I feel you but I can't focus too much on messaging right now because I'm still convinced the people who voted for Tubby knew what they were voting for. Which is why he and his henchmen are already talking about how important the deportations are. They know their voters wanted that. Language isn't the issue.
Yes. Is that simple enough? Not sure I want to detail my thoughts about where the language of the left goes wrong in a public forum. But last night I had a fascinating encounter at the prescription counter of my local CVS (in the border between the Deep Blue West Village and Chelsea) where two patrons were discussing Trump: "Now Trump is here I'll be able to retire at 62!" "He won't be around by the time you're 62!" "No he still will be!" "No by then it will be Vance--he'll run in '26!" "Well Vance and Trump--they'll make sure I can get my social security at 62!" I don't know where these voters get their info but clearly not from NYT hyperlinks.
I pointed that out--that the funds were more likely to be redirected into funding Trump bibles or refurbishing Mar a Lago--but they were too deep into discussing the wonders of Trump and Vance to hear me. The much younger people behind the counter did, though, and were relieved that I said something. It was revelatory.
Another term invented and used effectively by Republicans: Climate change. Graduate school language—Invented by Frank Luntz for GW Bush, I think. Easy to dismiss and ignore, because it's not plain language, not real.
"Global warming," You didn't have to interpret—you could feel it, live in it.
In this case, though, "climate change" isn't terribly off the mark. It's more expensive than “warming," accounting for, e g., the hundred-year storms that now occur several times a year. Although it doesn't go far enough: maybe it needs to be "traumatic climate change."
But it is global warming that's causing the climate change (I think.) And that's something people can relate to emotionally. "Climate change" is a euphemism that Republicans have used to trivialize a vital issue.
I'm thinking of George Carlin's talk about euphemisms. "Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome?" It takes all the humanity out of a condition, when we already had a term that people understood viscerally—"Shell-shock." Not as inclusive as PTSD, but more quickly understood and felt.
I know so many conservatives who scoff at global warming when there's a huge storm or flood - seems to me it only works emotionally for fires and extreme heat. But also, they'll scoff at anything.
Wow, I never considered other meaning of the phrase "we're not going back". I remember Clinton had the slogan "love trumps hate" which did stand out as having a second meaning...loving Trump's hate. ugh.
I never liked We're Not Going Back, but the irony of NOT was lost on me until now. It was flat, clunky, and uninspiring, conjuring an image of a militant 60's raised fist. Democrats suck at tag lines and slogans. Biden's Build Back Better, as someone pointed out the other day, sounds more like an ad for gym memberships. Clenched teeth. Nails on a blackboard.
I feel you but I can't focus too much on messaging right now because I'm still convinced the people who voted for Tubby knew what they were voting for. Which is why he and his henchmen are already talking about how important the deportations are. They know their voters wanted that. Language isn't the issue.
Well, language is *my* issue. It's what I know, so it's what I write about.
Yes. Is that simple enough? Not sure I want to detail my thoughts about where the language of the left goes wrong in a public forum. But last night I had a fascinating encounter at the prescription counter of my local CVS (in the border between the Deep Blue West Village and Chelsea) where two patrons were discussing Trump: "Now Trump is here I'll be able to retire at 62!" "He won't be around by the time you're 62!" "No he still will be!" "No by then it will be Vance--he'll run in '26!" "Well Vance and Trump--they'll make sure I can get my social security at 62!" I don't know where these voters get their info but clearly not from NYT hyperlinks.
Good grief.
I think that may have something to do with why they won - successful marketing of lethal Kool Aid. It was a revelation.
I love that they think there'll still be Social Security.
I pointed that out--that the funds were more likely to be redirected into funding Trump bibles or refurbishing Mar a Lago--but they were too deep into discussing the wonders of Trump and Vance to hear me. The much younger people behind the counter did, though, and were relieved that I said something. It was revelatory.
They sound like the last words of someone being dragged back to gaol. Too much fear and negativity. Move to something, not away from something.
This resonated so much. Thank you.
Another term invented and used effectively by Republicans: Climate change. Graduate school language—Invented by Frank Luntz for GW Bush, I think. Easy to dismiss and ignore, because it's not plain language, not real.
"Global warming," You didn't have to interpret—you could feel it, live in it.
In this case, though, "climate change" isn't terribly off the mark. It's more expensive than “warming," accounting for, e g., the hundred-year storms that now occur several times a year. Although it doesn't go far enough: maybe it needs to be "traumatic climate change."
But it is global warming that's causing the climate change (I think.) And that's something people can relate to emotionally. "Climate change" is a euphemism that Republicans have used to trivialize a vital issue.
I'm thinking of George Carlin's talk about euphemisms. "Post Traumatic Shock Syndrome?" It takes all the humanity out of a condition, when we already had a term that people understood viscerally—"Shell-shock." Not as inclusive as PTSD, but more quickly understood and felt.
I know so many conservatives who scoff at global warming when there's a huge storm or flood - seems to me it only works emotionally for fires and extreme heat. But also, they'll scoff at anything.
Good points! I've always liked "global weirding," too. Avoids the scoffing at "global warming" when there's a freakish blizzard somewhere.
Republicans, conflating "weather" with "climate."
#1: "We're Not Going Back" only implies the future. Its focus is BACK, plus it's negative, with that big ol' knot of a "NOT" right in the middle.
#2: The Times editorial mistook short sentences for short words.
Wow, I never considered other meaning of the phrase "we're not going back". I remember Clinton had the slogan "love trumps hate" which did stand out as having a second meaning...loving Trump's hate. ugh.
I wrote a post on my old blog, almost exactly eight years ago, about "Love trumps hate" and other problems with Clinton's campaign messaging (including her logo): https://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/2016/11/where-hillary-clintons-marketing-went-wrong.html
I grudgingly bow in the general direction of your blandishments, but can I keep "enshittification"?
I never liked We're Not Going Back, but the irony of NOT was lost on me until now. It was flat, clunky, and uninspiring, conjuring an image of a militant 60's raised fist. Democrats suck at tag lines and slogans. Biden's Build Back Better, as someone pointed out the other day, sounds more like an ad for gym memberships. Clenched teeth. Nails on a blackboard.
More "back"!
More "going"!