Liberal Linguistic Lies

I have long believed that a key component of the left’s political success over the last century has been its masterful use of deceptive language to frame both issues and their own political positions in ways that make them much more palatable to an unthinking public than they otherwise would be if they were presented more honestly. Indeed, even the use of the term “liberal” to characterize themselves is a bit of a deception in historic terms, since liberal originally indicated someone who favored free trade and limited government, quite the opposite of what liberals have now become. Anyway, with that in mind, I have cobbled together a list of common liberal linguistic lies of our modern age. Feel free to add to the list.

1. Women’s Health – When liberals speak about “women’s health” in a political context, they aren’t really talking about the health of women. They are actually speaking about abortion. So when someone says, for example, that “It’s time to remove politics from women’s health care”, what they really mean is “Abortion should be legal and immune to the processes of democracy.”

2. Reproductive rights/freedom – Like “women’s health”, this is just another liberal euphemism for abortion. Which is a bit bizarre if you think about it, because, if one did not already possess the freedom/right to reproduce, how could one possibly be in a position to need/want an abortion?

3. Marriage Equality – We’ve talked about this one extensively here at ATiM in the past. “Marriage equality” actually has nothing do with equal rights to marry, as liberals try to deceive us into believing, but is instead a call for changing the very definition of marriage from what it has always been to something new such that it can encompass homosexual relationships. Throughout US history homosexuals have always had the very same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have had. But what they want is a new right, namely the right to “marry” someone of the same sex. Since, due to the very meaning of the term “marriage”, no one, not even heterosexuals, has ever had that right ever before in the US, what they want is not “equality” but rather a new conception of the notion of marriage.

4. War on (fill in the blank) – When liberals say that someone is engaging in a War on X, they don’t mean that one is literally or even figuratively waging a war on X. They simply mean that the person disagrees with them over some political issue that is really important to them. And often the issue isn’t even related to X. For example, the War on Women usually refers to just advocacy for stricter abortion laws. When Obama spoke of Bush’s War on Science, what he really meant was that he had a moral/ethical disagreement with regard to what the government should be funding.

5. Deny – The other day, following SCOTUS’ Hobby Lobby decision, Democrat Elizabeth Warren characterized the decision as giving corporations the power to “deny their employees access to birth control.” Of course the court gave no such power to “deny access” to anything at all. What she actually meant was that the court recognized that certain corporation owners have the right not to have to pay for certain kinds of birth control that are, nonetheless, still legally accessible to their employees. And this is not an isolated instance of such an idiosyncratic use of the term “deny” by liberals. For example, if one thinks that the government shouldn’t dictate what an employer has to pay employees, then one wants to “deny equal pay to women”.

6. invest/subsidize – Liberals often use the word “investment” when what they actually mean is “subsidy”, and then they use “subsidize” when what they actually mean is “not force to pay more money”. So when the government gives money or guarantees to companies like Solyndra and Tesla, it is “investing”, but when doesn’t raise the minimum wage, it is “subsidizing” corporations.

Feel Good Poll of the Day 7/15/14

pew1

No more beep beep boop

Finally was able to get past this screen. New post interface. Oh well, back on Monday

Faux Morning Report 7/10/14

The report is that Brent is still not able to post. That is all.

New Thread While Brent Pretends WP Is Giving Him Trouble 7/9/14

But we know the real reason.

Open Thread 7/8/14

Talking points not welcome.

Fresh Thread In Case Brent “Still Can’t Log Onto WordPress”

Freebird! (Holds up lighter.)

Happy 4th of July!

Stick it Georgie!

Father’s Day Open Thread

Hoping all the Dads here have a nice relaxing day and feel loved, respected and cherished by your children.  As only a half-assed feminist I support the role of Fathers in children’s lives. 🙂  My father was a hard man to live with sometimes, and we had our issues over the years, but I always treasured the discipline and independence he encouraged in me.  We really became best friends again at the end of his life and those memories are very precious to me.

My children have been very fortunate to have such a great father, as are my grandchildren.  They all got lucky and I think my Dad was a great example to my husband, who lost his father when he was quite young, and my son who was greatly influenced by both of them.

Wishing you all a great day!

Lulu

Gay Conservatives Denied ‘Official’ Spot at Texas GOP Convention

From KUT in Austin I heard the following.

The Texas Republican Party has denied the Log Cabin Republicans a space at next week’s state convention. Log Cabin Republicans represent gay conservatives and supporters of marriage equality in the party.

Log Cabin Republican Executive Director Gregory Angelo says the state party denied the group’s application for a booth at the convention because, as homosexuals, they disagree with a plank in the party platform. The plank reads, in part, that “homosexuality tears at the fabric of society.”

“It was our obligation to let the voters of Texas know and to let members of the Republican Party in Texas know that that language is in the party platform and it is being used to intentionally exclude gay Republicans from formal participation in the state GOP convention,” Angelo says.

A state party is not purely a private club.  We learned that early in the civil rights struggles for black Texans.  In Smith v. Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to a 1923 Texas state law that had delegated authority to state conventions of political parties to make rules for their primaries. It ruled that the law violated the protections of the Constitution because the state allowed a discriminatory rule (no “negroes”) to be established by the Democratic Party.  However, homosexuals are not being excluded here per se – in fact, the Log Cabin Rs who were elected delegates will be in attendance and will be voting.  They will not be allowed a “booth”.

My own view of this bolded language in the Texas Republican platform is that it is wrong as a matter of fact and deeply prejudiced as a matter of practice. It is prejudiced as a matter of practice because no individual homosexual could be judged upon her own gifts and graces if her self-identification as a homosexual tears at the fabric of society.

The plank will not scare off any Rs in TX.  Those who disagree with it will think it is a low priority and those who agree with it will strongly approve.  There is a difference of enthusiasm here.

QB noted those of us who don’t think consenting private sexual conduct is a moral issue do so by reason of a libertarian slant.  He made the case that while he did not believe there should be legal consequences for CPA sex, same sex marriage was not itself private conduct.  This plank morally condemns private conduct and, I think, even status.  While codifying this moral condemnation into law is not a requisite, I think it would be a natural result, because it happened historically.

Imagine yourself on the platform committee of the Texas Republican Party.  Do you vote for or against this plank?  Do you argue for or against it, and if you do, do you argue on moral or political grounds?  Do you think it is an important plank or a throwaway?