Mitch, as I wrote in another thread, the Republican party is all about language and clever marketing.

Take for example the recent rollout of "adapt and win" to replace "stay the course".

They test market this crap to see how well it plays.

Islamofascist is no different. It's an emotional trigger and it's effective but it doesn't accurately reflect reality.

Actually Doug, if you had read Mitch's wonderful analysis, you would understand why "Islamofascism" fits perfectly. Here's the money quote:
"The use of "fascist" is perfectly appropriate. Rather than nation or race, Islamofascism exalts Islam and all its attachments - sharia and jihad - and certainly the forcible suppression of opposition (which is, indeed, the radical definition of the word jihad itself)."
30 seconds of an Amedinijad (sp?) speech confirms this.

His new book has a mighty impressive title (and cover), but he seems to have left out "alpaca-wearing" and possibly "granola-crunching".

The left has an unfortunate habit of misunderstanding what these sorts of categorical words mean. In doing so they warp the connotaion of a word and then throw it away.

Take for example the word "Liberal". It used to mean (and still pretty much does in the rest of the world) what we have to call Libertarian now. So-called "Classical Liberals" did NOT exhibit the distain for free enterprise and markets that today's american libs do.

What these types should call themselves is Democratic Social*sts since that's the ideology driving their policies. Then what's really ridiculous is that NOW they're calling themselves "Progressives" because they let Conservatives turn the word "Liberal" into something derogatory.

The Left continues to struggle with semantics and their own ideology accordingly.

Doug,

"Mitch, as I wrote in another thread, the Republican party is all about language and clever marketing."

Yeah, but that's not a big reach. *All* of life's most vital activities - finding a mate, earning a living, raising your kids - are about language and "marketing" in one form or another. Every single one. And both parties - like every car salesman, insurance dealer and hot dog vendor ever born - know that. The Democrats - like you, Doug - are only yapping about it because they're doing it badly, and losing as a result.

But since manipulating "language" is suddenly a Bad Thing, Doug; you *do* know that it's the Democrats who employ a transformational linguist as a consultant, right? Someone to help them manipulate the English language itself, to their ends, irrespective of the ideas they're peddling?

"Take for example the recent rollout of "adapt and win" to replace "stay the course".

So? The war changed, so does the strategy, and so does the language involved in "selling" it to the people. Will it work? That's why we have elections, you know...

"They test market this crap to see how well it plays."

So what is it, Doug? Do you think the GOP has developed some way of hypnotizing voters with their clever language and marketing, so they're not in control of their own faculties? Or is the electorate just plain stupid? And when you've chosen, please let me know what "language" and "clever marketing" you'll use to tell the American people they're either stupid or mesmerized. Should be a fun sell.

"Islamofascist is no different. It's an emotional trigger and it's effective but it doesn't accurately reflect reality."

It's an emotional trigger, true. As it should be.

And it reflects reality perfectly, as I showed above and will probably further elaborate in a post either later today or tomorrow.

"The war changed, so does the strategy."

It still seems to me that we have the same leaders pursuing the same course, just enough troops to lose. What kind of change in strategy has there been? The new cut & run philosphy of Bush when they "determine" that Iraq descends into civil war?

"It still seems to me that we have the same leaders pursuing the same course, just enough troops to lose."

Er...no?

I mean, there've been a couple of distinct shifts in strategy, as the war has changed over the past 3 years.

" What kind of change in strategy has there been? The new cut & run philosphy of Bush when they "determine" that Iraq descends into civil war?"

HAH!

So now DEMOCRATS are crying "cut and run?"

Pfffft! This is the funniest thing I've seen all day!

There hasn't been a mainstream Democrat politician since LBJ that would fight for this nation's interests, that wouldn't run away from confrontation and leave our allies in the lurch. It IS the Democrat legacy of Vietnam, the Cold War, and the Middle East. Please don't be so disingenuous as to claim they're about to change now - and for crying out loud, please test lines like "Bush's Cut and Run Strategery" on lab animals before you try them on humans; it's cruel.

The deformation of language is fundamental to leftist politics. The rest is advertising. The problem with liberals is they can't distinguish the one from the other.

Mitch, please elaborate on these distinct shifts in strategy.

“So? The war changed, so does the strategy, and so does the language involved in "selling" it to the people. Will it work? That's why we have elections, you know...”

No to quibble here (and I’m probably out of my element as my experience and I’ll defer to Mitch) but wouldn’t it be that the *tactics* (the immediate short and medium term changes) that have changed rather than the overall *strategy*?

Because it seems to me that that most of the criticism such as the non-sensical claim that “Bush/Rumsfeld/Neocons didn’t have a plan for the occupation” represents a mistaken belief that if you adapt or change what you do in the short-run based on the conditions of the battlefield, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve changed or didn’t have a long-term tactical plan that you’re following.

That’s not to say of course that you might change your overall objective if you think it’s warranted. But I think we’re still pursuing the same end (stable democratic Iraq that is more likely to be a neutral or friendly force as opposed to the hostile regime we deposed).

Mitch, if I’ve missed something, please correct me. Thanks

"The deformation of language is fundamental to leftist politics. The rest is advertising."

3 words Eracus... War On Terror...

Unfortunately the definition of fascism is not something that everyone can agree upon. The usual western notions of the purpose of the political state don't really apply to nations with large Islamic majorities. There is some doubt about how much control the government of Saudi Arabia has over its detestable "religious police", for example, or even who exactly is in control of the Saudi government. In a traditional fascist state the hierarchy of controlling institutions is purposefully obvious.
On the other hand the statement: "In a 2005 Pew Global Attitudes survey, majorities in most Muslim nations said their loyalty to Islam came before their loyalty as citizens." is meaningless if the respondents view Islam as, properly, a nation-state and their political citizenship as an arbitrary creation of the colonial West.
Overall the word "Islamo-fascists" works for me. I'm certain that if we had gangs of militant Christians taking control of the streets in this country, trying, judging, and punishing "religious offenders" with the tacit approval of officials at all levels of government Dr. Nunberg would have no problem calling these people "Christian fascists".

" War On Terror..."

As valid a title for a war as has ever existed.

"As valid a title for a war as has ever existed."

Thanks Mitch. The fact that you suggest that a war needs a title proves my point.

The fact that you use the phrase "proves my point" proves my point.

Doug,

“Workin’ families”, “Economic Justice”, “Fair Share”, “Corporate Greed”, “Outsourcing”, “Two Americas”, …; get my drift? Democrats are masters of using focus group tested, meaningless phrases to evoke an emotional responses at election time.

Conversely, “Islamofascist “ is a more precise description of our adversary than “terrorist” and makes it more difficult for you to categorize them as “freedom fighters” or to deflect attention away from Islamic extremists to Christian abortion clinic bombers.

Robert, you forgot "Invest in America". That was a doozy used to sell the largest tax increase in US history. Back when the Dems could still market.

The fact that Doug doesn't understand why ALL wars have titles proves he's historically illiterate.

Robert, how about; "Clear Skies initiative"? "Compasionate Conservative"? "No Child Left Behind"?

That you could even mention "focus group tested, meaningless phrases" when Frank Luntz is employed by the RNC is stunning.

And Robert... Outsourcing? How in God's name is that a Democratic word?

Nunberg specifically says the "Islamic fascist" formula was a means to draw a link between the GWOT and the last "just war" (Nunberg's phrase), WW2. He mentions Capra's "Why We Fight" series of WW2 propaganda films by name.
I've got the "Why We Fight" series on DVD. The first of the films, "Prelude to War", casts the war as a contest between modern nations and nations that have had their governments hijacked by militant factions that have turned their backs on historical progress by rejecting democracy.

FDR was a neocon. Who knew?

It seems that some of the readers here have figured out that both republicans and democrats mask their agendas with inane, focus group tested platitudes.
Put the kabosh on that talk or we'll all end up in Guantanamo.

Outsourcing? How in God's name is that a Democratic word?

I guess that you weren’t paying attention during the last election.

Remember Kerry accusing corporate “Benedict Arnolds“ of “outsourcing” those good ‘mericun jobs to India? Remember that little boy he was running with suggesting that we live in “two Americans” because of “outsourcing”.

Outsourcing is a focus group tested code word for free trade which democrats are fervently against.

Gee Robert, My bosses were using "outsourcing" in 1997 when we started sending work to Asia. We used to put it in out literature along with focus group tested terms like "repurposed", "guru", "Information Architect", "Total Quality Management" and "Six Sigma Black Belt". It's all bullsh*t.

"Outsourcing" was a pro-business, cost saving tool that made the investors happy but the term was most definately NOT created by democrats.

***Outsourcing" was a pro-business, cost saving tool that made the investors happy but the term was most definately NOT created by democrats.***

Yes, of course. Democrats took a perfectly good term coined by good, hard working, patriotic Americans and perverted it into something they could use to dress up their protectionist language.

I don't know the origins of the word "outsourcing", but I know the term "undocumented worker" as a euphamism for "illegal alien" had it's origins on the left. Same thing -- why pay and American $10 or $15 bucks an hour when a foreigner will do it for half that much?

""Information Architect"... It's all bullsh*t."

Really?

Tell me, Doug - what is "Bullsh*t" about the term "Information Architect?"

Do me a favor - answer that question before you leave *any* more comments.

Thanks.

To repeat, the deformation of language is fundamental to leftist politics. The rest is advertising. The problem with liberals is they can't distinguish the one from the other.

Eracus said,

"To repeat, the deformation of language is fundamental to leftist politics. The rest is advertising. The problem with liberals is they can't distinguish the one from the other."

Dude, we heard you the first time and it's just an inane this time around.

Inane? To the contrary, Doug, you provide a perfect illustration of the problem. That you don't realize it only more proves the point.

Meanwhile, how's that war on poverty coming along? And affirmative action? Have we counted every vote yet? And why is it that after centuries of history demonstrating the benefits of comparative advantage, outsourcing is suddenly a bad thing? And speaking of business, just what is economic justice anyway? How's that work exactly? Please explain, if you can.

And don't give us any of this, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is and never has been' that's one thing - if it means 'there is none', that was a completely true statement." Because, you know, words mean things. They have definitions we all understand, or used to. It's just that nowadays, some people, like Humpty Dumpty, when they use a word, it means just what they choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

That's how come the war on poverty really means raising taxes and affirmative action really means government sanctioned racial discrimination. It's also how counting every vote means counting some votes more than others and throwing some out entirely, and how exercising comparative advantage to the greater benefit of all becomes the dreaded "outsourcing" of evil multinational corporations. We could go on to describe what "pro-choice" really means, or what "timetable for withdrawal" really means, or any number of other interesting words and phrases, like "profiling," but if words only mean exactly what we choose them to mean, neither more nor less, and it all depends upon the meaning of "is," then really, what possible difference could there be between the validity of one definition over another?

It just wouldn't be "fair," right? Where's the "equality?" Where's the "justice?" Because, you know, some people perfectly well understand the meaning of the term, "Islamofascist," while others believe it's simply an emotional trigger that doesn't accurately reflect reality. And, of course, in the interest of fairness, equality, and justice, and given our disdain for all forms of discrimination -- to be fair, then, in the interests of equality and justice, it must follow that both definitions are equally true, right? That the term both does and does not accurately reflect reality, simultaneously.

Or is it just that the problem with liberals is they can't distinguish the one definition from the other?

Eracus, there's a difference between an rhetorical reference like the war on poverty and an official administration policy program named by people like Frank Luntz.

That you can't see the difference shows how gullible you are.

Any good salesman will tell you the best sale is when the customer doesn't even know they've just been sold.

"Any good salesman will tell you the best sale is when the customer doesn't even know they've just been sold."

From the mouth of babes.....really, Doug. Thank you. You have perfectly illustrated exactly what it means to be a liberal completely out of touch with reality lost in the miasma of deformed and distorted language. You simply can't think straight.

A good salesman doesn't have to rely on deception any more than an educated consumer has to rely on a salesman. What you are suggesting is that the ends justify the means, which is morally repugnant, and yet clearly defines and reflects the inherent contradiction between relative truth and objective reality in your liberal worldview.

Because for liberals, words don't necessarily mean anything. Their definitions are as interchangeable as parts on a lawnmower. What is true one day is not necessarily true the next. It's all relative. And since it's all relative, there can be no objective reality, no objective truth, no difference between right and wrong or good and evil, and therefore no accountability. There's only whatever you happen to believe at the time and whatever distortions of truth and reality are required to support those beliefs, well, since the ends justifies the means and everything is relative, why not just deceive the customer, the people, and yourself? It's easier that way. No accountability.

Do it enough and you get to the point where you announce publicly in writing that you really believe any "good" salesman will tell me the "best" sale is when the customer doesn't even know they've just been sold. In the real world, Doug, we fire that con. Bad for business.

"Eracus, that's an awfuly long winded response. To bad it's built on your typical lack of comprehension."

I said nothing about the sales exchange being built on deception.

"What you are suggesting is that the ends justify the means, which is morally repugnant"

Oh give it a rest Nancy. We're stuck in Iraq specifically because our President told us the ends justify the means.

"You have perfectly illustrated exactly what it means to be a liberal completely out of touch with reality lost in the miasma of deformed and distorted language."

miasma?

Hmmmm.... I'll see your miasma and raise you a pompous blow-hard...

Well, gee whiz, Doug. First you tell us, "Any good salesman will tell you the best sale is when the customer doesn't even know they've just been sold," but when confronted with the perfidy such a statement implies, you then tell us, "I said nothing about the sales exchange being built on deception."

Well of course you did, and you did so precisely, revealing your character for all to see. Only in your distorted world of delusional thinking brought about through the continuous use of deformed language, your writing that "the customer doesn't even know they've just been sold" doesn't actually mean that the customer was deceived. How convenient.

So now, since you don't want to be accountable for your misguided view of acceptable sales practices, you just make believe you were misinterpreted, change the meaning of what you wrote, throw in the odd bit of liberal cant to cast aspersions some place else, and finally, resort to insulting whomever's found you out to be the utter fraud that you are. And you're the guy in sales, right? Perfect.

So, to repeat, Doug, like Humpty Dumpty, when you use words they mean exactly what you choose them to mean, neither more nor less, again perfectly illustrating the intellectual dishonesty and moral vacuity it takes to be a modern liberal today.

Thank you again for illustrating my point.

-----

mi-as-ma : n. 1. A noxious atmosphere or influence 2. A poisonous atmosphere formerly thought to rise from swamps and putrid matter and cause disease.

"...any more than an educated consumer has to rely on a salesman."

Ahhh! Eracus! I know *you*!

I deal with *you* all the time at work!

I design and sell kitchens and bathrooms. In about 5% of my sales, I actually do the installation. The way I work is I charge $200 to to the consultation and design which gets applied to the purchase of product and then I spend as much time with with my customers as needed to get everything right.

Eracus is different though. He comes in with a list of stuff that he wants me to order, refuses to pay the $200 fee because he's spent an hour on-line doing his homework. You see, Eracus is educated consumer and obviously a lot smarter than me.

When he asks to see something on the computer, I have to explain to him 37 times that he refused to pay the fee and without it, I can't do any layout work on the computer. I'm just an order taker you see...

That's not acceptable for Eracus so he goes to my sales manager and screams about having to pay the fee when "he's just going to get it back when he buys the product anyway". My manager tells me to go ahead and wave the fee and do the design just to get the guy to shut up.

I spend an hour laying out Eracus' kitchen and then spent five hours modifying and redesigning everything because the "design" that Eracus brought in looked like sh*t while he sits at my desk complaining about how long it's taking to do the design that he didn't have to pay for, demands I place a 36 inch corner cabinet even though his doorsways are to narrow to actually get a cabinet that size in the room, insists that the estimated rough measurements he brought in are close enough and to stop insulting him with stupid questions because he knows what he's doing. Remember, he's an educated consumer...

When I give him the price, he blows a gasket because it's twice as much as the price he got on-line - nevermind the fact that he's decided Cherry would be nice instead of oak, we've added 52 feet of stacked crown molding because his list failed to include it and now he actually has a design that accomodates a sink AND a refrigerator - something that he failed to consider when he was busy on-line educating himself.

Of course, Eracus doesn't purchase. He takes the design and goes down the street to my competitor where he gets a quote on an inferior product and then comes back, screams at me because my price is higher and expects me to match the price and give him an additional 10% off.

When I say no, he goes to my manager and complains that I'm being rude and demands that we match the competition, give him 10% off per our policy of beating prices AND give him an additional 10% off because he feels like been treated unfairly.

Since I'm usually the top percentage sales designer in my store, and frequently my district, my manager courtiously invites Eracus to take his business elsewhere.

Since Eracus is so much smarter than I am, he figures out that he can get his kitchen - that I've designed for free - for 75% of what I can sell it for by going on-line and getting it from a 3rd party broker so - being the genius that he is, he orders everything on-line.

When the cabinets show up the wrong door style, in the wrong wood species and with cabinets broken, he comes in and screams at me because somehow, I'm to blame.

I'm not there to bail he a** out of the problem because I'm so deceptive that I managed to fool my client that actually paid the $200 fee into inviting me over for dinner and to see their new kitchen. What's worse is that while I'm there, I trick them into asking me to measure and design a build-out of their basement.

Doug,

Having read both your response, above, to Eracus AND your venting about the term "information architect", I have to congratulate you on your ability to have AND eat your cake.

As to your comments about "information architect" as a term of art - well, there's a shock, the world of business generates imprecise terms to describe...imprecise things.

I've been...whatever I am...for almost ten years now. I've had a TON of titles; User Interface Designer, Human Factors Engineer, Information Architect, Business Analyst, Human-Computer Interaction designer, and so on.

And by whatever title, I do for software development projects pretty much what you seem to do with bathrooms; I design them to be more-easily usable AND implementable.

Does the world of business frequently slather on imprecise language to cover imprecise thinking - or worse, no thought? Of course. Although in the *specific* instance of the term "information architect", as referring to someone who does what I do, not so much. Like a building architect, I design things to be both more aesthetic, functional AND affordable. A structural architect has professional standards and licensing, but the term "architect" (Greek for "Master Builder") long predates that. (That being said, I prefer the title "HCI Designer").

As to your assertion that the GOP is making a concerted effort to manipulate language - you are both thuddlingly, obviously right AND irrredeemably wrong. ALL political activity necessarily involves seizing control of language; Claude Pepper's famous story about his predecessor's famous stump speech ("My opponent's wife was a THESPIAN! Before he went to college, he MATRICULATED!...") is a comic version of a pragmatic reality.

And yet...

...the Democrats employ George Lakoff...

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/006285.html

...a Chomskian transformational linguist who is ALL about the left's long-term, crypto-Orwellian impulse to control language for their own purposes. Unlike your claims about the GOP, Doug, this is not even debateable; it's a matter of documentary evidence of Dem funding for Lakoff, and a brief look at Lakoff's oeuvre.

To say that the Republicans want to control language is both a no-brainer AND a disingenuous skipping over the fact that the Dems are getting into the business for keeps, in a way the GOP never has.

Gracious goodness, Doug, that's an awful lot of time and energy to waste excoriating some imaginary customer to avoid the real issue and change the subject.

For the record, I'd be your preferred customer. Haggling is such a waste of time and a sure indication there's a failure of communication. It's not worth my time. If I went to you for kitchen/bathroom design, it would be because I'd already gotten the referral, seen your work, and checked out your competition. If I'm in your store, it's because you already got the job at your usual and customary price. I would, of course, expect to pay for any additional expenses.

All you gotta understand is I want your best stuff and your best effort, that form follows function, and that I expect the best quality materials and workmanship to obtain the best quality result. I expect excellence and I expect to pay for it. If you have any questions or need a decision, please don't hesitate to ask me. The last thing I would do is interfere with your work because if I could do it better, I'd be doing it myself. If you deliver as expected, you will be rewarded because I may want to use you again later or refer you and your business to my friends and neighbors.

All of which is beside the point, of course, which Mr. Meevatch has again articulated very well.

*All* of life's most vital activities ... ...are about language and "marketing" in one form or another... ...The Democrats - like you, Doug - are only yapping about it because they're doing it badly, and losing as a result.

Interesting... As I said before, the Democrats have managed to elevate the manipulation of language to the level of rhetoric where as the Republicans have managed to write policy and national defense strategy based on the manipulation of language and clever taglines.

You're right Mitch. The Democrats are doing it badly. Let's examine why ok?

Your team has Frank Luntz who's taken the techniques of Richard Bandler and John Grinder and built a successful consulting company creating and directing the Bush administration in how to manipulate language. It's called framing but I'm sure you already knew that.

Out team has George Lakoff who is a linguist who writes about why the techniques Luntz uses are so effective.

You've got highly paid consultants directing the administration. We've got teachers writing "how to" books.

That's why your statement that, "the Dems are getting into the business for keeps, in a way the GOP never has..." is so absurd.

I wish we were good at it but we're not.

Here's the other part of the picture and where you come in Eracus. You were sold the war in Iraq but the guys who sold it were so good at their job, you're not even aware of just how much you were played. What's worse, you ignored us "liberals" when we started screaming that the price was too high.

"mi-as-ma : n. 1. A noxious atmosphere or influence 2. A poisonous atmosphere formerly thought to rise from swamps and putrid matter and cause disease."

Pom-pous blow-hard : informal expression. 1. See Eracus.

Doug, you're not even aware of reality. You have made it abundantly clear you are just another Humpty Dumpty living in Alice's Wonderland, forever lost down the rabbit hole of madhatters and smiling cats.

"you are just another Humpty Dumpty living in Alice's Wonderland, forever lost down the rabbit hole of madhatters and smiling cats."

Oh Look! Eracus went to the library and found 2 new books to read besides his thesaurus! And these even have pictures!

Good for you Eracus! Did you pick them out all by yourself or did your wife help pick them out?

dpzusb ucgnbmt wbav ugnfjztma uarthfp vwujzlkir safh