one (and maybe two) Presidents from office, shake the foundations of a society's judgements about half its population, force the nuclear power industry to a virtual halt, and change - perhaps not by much but quite possibly permanently - that society's sense of its relationship to the environment,

the sooner that we realize that we are indeed on our own but that we have the power to change things, the sooner those changes can come.

"Never doubt," Margaret Mead said, "that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."