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

The People Who Built Chicago Deserve to Breathe

Marcelina Pedraza at a UAW strike in 2025 (Oscar Sanchez, SETF)

Photo provided

The People Who Built Chicago Deserve to Breathe

As union electricians, we wire this city. My siblings in the trades pour the concrete, hoist the steel, lay the pipe and keep the lights on. We build Chicago block by block, shift after shift. We go home to the neighborhoods we help create.

I live on the Southeast Side with my family. My great-grandparents immigrated from Mexico and taught me to work hard, be loyal and kind and show up for my neighbors. I’m proud of those roots. I want my child to inherit a home that’s safe, not a ZIP code that shortens their lives, like most Latino communities in Chicago.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Greenland and ICE Could Spell the End of U.S. Empire
world map chart
Photo by Morgan Lane on Unsplash

Why Greenland and ICE Could Spell the End of U.S. Empire

Since the late 15th century, the Americas have been colonized by the Spanish, French, British, Portuguese, and the United States, among others. This begs the question: how do we determine the right to citizenship over land that has been stolen or seized? Should we, as United States citizens today, condone the use of violence and force to remove, deport, and detain Indigenous Peoples from the Americas, including Native American and Indigenous Peoples with origins in Latin America? I argue that Greenland and ICE represent the tipping point for the legitimacy of the U.S. as a weakening world power that is losing credibility at home and abroad.

On January 9th, the BBC reported that President Trump, during a press briefing about his desire to “own” Greenland, stated that, “Countries have to have ownership and you defend ownership, you don't defend leases. And we'll have to defend Greenland," Trump told reporters on Friday, in response to a question from the BBC. The US will do it "the easy way" or "the hard way", he said. During this same press briefing, Trump stated, “The fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn't mean that they own the land.”

Keep ReadingShow less