Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
US Senate candidate Dan Osborn

Nebraska Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn.

Image obtained from YouTube

7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms

Election Day on November 3, here are the seven independent campaigns we’ve followed closely, four for the Senate and three for the House, ranked by how competitive they are.

Fundraising figures are full-cycle totals from FEC reports, through the date noted for each race. Prediction-market odds come from Kalshi and were pulled on 10/23. Polls are pulled from the aggregated New York Times pages, with several low-quality polls highlighted by campaigns left out.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote

Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote inserted into a grey cardboard ballot box slot.

Getty Images

The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties

In a recent essay in Life & Liberty, Robert G. Natelson argues that open primaries may violate the First Amendment rights of political parties by allowing people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. His argument starts with the rights of the party. The more fundamental question is whether it starts in the right place at all: When a state conducts a primary election, whose rights are we even talking about?

Natelson’s answer is primarily the rights of political parties. He argues that because parties have a First Amendment right to decide with whom they associate, the government cannot require them to allow people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. He relies on a number of Supreme Court decisions involving political parties and places particular weight on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. But in doing so, he moves too quickly past the most important fact in the debate: a state primary is an election conducted by the government, not a private meeting of a political organization.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Side view of young African American male voter filling in ballot

An opinion piece argues that America must revisit Reconstruction after the Trump era, starting with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Radical Reconstruction: Looking to the Past To Move Forward

The last 11 years of electoral politics have plunged our nation into new lows: withdrawal and reentry into Middle Eastern conflicts, a politicized public health response during a pandemic, an attempted coup of the American government, and continual police brutality against people of color. Donald Trump’s existence on the political stage, in office or out, has held our nation hostage through repeated crises, leading us to the most divided time in our nation since the Civil War. The path forward for our young country doesn’t just require new ideas: we need to finally follow through on Reconstruction.

A blip in American history, Abraham Lincoln’s post-Civil War vision, called Reconstruction, was the proposed path forward for Southern reentry into American life. In exchange for loyalty to the Union and some guarantees of black civil protection, Lincoln prepared to readmit secessionist states into the Union, albeit with political restraints on numerous Confederate leaders.

Keep ReadingShow less