Words are powerful tools. When formed into slogans, they frame political debate. Even when words do not accurately reflect reality, they still put people on the offensive or defensive when it comes to public discussion. If your political philosophy determines the language of the debate, the outcome will more likely be in your favor.
Take the current immigration debate. Bipartisan congressional moderates want a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for five years. Opponents have labeled this “amnesty.” The word “amnesty” means to grant a general pardon. Supporters of a path to citizenship are not proposing a pardon; they are trying to deal with the reality of 11 million illegal immigrants. Using the label “amnesty” gives immigration opponents the chance to put the immigration moderates on the defensive because it implies a pardon for criminals, something the general public, which may favor the path to citizenship, doesn’t like.
The abortion debate shifted toward the anti-choice position years ago when abortion foes were able to force the substitution of “unborn child” for “fetus.” I well remember the Colorado legislature’s debate when pro- choice Republicans and Democrats fought an unsuccessful battle to stop the loaded language of the conservatives from taking the place of the medical term “fetus.”
Since then, “unborn child,” like “partial birth abortion,” has given the abortion-debate edge to anti- choice proponents because these terms frame a graphic picture of abortion instead of characterizing it as a woman’s right to make a personal decision.
“Activist judges” is a favorite term of the right wing. An “activist” judge, as it turns out, is a judge whose decision you don’t like. These same conservatives who despise “activist” judges loved the “activist” Supreme Court justices who betrayed their states rights leanings to give President Bush the 2000 election in Florida, overturning a state Supreme Court decision regarding a ballot recount in what was clearly a state prerogative. They also castigate “activist judges” who interpret the Constitution differently from their own preferences.
There are endless examples of using language to change the national debate. President Bush has called logging of forests “the healthy forests initiative” and the lowering of clean air standards “clear skies.” Though these presidential policies bear no relationship to the reality of this language, they make the policies sound good to environmentally conscious voters.
Similarly, Democrats were put on the defensive by the conservatives” claim to “family values,” even though conservatives’ definition of values may not reflect those of the typical American family. Likewise, “faith based” has become the less charged term for “religious” organizations. Most of us are cautious about the intrusion of religion into government, but somehow “faith based” seems less threatening.
Next is the term “creation science,” which sounds like a legitimate subject and lessens the fear of the religious theory of creation being taught in science classrooms, even though there is no such thing as a science of creation.
In the battle of language, conservatives have clearly won the day. They have spent millions of dollars on think tanks, focus groups, marketers and talk-show hosts to design and test the language that frames key issues on their terms. Progressives have been left in the dust, fighting a defensive action against a far better propaganda machine on the right.
As this next election approaches, Democrats and progressives must face the reality of losing the slogan wars. And that has continued to translate into losing the political battles as well. Not only must Democrats come up with a clear set of policies between now and November, they must also frame them in language that means something to the general public, language that challenges the extraordinarily successful slogans of the right.
If progressives can’t capture the public’s imagination, eliminate the need to be defensive about one’s beliefs and shift the national debate to the really important issues facing us, they will lose again in 2006. Words do, indeed, have a massive impact in the world of national debate and political success.
Gail Schoettler (gailschoettler@email.msn.com) is a former U.S. ambassador, Colorado lieutenant governor and treasurer, Democratic nominee for governor and Douglas County school board member.
