I'm always fascinated by the way certain words & phrases can, over time or in certain circumstances, become politically off-limits. I don't mean the obvious (and usually justifiable) rejection of odious references to race or sexuality but the more subtle situations where a particular strain of thought becomes so dominant that any dissent, however reasonable, is automatically frowned on regardless of merit.
The words usually derive their power by playing to fears or stereotypes attached to the people they're being used against - hence the age-old Labour technique of crying 'cuts' in the face of any Conservative tax announcement. New Labour has done a fantastic job in making the very word a political no-go area. Although even die-hard socialists would probably concede there must be areas of expense that can safely be 'cut', politicians (in the UK at least) go through all sorts of semantic gymnastics rather than just call for a cut in spending - to do so is a gift to your opponents and the debate's all but over.
These words or phrases exist from a right-wing perspective as well. Immigration is a topic that carries so much weight, particularly at the moment, that the most banal of sentences can actually be loaded with fairly serious (and ugly) accusations depending on by who and to whom it's delivered. Gordon Brown can tell a Labour conference "British jobs for British workers" and nobody says a word (in fact Cameron pulls him up on it the following week as being illegal under EU law!) If a Conservative leader had used the same phrase I can only imagine the sort of coverage they'd have got. If a BNP spokesman had done it I wouldn't be surprised if someone looked into prosecution. The requirement to be 'tough on immigration' appears to be universal now and, like 'cuts', the merest suggestion that someone has a more liberal attitude to immigration amounts to political suicide.
I was also reminded of a fictional example of this while listening to a discussion on Hilary Clinton's almost certain success now in the race for the Democratic nomination. The reporter referred to the Senator's strenuous efforts to distance herself from 'the liberal tag' so often levied at her and this reminded me of one of the presidential debate episode of the last season of the West Wing:
The words usually derive their power by playing to fears or stereotypes attached to the people they're being used against - hence the age-old Labour technique of crying 'cuts' in the face of any Conservative tax announcement. New Labour has done a fantastic job in making the very word a political no-go area. Although even die-hard socialists would probably concede there must be areas of expense that can safely be 'cut', politicians (in the UK at least) go through all sorts of semantic gymnastics rather than just call for a cut in spending - to do so is a gift to your opponents and the debate's all but over.
These words or phrases exist from a right-wing perspective as well. Immigration is a topic that carries so much weight, particularly at the moment, that the most banal of sentences can actually be loaded with fairly serious (and ugly) accusations depending on by who and to whom it's delivered. Gordon Brown can tell a Labour conference "British jobs for British workers" and nobody says a word (in fact Cameron pulls him up on it the following week as being illegal under EU law!) If a Conservative leader had used the same phrase I can only imagine the sort of coverage they'd have got. If a BNP spokesman had done it I wouldn't be surprised if someone looked into prosecution. The requirement to be 'tough on immigration' appears to be universal now and, like 'cuts', the merest suggestion that someone has a more liberal attitude to immigration amounts to political suicide.
I was also reminded of a fictional example of this while listening to a discussion on Hilary Clinton's almost certain success now in the race for the Democratic nomination. The reporter referred to the Senator's strenuous efforts to distance herself from 'the liberal tag' so often levied at her and this reminded me of one of the presidential debate episode of the last season of the West Wing:
Santos (Dem): I know you like to use that word 'liberal' as if it were a crime.Any other examples of no-go areas or the changing fortunes of political labels most welcome...
Vinick (Rep): No. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?
Santos: It's true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.
Vinick: A Republican President ended slavery.
Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican, Senator. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honour. [The audience vigorously applauds.]
Labels: Politics
8 Comments:
"If a Conservative leader had used the same phrase"
Nixon goes to China? Converesly, if Labour had proposed taxing the non-doms without the Tories having broken the ground, the reception would I think have been frostier.
'Modernise' has gone seriously downhill since the mid-1990s.
'Social security' is the combination of two excellent words, but has come to acquire seriously negative connotations.
'Sceptical' should means 'sensibly cautious' but since the Maastricht debate has come to mean 'rabidly opposed'.
And that Vinick-Santos debate was wonderful TV. I'd have voted for either of them! Did you know that was filmed 'before a live studio audience', as the saying goes?
(BTW I've got round to replying to you. It's a bit long, I'm afraid...)
Actually, Cassilis, I think "British jobs for British workers" IS a BNP slogan...
Thanks Tom.
I think the West Wing writers missed a trick by not running a few series with Vinick having won the presidency - although it was often parodied as 'the left wing' they managed to show idealists on the left some of the challenges actually faced in government and it would have been nice to see how they did that with a Republican. Alan Alda was fantastic and like you I found them hard to choose between....
Thanks Politaholic - strange that the BNP didn't seem to make much noise when Brown tried to nick one of their tag lines? Having said that, for all my differences with Gordon Brown I'm pretty certain he meant something far more benign by it than Nick Griffin would.
bSXc25 Very good blog! Thanks!
ftsMJD Thanks to author.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Good job!
Wonderful blog.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home