Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Learning to recognize political rhetoric

Learning to recognize political rhetoric
Getty Images

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

When I think about the tactics of the Democratic and Republican parties, I am reminded of lyrics from the Buffalo Springfield song fifty years ago:


There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear

Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.

Unfortunately, what is happening in politics in America is all too clear and both sides are wrong as they feed into the political circus instead of focusing on healthy governance.

This all would be funny if not for the serious implications. The dysfunction is clearly manifested by red meat rhetoric that politicians throw out to their base to score political points, rather than attempting to govern. It is so much easier for them to make statements that generate a strong emotional response from voters instead of intelligently debating the difficult choices our country faces.

And unfortunately this ploy works!

I watch with amazement as demagogy on both sides continues unimpeded and wonder how this can be until I realize that the $14 billion dollars spent in the 2020 election cycle just feeds more division, disinformation, and dysfunction. Our democracy is in crisis and the promise of healthy self-governance seems further and further away.

If you watch Fox News you’ll be inundated with pundits blasting intellectual elites, the deep state, socialist democrats, illegal aliens, and of course, cancel culture. Switch channels on the same day and tune in to MSNBC and you would think that you are living in a completely different universe. Terms such as corruption on Wall Street, big oil, police brutality, and crony capitalism are tossed around without any thought to providing a deeper analysis.

Dietram Schuefele, a communications professor at the University of Wisconsin, described the rhetoric aptly when he said:

"Every tribe has its own words, basically, and it becomes more and more difficult to have conversations across tribal fault lines if we can't even agree on the terminology."

Unfortunately, the nuances in language are a part of the science of politics. Both parties spend millions of dollars gathering focus groups to learn which messaging and language engages them emotionally. To cite two examples, the term “exploring for energy” is a much gentler term than “drilling for oil” and might appeal to Democrats more, while the term “illegal aliens” arouses emotions different from “undocumented workers” and thus more likely to be used by Republicans. Similarly the terms “death tax” versus “estate tax” arouses different emotions… and the list goes on and on.

The phenomenon of code words is especially apparent with the new Republican code word du jour to incite emotions and cater to their base. The term Woke is used to disparage and dismiss anything related to a civil discussion on justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Merriam-Webster in 2017 defined woke as: "aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)."

Rather than discuss the important nuances of diversity and inclusion with the desire to create some level of social cohesion, let’s just coin a phrase that appeals to our tribe. Let everything we don’t like be “woke.” It is now creeping into the lexicon amidst the backlash against ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) as corporations apply non-financial factors as a part of their analysis in determining their investment strategies and growth opportunities. If a company chooses to consider climate change, lack of diversity or other social issues as part of their investment strategy, let's not have a serious debate; instead let's just appeal to the emotions of the electorate and call it “woke capitalism.”

In this context, the Senate recently voted to overturn a Labor Department rule that permits fiduciary retirement fund managers to consider environmental, social, and corporate governance, or ESG, factors in their investment decisions. Rather than debate the merits of the issue, Republicans repeat the mantra of their new code word “woke capitalism.” This moniker wipes away concern about the planet we leave for our descendants as irrelevant to a return on investment.

Of course, as politicians try to reduce complex issues to simple sound bites, rationality still prevails. Despite the ESG backlash, more and more companies are taking an ESG approach to investing and doing quite well financially. Barron’s recently published the Top 100 US Sustainable Companies using the methodology of ESG explaining the variety of metrics used.

As responsible citizens, it is imperative to understand the tactics used by politicians and be on the alert for the code words they use to excite and enrage us. It is our responsibility to see through this charade. If more and more of us stop listening to the rhetoric, they might change how they talk to us to create meaningful change.


Read More

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

Black and white sketch of a courtroom in session.

illustration provided

Where Do Territorial Courts Fall in Our Constitutional Framework?

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook have understandably been read as cases about presidential control over executive officers. But they may have implications for a different and largely overlooked question lurking in a pending Supreme Court case: Who may exercise the judicial power of the United States in the territories?

This question made a cameo appearance in the Slaughter case. The majority noted in a footnote that “a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia” exercises “the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories” — not the executive power. Therefore, the court went on, “the fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District’s judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do).”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s  SCOTUS Appointees

Silhouette of a hand holding a vote putting in a ballot box in front of the national flag Stars and Stripes of USA.

Getty Images

Affordability Crisis - Role of Non-Popular Vote President’s SCOTUS Appointees

The 21st-century Supreme Court Justices appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote have fundamentally reshaped the affordability crisis by dismantling federal regulatory authority, weakening consumer protections, and expanding landlords' and local governments' property rights over renters.

Specifically, five current justices fit this description: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito (appointed by George W. Bush following the 2000 election), alongside Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett (appointed by Donald Trump following the 2016 election). This conservative supermajority has heavily influenced cost-of-living metrics through historic rulings in administrative, housing, and financial law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

women in a courtroom

Getty Images

The Long Tradition of Lawyers Defending U.S. Democracy

For centuries, lawyers have been leaders in establishing and protecting our democracy and its cornerstone, the rule of law. They have challenged tyrants, whether it be King George III in our nation’s founding or President Trump, a wannabe king, today.

Lawyers swear to do this in an oath, which is a condition of admission to the bar, to “support the Constitution of the United States.” This sworn duty continues a centuries-old tradition.

Keep ReadingShow less
California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Xavier Becerra

Getty Images

California Latinos Showed Up—Now Party Insiders Want to Shut Them Out

Political strategist, IVN commentator, and The Latino Century author Mike Madrid has a blunt warning for California: The campaign to repeal the state’s nonpartisan Top Two primary would disproportionately silence the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

In a new Sacramento Bee op-ed, Madrid argues that Latino voters—particularly those who do not align with either major party—played a significant role in California’s record-setting June primary.

Keep ReadingShow less