Tag Archives: rule of law

Glossary: Key memes, counterfactuals, dog whistles, canards, euphemisms, innuendoes, insinuations, fake outrages, and obsessions in The Wall Street Journal and other GOP language factories and fever swamps, Feb. 17-23, 2018

Posted on by
Reply

rule of law conservatives

rhetorical claim: The EPA is refining its rule making process in ways that rule-of-law conservatives hope will conform the agency’s new rules to the designs and ends Congress intended for them, reversing the warped power grabs of the administrative state they had become.

rhetorical effect: just as conservatives call any law they like “originalist,” they call any government rule they like “the rule of law,” even if the only law they refer to is their own law of political expediency. “Rule of law” is one of those phrases intended to sound objective– set in stone like tablets Moses found on the mountain top–whereas in actuality it is always an act of interpretive political power.

*****

disavowing domestic violence

rhetorical claim: President Trump disavows domestic violence by claiming that he is and “totally opposed” to it.

rhetorical effect: a disavowal is really a denial of that which is undeniable and must be repressed: Trump disavows racism while defending racists; Trump disavows election meddling yet defends the Russians; men disavow domestic violence then call themselves the true victims of feminazi witch hunts.

******

mental health

rhetorical claim: when it comes to gun safety, we need to tackle the difficult issue of mental health.

rhetorical effect: precludes discussing gun availability at all. Why is mental health funding only brought up in direct response to a mass shooting, but then either ignored the rest of the time or decimated in Obamacare budget cuts (see here for a good summary of mental health care cuts in the GOP budget plan ? Also, every country deals with mental health issues, but only America has so many mass shootings. Toughening mental health monitoring is extremely fraught, as pointed out by Amy Davidson Sorkin:

The proffering of mental illness as the answer to our shooting problem seems opportunistic, to say the least. It might necessitate a criminalization of adolescent pain, since the level of legal procedure necessary to make someone ineligible to buy a gun would, presumably, be higher than what would be needed to guide a teen-ager to a therapist. (In Florida, the legal standard for blocking gun purchases is that someone has actually been committed to a mental institution or been “adjudicated mentally defective.”) The greater madness is in our gun laws, not in our children….

…What is the society that gun-rights activists are asking for? One in which legions of angry young men who have not done anything criminal yet are shut away in mental wards, if not prisons, conveniently labelled as insane, so that the good people—whoever they are supposed to be, and however angry they are—can still walk into a store and buy military-style weapons? Would we really rather lock up people than lock up guns? And is all that supposed to be facilitated with an ethic of mass mutual suspicion? Perhaps the next move of America’s gun promoters will be to place the blame on some other group of people with backgrounds and beliefs that the majority finds jarring. Will they keep drawing the circle of the good with an ever smaller circumference, until it resembles nothing so much as an armed camp, packed with guns? President Trump might call that a great and safe community. And whom will he blame then?

******

partisan bickering

rhetorical claim: Congress is gridlocked by partisan bickering on everything from the Russian inquiry to DACA reform. It’s time that it overcome this stalemate and get don to work.

rhetorical effect: this call for compromise is actually almost always an excuse for inaction. “Partisan bickering” is what happens when one side wants reform and change and is trying to pass new laws and the other side is resisting. So it isn’t ‘partisan bickering” that’s hobbling Congress’s Russian investigations, it’s the fact that only one side–the Dems–want to get to the bottom of it.

******

media’s hindsight fallacy

rhetorical claim: in retrospect, the all-knowing fake news media clearly sees that the Russians tipped the election to Trump, whereas in reality, if anything, it was Hillary and the Dems who made the best use of Russia. In reality, the Russian propaganda activities had less impact on the election than even 30 seconds’ worth of a live Trump campaign rally.

rhetorical effect: calling hindsight a “fallacy” makes it impossible to consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary–it’s a peremptory move to  dismisses all evidence–and thus all indictments– out of hand. It’s intended to make any Mueller case seem manufactured and based on poisoned intelligence intercepts. The Dems claim that emerging evidence points to conspiracy, collusion and money-laundering; the GOP claims Mueller is simply concocting fables about the past, connecting dots that have no connection in truth, trying to turn mole hills into mountains.

******

judicial gerrymandering

rhetorical claim: the liberal Pennsylvania Supreme Court has redrawn Congressional districts to favor Dems in the upcoming election. In doing so, they are usurping the right of the state legislature to draw congressional districts. The Supreme Court should rule that courts do not have the power to determine electoral outcomes

rhetorical effect: the irony is too delicious: they are arguing that a court ruling affecting electoral outcomes should be used as proof that court rulings should not affect electoral outcomes.

******

collectivist tyranny

rhetorical claim: the collectivist tyranny and administrative coup of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid era is over. Under Trump, we have entered a new era of individual freedom, economic growth and the security that comes from peace-through-strength and America First.

rhetorical effect: Best described by Paul Klugman:

For whatever reason, there’s a faction in our country that sees public action for the public good, no matter how justified, as part of a conspiracy to destroy our freedom…this political faction is doing all it can to push us toward becoming a society in which individuals can’t count on the community to provide them with even the most basic guarantees of security — security from crazed gunmen, security from drunken drivers, security from exorbitant medical bills (which every other advanced country treats as a right, and does in fact manage to provide).

In short, you might want to think of our madness over guns as just one aspect of the drive to turn us into what Thomas Hobbes described long ago: a society “wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them.” And Hobbes famously told us what life in such a society is like: “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Yep, that sounds like Trump’s America.

******

consumer-friendly innovation in markets

rhetorical claim: American families know better than bureaucrats what financial products best meet their needs.. Families need to be empowered. Borrowers need to be treated like adults. They are not as dumb, irrational or vulnerable as liberals make them ut to be. They can make their own decisions about contracts, arbitration clauses, payday loans or bargaining for an auto loan.

rhetorical effect: rhetorical inversion: the most consumer-friendly regulatory policy is to have no regulatory policy at all. The paradox is to claim that consumers should be protected, but not by any regulations. On the other hand, families should be “empowered”, but only to put themselves at the mercy of payday loan sharks, shifty auto dealers, restrictive arbitration clauses, and predatory interest rates and policies. The very things consumers need protection from are no longer protected. Treating consumers “like adults” actually means putting them in the position of children: gullible, vulnerable, and unprotected from predatory adults.

******

pricing for actuarial risk

rhetorical claim: insurance companies should be given the freedom to price for actuarial risk rather than having a collectivist pricing model imposed on them, a la Obamacare

rhetorical effect: justifies higher rates or denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, annual and lifetime coverage caps, denial of benefits for whole categories of conditions, gender discrimination–the list goes on. “Pricing” is the innocuous-sounding euphemism for exorbitant medical bills.

******

respecting our second amendment rights

rhetorical claim: As the mass killings continue, we must be patient and listen to the views of those who see any action to limit access to guns as the first step toward confiscation. Our task is not so much to protect gun victims but, rather, to protect gun owners by respecting their deep cultural attachment to guns..  The so-called Parkland victims are being manipulated by the lyin’ liberal press. As Bill O’Reilly put it, the media is “promoting opinions by teenagers who are in an emotional state and facing extreme peer pressure in some cases.”Former representative Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) doubted the capacity of these students to think or act for themselves. “Their sorrow can very easily be hijacked by left-wing groups who have an agenda,” he said on CNN.

rhetorical effect: Young people who disagree with Kingston can’t possibly have minds of their own, and, of course Kingston and Fox News don’t “have an agenda.” As for respect, as E.J. Dionne argues:

How come only one side of the supposed culture war on guns is required to exude respect for the other? Because the culture-war argument is largely a gimmick pushed by the gun lobby as a way of demonizing its opponents. None of us who endorse stronger gun laws wants to disrupt anybody else’s way of life. And none of the measures we are proposing would do that.

The perversely inverted moral argument is that the way to stop gun violence is by arming more people–students, teachers–all of us, really. So, as usual, the rhetorical effect of the “respect” argument is that the only reasonable and common-sense thing to do is to agree with the GOP.

 

 

 

Glossary: Key memes, counterfactuals, dog-whistles, canards, euphemisms, fake outrages and obsessions in the Wall Street Journal and other GOP language factories, May 29-June 8, 2016

Posted on by
Reply

bipartisanship: when Obama agrees with the Tea Party. (see “failure,” below)

civilizational advantages: Europe over the Middle East; the US over everyone else;

failure: Obama’s intransigent partisanship with Congress that led to his inability to get any GOP support, as argued by Mitch McConnell. In a hilarious WJS op-ed, McConnell shamelessly insists that the Senate is supposed to be bipartisan,  somehow overlooking his thousands of obstructionist statements, such as this 2010 reveal:

It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,” Mr. McConnell said about the health legislation in an interview, suggesting that even minimal Republican support could sway the public. “It’s either bipartisan or it isn’t.”

Mr. McConnell said the unity was essential in dealing with Democrats on “things like the budget, national security and then ultimately, obviously, health care.

hate group: any organized effort to oppose Trump.

judicial activist: any federal judge who rules against the Tea Party or GOP policies and principles.  (see “settled law,” below).

obstacles to investment: taxes and regulations, aka, “morasses”. Thus, establishing taxes and regulations–the two chief functions of government–puts a finger on the rhetorical scale from the beginning. If taxes were instead characterized as obligations or opportunities or investments in the future, the GOP would lose its inherent rhetorical edge in economic policy framing.

position of trust: something HRC will never be in, no matter whether she is ever charged with a crime or indicted. Although her “crookedness” is an allegation, based on other allegations, she has somehow  forfeited trust in a way that Donald Trump never has, despite changing his mind and contradicting himself on every major issue.

purposely negative reporting: false reporting. Any attack on Trump is by definition a horrible “hit job”, a piece of “sleaze”, a personal attack that should be illegal and subject to huge fines. Trump thus takes a page from the fascist playbook, currently being ruthlessly enacted by Turkey’s Recep Erdogan, who has charged or jailed political opponents, journalists, civic society groups, and others, characterizing them as terrorists:

If the H.D.P. has dropped all caution, so has Erdogan. The man who once held back Turkey’s trigger-happy security services has now given them carte blanche. “Turkey has no Kurdish problem, but a terror problem,” he said in January. “No one should try to palm it off on us as a Kurdish problem.” He later called for members of Parliment to be stripped of their immunity, so H.D.P. leaders could be prosecuted and jailed as terrorists, and parliamentary debates devolved into mass fistfights. In mid-May, the Parliament passed the immunity-lifting measure, an act that is likely to push more Kurds toward militancy.

At the same time, Erdogan has led a crackdown on the press, with the state jailing critical journalists and academics en masse and closing down opposition outlets; scarcely any remain. He has urged Parliament to “redefine” terrorism in a way that is ominously broad. “The fact that their title is lawmaker, academic, writer, journalist or head of a civil society group doesn’t change the fact that that individual is a terrorist,” he said in March. Even in Erdogan’s own party, total loyalty to the president has become a condition of survival. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, long viewed as a flunky, was forced out unceremoniously in early May after some mild gestures of difference with Erdogan, including on the Kurdish issue; he had hinted at a return to peace talks. “The one who talks about peace in wartime is as much a traitor as the one who talks about war in peacetime,” wrote an Erdogan ally, in an anonymous denunciation of Davutoglu posted on a blog on May 1.

This all-or-nothing strategy seems guaranteed to return Turkey to the days when the Kurds were forced to choose between the P.K.K. and the state. If that happens, many who are now critical of the P.K.K.’s violence and hungry for an alternative will fall in line behind Ocalan’s minions. Turkey’s compliant mainstream media, meanwhile, have done their part to whip up a nationalist frenzy. Turn on a TV anywhere in Turkey, and you will see frequent footage of soldiers’ funerals, but no mention of civilian casualties or the hundreds of thousands forced to leave their homes.

This reads like a preview of the attack on free speech that would be the hallmark of a Trump Presidency.

rule of law: what the Dems call racism.

 

settled law: any standing judicial policy or precedent that the Tea Party agrees with. Everything else is “judicial activism”. (see above)

victims: in the case of LGBT bathroom use, the victims are little girls who will have to suffer degenerate trannies  exposing themselves in the girl’s bathroom. Victims and victimizers are thus intentionally conflated, as with Jim Crow laws, which ostensibly were designed to protect white women from black rapists. These purported forms of violence are hypothetical only, much like so-called voter fraud.

Glossary: an anatomy of key memes, phrases, canards, shibboleths and obsessions in the Wall Street Journal and other GOTP language factories, April 20-25, 2015

Posted on by
Reply

abundance: Tea Partier argument that the “free ” market always knows right and should be left unregulated because it is the goose that lays the golden eggs.  This argument is especially used in complaining against any antitrust rulings, most currently in the context of net neutrality debates and the collapse of the Comcast-Time Warner merger. In the latter case, “abundance” is deemed the opposite of “scarcity,” as if it’s always an either-or choice, similar to the argument that you can only have one dominant economic policy principle: either growth or redistribution. False dichotomies are rhetorical cornerstones.

the American Value Set: entirely congruent with the Tea Partiers’ values and positions.

Bill of Rights: part of the “Constitution worship” of the Tea Party, at least when it suits their policies. The fact that the Bill of Rights emphasizes processes and procedures rather than morals or principles is crucial to their ideology because it serves as a way to filter out considerations of justice, sympathy, common sense, empathy, charity, or public service.

conscience: the ultimate Tea Party  trump card, at least when it comes to such “friendly” issues as abortion, school prayer or denial of gay rights. Conscience is one of those “trump card” absolutes, like “honor,” “service,” or patriotism.

cowardice: any left-wing policy or position, since the Left (aka, “the social justice jihadis”, or the “rainbow-colored mob”) is fatally plagued and cowed  by political correctness. Lefties are afraid to face the truth.

the game: any Dem attempt to overturn Citizens United, as if Citizens United was itself not part of an elaborate “game” to end-run campaign finance regulation. (see “issue speech,” below)

hard left: any Dem policy advocating environmental regulation, increased minimum wage, paid medical leave/Obamacare, taxes on capital gains, social safety net protection, closing corporate tax loopholes, or regulation of the financial sector. It’s the “hard left” that is fighting the “class war” against “real Americans.” Supporting any “hard left” doctrine is considered an act of “cowardice”, or an act of “goodthink”.

hard truths: whatever the Tea Partiers believe . Dem policies and beliefs, on the other hand, are “soft” and “calculated”, and bear no relation to “truth,” which the Tea Partiers think they have cornered the market on.

hysterical public assaults: any Dem criticism of Tea Partier policies or positions, especially in controversies over religious liberty, reproductive and women’srights, and race bias.

issue speech: political advocacy; somehow to be kept separate from campaign finance regulation. This doctrine relies on the deceptively naive view that “speaking” about “issues” is an innocent activity, in no way “coordinated” a political campaign.

leftist sexual orthodoxy: reproductive rights, birth control, marriage equality, sex outside of marriage: you know, anything south of abstinence.

liberal dogooderie: any act of charity, welfare, social justice or human rights.

politicized: any Dem policy or regulatory action. When Tea Partiers are in power, they call it “common sense” or unobtrusive government. Another rhetorical term of art assuming a false innocence of “as if”: as if the Tea Party never decides on public policy (or, indeed, judicial decisions) based on political calculations and beliefs; as if the “free” market isn’t propped up by tax breaks, subsidies and, favorable laws protecting investments and squeezing out lawsuits, competition, and liability; as if so-called “religious liberty” doesn’t infringe on the liberties of other people, or as if all government policy is unbiased, objective, and non=political.

the rule of law: what the Tea Partiers say Obama and Holder are in “utter contempt” of. As in the case of the Bill of Rights or Constitution, the Tea Partiers assume they have full custody rights over what constitutes “the rule of law,” as if they owned gravity. The only “rule of law”in politics is the rule that you use the law anyway you can to prevail.

social justice jihadi: a mocking term for anyone harboring concepts of justice, equality, peace, or sustainability. The Dems are the real terrorists, out to “take America down,” as Dick Cheney recently explained.

viewpoint-neutral legislation: euphemism for “religious liberty” laws under a different guise. This innocuous-sounding, unobjectionable label serves to mask any moral or ethical dimension lurking beneath the creation of state or local laws; in ostensibly seeming to protect free speech, it will actually serve to deny it to minorities by removing all moral opprobrium from discrimination  due to its supposed “neutrality”.