Patterico's Pontifications

12/9/2010

Fox News Refuses to Use Euphemism; Media Matters Calls Them Biased

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:54 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Media Matters has got itself up in a lather today, claiming it has some kind of smoking gun proving Fox’s bias, writing:

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News’ controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network’s journalists not to use the phrase “public option.”

Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox’s reporters should use “government option” and similar phrases — wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats’ reform efforts.

Journalists on the network’s flagship news program, Special Report with Bret Baier, appear to have followed Sammon’s directive in reporting on health care reform that evening.

Now presuming a basic accuracy in the story (which you should never do with these guys), well… what exactly is wrong with the term “government option”?  What they were proposing was a government-run insurance company that would present an “option,” an alternative, to the private companies.  So in what way is this not a “government option?”

But that is how thick the B.S. is this day and age, especially coming from the left.  Apparently, if you refuse to use their bullsh-t euphemisms and tell people what the words really mean, you are biased.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

89 Responses to “Fox News Refuses to Use Euphemism; Media Matters Calls Them Biased”

  1. Man-caused disasters.

    Overseas contingency operations.

    Undocumented immigrant.

    Youths of indeterminate origin.

    Health insurance exchange.

    I could go on all day.

    EC (ac8463)

  2. I’m inclined to line up with Media Matters on this one–or at least cut them some slack here.

    The term “public option” has been in use for as long as I can remember–meaning back into the 1980s at least–as the usual term for government health insurance; and it’s well established enough that no one should think “public option” means something other than government health insurance. The Fox term is merely a new way of saying the same thing– and in as much as it might suggest “public option” means something other than government health insurance, counterproductive.

    kishnevi (38f6c3)

  3. kish

    its a way of saying it that makes it clearer what you are talking about, and when you make it clear, it changes how the issue polls.

    They are right to use the more accurate term.

    EC

    You forgot “tax cuts for the rich.”

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  4. Along those lines, how about changing National Public Radio to something more in tune with its behavior: National Leftist Radio?

    Dan Smith (1c7976)

  5. Oh, sure, and the DREAM act cannot be called the ITIL (Ignore the Immigration Laws) act. When the libruls name something with a propaganda-driven, Orwellian name, everyone must accept it or else…or else some moonbat blogger will cry foul. And, of course, Memeorandum will give that blog headline status because it is really important news.

    Fred Beloit (3f1b2d)

  6. I don’t like Fox that much except when Krauthammer is on, and don’t even have cable anymore anyway. But they did their viewers a big favor by clarifying the issue that way. So I guess that proves MM is right..

    carol (5a5d33)

  7. Now you can add, ‘de facto Americans’.

    ironhorzmn (cb80d7)

  8. Double down. Push back. Ratchet up. Call them biased for not speaking plain. It’s the only way. This is war. It’s not good enough to make only probes and initial advances. Fight back! Push their PC bullshit and threats back in their faces.

    rrpjr (f10de9)

  9. “De facto American” = Mexican national.

    Fred Beloit (3f1b2d)

  10. Typically, you’rfe leaving out half the story. According to Fox consultant Frank Luntz, people were split on “public option”, but when it was called “government option”, people were overwhelmingly against it…. and after that is when the memo came down to call it “government option”.

    Interestingly, the memo itself notes that the term “public option” is the one in everyone’s mind, yet it still wants Fox personalities to use “government option”… so you ask:

    what exactly is wrong with the term “government option”?

    The answer is that Fox was deliberately avoiding the most well-recognized term in favor of a term which it knew polled negatively.

    Most people would see that as odd for an “unbiased” news organization. Only an apologist for propaganda would think otherwise.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  11. Oh, and NEVER forget “Pro-Choice”, where the only choice belongs to one parent, and never the third party with the most to lose, and it ONLY applies to the choice to have an abortion, not school choice, to possess firearms, to speak, etc.

    Collectivists lie. They HATE the truth. See “Death Panel”

    Ragspierre (2ab41c)

  12. Fox News repeats GOP talking points verbatim? Shocking, absolutely shocking. In other shocking news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

    JEA (b9124e)

  13. Kman

    yes, they knew that using the euphamism was affected the debate.

    So they stopped using it.

    Now maybe you can imagine they hope that dropping the euphamism would have a certain effect, but that is speculation. what is not speculation is the fact is they more exactly told the truth. And you, of course, have a problem with that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  14. Time for conservatives to take over the redefinition of words. The Dems have done it for decades, and use it to control thought. Definitions matter. I like the term government option. It is much more descriptive. I never use the word Pro-Choice, since it is a blatant. When someone uses it I ask. “Who’s choice, the mother or the child.” That usually shuts them up. Its abortion (I won’t even say Pro-Life, since it gives credence to the phrase Pro-Choice). Salmons has it right.

    Now lets call Affirmative Action – Anti-White-Male.

    Wayne (463fd3)

  15. Illegal aliens = undocumented workers = immigrants = defacto Americans = pre-Democrats

    Wondering (0cb8c4)

  16. Sometimes you have to cut through the verbiage, the proverbial ‘death panels’ buried in the stimulus bill, as the FCCER (certain humor there) and the IMAC, in the Health care, operating under Ezekiel
    Emmanuel’s assumptions, about the ‘complete lives’
    systems, and Berwick’s tutelage, now seen in the Avastin case

    narciso (6075d0)

  17. The answer is that Fox was deliberately avoiding the most well-recognized term in favor of a term which it knew polled negatively.
    Most people would see that as odd for an “unbiased” news organization.

    You can’t have it both ways. Suppose we accept that Fox is a biased propaganda outlet for using a negative-polling term in place of a more common neutral-polling term. Fine. You then have to accept that term substitution in the cases in EC’s list also constitutes bias.

    Man-caused disasters.
    Overseas contingency operations.
    Undocumented immigrant.
    Youths of indeterminate origin.
    Health insurance exchange.

    Every single one of these is a neutral or positive-polling euphemism substituted for a more common negative-polling term. The fact that they’re trying to shift public opinion up instead of down has no bearing on the question of bias- in either case, it’s a manipulative use of wording to shape opinion outcomes.

    I still think that when lefties object to Fox’s bias, it’s not really the bias per se that gets them worked up- it’s the loss of their old monopoly on journalistic bias. Okay for me, but not for thee. They can’t stand that their own voice isn’t still the only one people can hear.

    Andcar (20d541)

  18. We’re all familiar with the case in which the budget for a particular government program is expected to increase from $800 million per year to $850 million per year, but when some Republican proposes to lower the figure to $825 million the lefty media nexus portrays this as a “budget cut.” Do you suppose Media Matters finds this an objectionable use of language?

    JVW (9bed62)

  19. wayne

    for the record, affirmative action very often works its most insidious discrimination not against white people, but against asian americans.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  20. Obama has used ‘public option’ in the past, back in 2006, as I recall, arguing that it was the euphemism, for single payer, but the purpose is govt control of the health care system

    narciso (6075d0)

  21. There seems to be a propensity on the part of the Left to employ a form of magical thinking in which changing the name alters reality. People who believe that changing the name from Skunk Cabbage to Rose will change the aroma are operating at a primitive mental level. Maybe that primitive type of thought explains why our Lefties embrace the economics of a Cargo Cult.

    Bar Sinister (0d48e6)

  22. Now maybe you can imagine they hope that dropping the euphamism would have a certain effect, but that is speculation.

    Well, it’s not speculation. It’s based on the Luntz poll.

    But “public option” isn’t a euphemism any more than the using the phrase “public schools” or “public highways” or other government-run things

    Kman (d30fc3)

  23. But “public option” isn’t a euphemism any more than the using the phrase “public schools” or “public highways” or other government-run things

    Exactly. They are all euphemisms.

    This is plain as day. It’s perfectly accurate to note that ‘public’ schools are actually government run and owned. Public is an abstraction meant to convey the illusion that the masses own it, when that’s a completely silly concept.

    to own is to control, and only the government leadership really owns these things.

    In the same way, communism was a euphemism. In reality, it was a much tighter concentration of wealth and power, in the class of the government’s leadership, than the masses owning everything in common.

    And starting an insurance company owned by the leaders of the government, rather than everyone having control over it, is the government option. It sounds better to call it the public option, and this is certainly in line with how we describe a lot of government owned things, but ‘government option’ is more accurate and precise, and the hard left gives up the game when they complain about the much more accurate Fox News description. They actually insist on propaganda they find favorable.

    It’s pathetic.

    If they can’t sell their ideas when they are described honestly, they are not really democrats at all, are they?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. Public is an abstraction meant to convey the illusion that the masses own it, when that’s a completely silly concept.

    to own is to control, and only the government leadership really owns these things.

    Yes, but under our system, the public controls the government. That’s something conservatives don’t want to discuss. Because they need the demon.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  25. What kmart objects to is someone speaking the truth, calling something what it really is.

    JD (6e25b4)

  26. Kman

    > It’s based on the Luntz poll.

    No, that is not established, proving you didn’t actually read the MM story. big shock.

    But even if it was, guess what? it only demonstrates that the use of the euphamism is influencing the debate. so it should dropped in favor of the accurate statement.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  27. Kman

    and, no, public is not synonymous with government.

    For instance, when a company “goes public” that doesn’t mean the government is going to own it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  28. Yes, but under our system, the public controls the government. That’s something conservatives don’t want to discuss. Because they need the demon.

    Rather, the aristocracy has a great deal of power. A normal person can get sued right out of office if they don’t have millions at their personal disposal.

    We do not have a direct democracy. What a shock you’re exactly backwards, yet again.

    The air belongs to the public, rather than the government. The sunlight and rain does to (except in Colorado, lol). The roads and the schools do not. They belong directly to the government, and if you are upset at this honesty it’s because you’re a liar.

    And yes, kman, you are a liar. Creepily stalking Aaron around the internet, yapping like a retarded Chihuahua.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  29. Hell, the philosopher king courts can go exactly against the popular will for their government. Rather famously.

    I don’t even mind this in principle, if the popular will is opposed to civil rights, which it certainly has been at times. But Kman’s so ignorant of the most basic facets of our system.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  30. Kthing should try walking into a “public school”, or driving on a “public highway” without a driver’s license.

    This is a battle of ideas, and “government option” told the story MORE accurately than does “public option” (which would be more truthfully applied to “publicly traded health insurance companies”).

    As a trial lawyer, nobody accuses me of “bias” when I cast facts in the language I choose.

    Apparently, that is the basic problem…

    too much of that “free speech” goin’ on ’round here…

    And…please…don’t anyone try to tell me that is not what Media Mutters really wants to curtail.

    Ragspierre (11014d)

  31. Don’t forget the granddad of all the lefts favorite euphamisms.

    Social Security = government mandated retirement pyramid scheme.

    Gerald A (277259)

  32. Yes, but under our system, the public controls the government

    You’d think so, and were we to operate strictly by the Constitution, it’d be more so. But the fact is that the government exerts a great deal more control over the public than does the public over the government.

    Much of that control is in the form of bureaucrats who are not answerable to the public in any way.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  33. People’s Republic of China?
    Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea?

    Lefties are the same the world over it seems. Right Kman?

    Fred Beloit (3f1b2d)

  34. I guess some people are upset that Fox isn’t a house organ of the democrat-new communist party.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  35. Haw – Since when does anyone need Media Matters to tell them that Fox news is biased? Not completely biased of course, just enough to set up all the “analysis” and “commentary” shows surrounding Fox News which, of course, are completely biased.

    Murdoch and Ailes are geniuses.

    The best part about how they run their business is that they can get all the rest of the pro-establishment corporate media to repeat their stories, especially the biased ones, for free! It’s free advertising for their shows! No wonder their shows get the highest ratings!

    EdWood (c2268a)

  36. This the same Media Matters that just hired Glenn Beck’s biggest Twitter stalker in an effort to try to ramp up pressure on his sponsors?

    Classy friggin outfit Soros has there.

    Lightwave (b9c42a)

  37. I demand that MSNBC stop referring to “conservatives” and instead use “”the smart, witty, personable, and attractive option.”

    DaMav (6ab8ce)

  38. And here I was all along thinking it was the pubic option. Thanks for clarifying that Fox News!

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  39. Is this any different from the MSM airbrushing away Pro-Abortion and replacing it with Pro-Choice? Who can be against choice?

    And while parsing the Grand Canyon like difference between public option and government option perhaps we can take a look at the Employee Free Choice Act, aka Card Check. Who knew that killing a secret ballot expands choice?

    And there’s that word again. Choice. Democrats are apparently all about choice. Republicans are all about denying choice. Words don’t lie!

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  40. Yes, but under our system, the public controls the government. That’s something conservatives don’t want to discuss.

    I see the public controls the government. So then Obamacare must not have passed.

    Gerald A (9ef895)

  41. AW–

    Good writers borrow. Great writers steal. Thanks.

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  42. The term “public option” has been in use for as long as I can remember–meaning back into the 1980s at least–as the usual term for government health insurance; and it’s well established enough that no one should think “public option” means something other than government health insurance.

    That must be why nobody knows what it is.

    Jim Treacher (e041de)

  43. Is this any different from the MSM airbrushing away Pro-Abortion and replacing it with Pro-Choice?

    Conservatives used to be against that bullcrap. Now we think it’s just fine as long as it is useful to us. Wonderful.

    libarbarian (90bd00)

  44. We?

    JD (109425)

  45. On the same issue of semantics, why don’t we call Fox news, Right-wing nut heads’ news? And GOP, party of Hostage-taking takers? :)
    And why don’t we just go ahead and call Obama, Alhaji Hussein Ibrahim? LOL!!

    The Emperor (d61748)

  46. “Public Option” has been the term used for decades by both parties.

    Looks like the Faux News water-carriers are upset that their propagandists have been called out.

    Kurt Montandon (09b019)

  47. Really the Republicans are rank amateurs compared to the Dems in this area. And really it makes sense. The creative, artsy fartsy types are always going to lean left. They ‘feel’ more than you and I. Republicans, in contrast, will always be the ‘get off my lawn’ party.

    This is why the young guns need to represent the Repubs in 2012. Paul, Chris, Marco. The Republican reputation doesn’t match policy. Republican policy =s dyanmic economy and lots of opportunity. Why can’t the Republicans push a face to go along with this reality? The 2008ers can’t do it – the people have taken their measure (as communicated by the MSM) and the people see these folks as lawn cops (though Romney looks good kicking people off the lawn).

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  48. “Public Option” has been the term used for decades by both parties.

    Looks like the Faux News water-carriers are upset that their propagandists have been called out.

    The libs here don’t try to make the case that anything’s actually misleading or innacurate about “government option”, because it isn’t. In fact it’s more precise. So instead Fox News is required for some unexplained reason to use a term just because it’s been used in the past, or else they’re propagandists. What could that unexplained reason be?

    Gerald A (9ef895)

  49. Question for Emporer, Kman, Kurt– Is ‘government option’ incorrect terminology?

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  50. This is the same kerfluffle that happened when Fox started identifying terrorist suicide bombers as homicide bombers. I thought it was a silly use of words on their part at the time, but after the screeching reaction from the Lefties commenced immediately, they basically proved their point about how the MFM has controlled the narrative for decades now, and won’t give up control without screaming for their baby bottles. And so we see the same dynamic at play once again – let’s ask kmart if his pacifier’s been found yet.

    Dmac (498ece)

  51. Kurt Montalbon eats his boogers.

    JD (eb5afc)

  52. “Conservatives used to be against that bullcrap. Now we think it’s just fine as long as it is useful to us”

    Public Option getting replaced by a more descriptive term is a win for the people. That’s the standard here, not whether it’s good for Republicans. See how that works? It’s just the opposite with Pro-Choice vs Pro-Abortion.

    I don’t like spin from either side but it’s what you have to deal with. I don’t like the fact that Bush took war costs ‘off budget’, a ridiculous concept designed to give him a pass on the deficit. And I don’t like Clinton talking about balancing the budget for 3 years in the 90s when every year but one the debt increased under his Presidency (somehow interest on the debt is off budget – both parties play that game btw).

    Another pet peeve I have is the ridiculous costapalooza that goes on with the MSM, and the rightie outlets as well, and the politicans. You hear all kinds of costs quoted on the airwaves but rarely is the time period described or the basis for the accounting described. You get 10 year costs and one year costs and program costs cherry picked by the speaker for advantage. This creates huge confusion on basic issues.

    Bottom line: there’s lots of spin out there but this isn’t spin. Spin is designed to mislead and neither Public Option nor Government Option does that. And as stated before, Government Option is more descriptive and in my view preferred.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  53. Anyone for some rich Corinthian leather, that handle
    is choice.

    narciso (6075d0)

  54. narciso – Zee grill marks, zey are perfect!

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  55. Since the end goal is single payer, both “public option” and “governmnent option” are pro-liberal spin, since they both give the false impression that there will be an “option”.

    malclave (1db6c5)

  56. maclave, that’s a great point.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  57. But “public option” isn’t a euphemism any more than the using the phrase “public schools” or “public highways” or other government-run things

    I have been referring to “government schools” since 1980 when I had a political epiphany (thank you Ayn Rand!), and the blinders of my NY liberal upbringing were lifted.

    Define the terms, and you control the debate. The ones I’m using these days is “discrete carry” as versus “concealed carry”, or “standard capacity magazines” as versus “reduced capacity magazines”.

    Horatio (55069c)

  58. Let me clarify – I use “standard capacity magazines” whenever someone talks about the contrast between what I can buy in AZ as versus the as versus “reduced capacity magazines” sold in CA.

    Horatio (55069c)

  59. Fox will use any innuendo, any buzz word to promote their agenda. They have been promoting tea party agenda “get government out of our lives.” (get government out of our lives but claim control of all American female reproductive organs)

    Government = socialism = evil

    Not hard to see where they’re coming from.

    Pierre (8b3a2d)

  60. Pierre eats his own French boogers.

    JD (85b089)

  61. Question for Emperor, Kman, Kurt– Is ‘government option’ incorrect terminology?

    Comment by Birdbath — 12/9/2010 @ 1:52 pm

    “If you call it a ‘public option,’ the American people are split,” Luntz said in the conversation, which Media Matters cited in releasing the e-mails. “If you call it the ‘government option,’ the public is overwhelmingly against it.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46186.html#ixzz17fijiAVM

    The Emperor (d61748)

  62. Pierre is also a cheese – eating surrender monkey.

    Dmac (498ece)

  63. Emperor, is it incorrect?

    Your link doesn’t show it’s incorrect.

    In fact, your link shows that calling it the ‘public option’ is incorrect, since apparently the public (actual, not abstract euphemism) needs the more precise term.

    Saying “it’s a public option because it’s a government option and the public kinda controls the government” is not nearly as clear as saying “it’s a government option”.

    You’ve shown that the less precise ‘public’ term fools a lot of people into supporting something they actually don’t want.

    It’s cute to pretend Fox is biased when it’s actually the most balanced network using the term that is clearest.

    I can name a lot of things that are public but are not government. “Public space” is a legal term that means anything the public can access, so some could apply that kind of terminology to say any insurance option the public could buy (such as AETNA) is a public option.

    The democrats are trying to fool people into not understanding that a ‘public option’ for health care is actually ‘government run’ health care. It’s no big secret that Obama expects this ‘public option’ to drive private insurance out of business, and thus become ‘single payer’. so I think even the term ‘option’ is extremely misleading.

    At any rate, if you’re proposing a government run program and you’re having a hissy fit that it polls badly if called that, I think you’re not a very honest person.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  64. Emperor

    Is it possible that the reason why the american people were only split on the public option, but wholly against the government option, is because when you said public option, the public didn’t understand it meant that government was running it?

    But go on, please explain to me why our news outlets should be less accurate. I mean seriously, stand up for not telling the whole truth. Stand up for bullshit.

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  65. Pierre

    And you don’t see a contradiction in women saying “get your laws off my body–unless you mean socialized healthcare?”

    And the majority of republicans are only interested in limiting a woman’s freedom… when she wants to kill what they consider to be another human being. In any other context, that is considered a valid limitation on freedom, but suddenly on the subject of abortion it is not, according to the left.

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  66. Aaron, you made the distinction well.

    Anti-abortion laws are actually pro-life laws. The issue is that two people’s rights are in conflict.

    Pro-lifers believe a human being’s right to life outweighs a woman’s right to abort a child. This is why very few pro-lifers oppose abortion if the fetus is likely to die, or if it’s likely to kill the mother. No… the extreme the left uses is meant to put this respect for human life to the test (would you ‘punish’ a rape victim just to save the life of a child?)

    If you grant, at least for the sake of argument, that fetuses have an interest in life, then Pierre’s construct falls apart.

    When you complicate the issue of ‘privacy in health care’ with Obamacare, it really becomes impossible for the left. Roe v Wade ruled that we had a right to privacy, implicit to the concept of liberty in various sections of our constitution, that was so powerful we could kill someone privately if that’s a medical procedure in our body.

    But this privacy right doesn’t extend to my choice to not have insurance? The government gets to control that, my medical records, etc?

    This is a perfect place for states to be autonomous.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  67. Aaron.W. The reason behind this trick is to obscure the truth about this public option/ private controlled debate. First of, do you acknowledge that the purpose of this name change is to veil the difference between the public health insurance and the government funded health care which is government funded and controlled. It is a deliberate attempt to obscure the real issue here: which is that private run companies don’t want the government taking their business because they have monopolized the whole health system… it’s lobbyists using politics to protect their personal interests. It’s not about making health care affordable to all Americans. By calling it government option, you demonize it and paint the picture that it is government funded and controlled. You know it is not. It’s just the government stepping in to help the larger populace get health care.. Most of whom are not rich, fat cats who take the lion share of everything. It is called public option because it is an option available to the public. Funded by the public and enjoyed by the same. The government is there to keep it running.

    The Emperor (d61748)

  68. Lovey @66 – That is a false construct. The admitted goal of Obama and the left is single payer health care.

    daleyrocks (c07dfa)

  69. Really strange to call it a monopoly when a variety of competitors just happen to be all private.

    Emperor says ‘it is called public option because it is an option available to the public’.

    Um… no it isn’t. Otherwise we already have the public option, and have for decades.

    That emperor, Obama’s loyal minion, already is so confused about the distinction, really helps proves that Fox News is wise to be more clear and precise.

    This is a government run option. It’s not Fox News’s fault that Obama and others conflate what the results or intent of the government option is. Listen to Obama in front of one audience and it’s ‘single payer’, listen to another, and you can keep everything you’ve got now, if you want to.

    Emperor wants Fox News to obey the democrats propaganda directive, but the fact is, ‘public option’ is a euphemism for ‘government’.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  70. __________________________________________

    Apparently, if you refuse to use their bullsh-t euphemisms

    Ironic since the very essence of liberals and their ideology rests on a big, fat euphemism: “Progressive”

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  71. PBS = People’s House Organ

    It isn’t about the public. It doesn’t broadcast (few listen). And it isn’t a service. sheesh

    torabora (039912)

  72. that was an absolute blizzard of bullishly, lovie.

    JD (eb5afc)

  73. that was supposed to be bullshlt.

    JD (eb5afc)

  74. Euphemisms pretty much indicate what they are not.

    I mean there is no argument, really. “Public option” means “government-controlled health care.” How, in any, world can a public or private company compete against the government when government makes the rules?

    It is what it is. That’s the whole point of Obamacare.

    Ag80 (e828a4)

  75. That is just crazy talk, Ag80. Crazy.

    JD (eb5afc)

  76. This is just more of George Lakoff’s using words to enlighten (or obscure) political discussions:

    Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. Conservatives would subscribe more strongly and more often to a model that he calls the “strict father model” and has a family structured around a strong, dominant “father” (government), and assumes that the “children” (citizens) need to be disciplined to be made into responsible “adults” (morality, self-financing)…

    In contrast, Lakoff argues that liberals place more support in a model of the family, which he calls the “nurturant parent model”, based on “nurturant values”, where both “mothers” and “fathers” work to keep the essentially good “children” away from “corrupting influences” (pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc.). Lakoff says that most people have a blend of both metaphors…

    In the end, if it does not poll well, change the language…

    BfC (ffa9b4)

  77. it’s lobbyists using politics to protect their personal interests.

    Compared with a group that has been among the most well compensated over the past many years (ie, rate of growth of the income of public-sector workers versus private-sector ones), with a multitude of perks (holidays galore!) and cushy pension plans (retire at 50 on not much less than your full salary!)? I’m referring to government employees, their unions, and in particular, the pencil pushers in the IRS—who will be responsible for enforcing ObamaCare.

    Yea, I feel so warm about and protected by them.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  78. ag80, you’re right. That’s the whole point of Obamacare.

    It’s amazing the degree of language manipulation that lefties have come to demand from those who do not agree with them.

    Of course, if you disagree with Obama on taxation, you are a hostage murdering bastard, and if you report the news from any POV other than the democrat party’s, you are no longer a real news organization at all.

    Emperor was defending Obama’s calling the GOP hostage takers yesterday. Literally. And today he attacks calling government run healthcare ‘the government option’.

    That’s quite an extreme degree of partisan shilling, emperor. It’s so bad I bet you defensively insist you aren’t even a partisan.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  79. Dustin – When will Barcky call the House Dems kidnappers, holding the American people hostage?

    JD (eb5afc)

  80. Bfc, this Lakoff fells doesn’t seem to understand conservatism very well.

    It certainly is not about a strong father intruding on our choices all the time.

    I see government as an extremely difficult to wield tool that is prone to mistakes and extremely expensive. It’s not my parent, but rather something I should only use if really necessary, and best kept out of as many things as possible. Lakoff’s entire construct is based on the notion that the people are babies who need help from the government.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  81. Empty Roar

    > First of, do you acknowledge that the purpose of this name change is to veil the difference between the public health insurance and the government funded health care which is government funded and controlled

    Um, no. That would be UNVEILING it. That is what it is.

    And if public = government, as claimed by so many of you, how exactly is “pubic option” supposed to be different? Oh, right, because you are hoping people won’t understand what you guys claim is clear. On one hand, you all claim it is synonymous, but you are hoping no one figures out that it is.

    > private run companies don’t want the government taking their business because they have monopolized the whole health system

    Private companies, plural, cannot by definition, monopolize anything.

    And I don’t want the government taking over health care from them. Do you really think it will be because the government will do a better job? Or do you think it will be because the government will not be participating on a level playing field?

    Indeed, your utopian description of the pubic option implies that it won’t be on a level playing field. When you say it will be affordable by everyone, well, first, really? Even the crackhead who is homeless? The only way he can afford it is if its free. But if its free, then it means that they are going to take on more costs than a regular company. If they were self-funded, then they would have to charge the paying customers even higher premiums than regular companies, which would drive them away. So that won’t work, you have to have public financing—that is, taxes. And then you think, what, we are going to give them all that taxpayer money and not retain control and oversight?

    And let’s pretend we don’t. So then it would be like… amtrack. Or the post office. Yep shining examples of government efficiency.

    And given taxes to fund it, what do you think the chances are that they will keep the tax contribution purely to those who can’t afford to pay. no, everyone’s premiums will be reduced and thus they get an unfair competitive advantage.

    > It’s not about making health care affordable to all Americans.

    It never was. It was about Democrats’ desire to control our lives.

    > By calling it government option, you demonize it and paint the picture that it is government funded and controlled.

    Which is exactly what the “public option” would be. Controlled by the government, funded by it.

    > Funded by the public and enjoyed by the same

    Unlike regular insurance companies, which are funded by… what exactly? China? Martians?

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  82. Dustin – When will Barcky call the House Dems kidnappers, holding the American people hostage?

    Comment by JD

    As soon as they fail to worship Obama enough.

    Which is basically starting to happen, actually. The guy really hates Republicans, apparently, but it looks like he thinks democrats are sanctimonious pigs.

    He has an interesting way of building a coalition or leading our country.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  83. The Dem caucus telling the President to f@ck off was humorous.

    JD (eb5afc)

  84. I don’t mean to be glib, but, let the hostages go.

    I’m sorry, but all these debates come down to one thing.

    Government serves the people.

    When we talk about how much we pay in taxes or how is is spent, we’re really talking about your money and mine, not the government’s.

    It is not the government’s money. It is about my money.

    I allow the government to allocate a significant portion of my paycheck to do the things that government does and I have no problem with that.

    However, if I object to how that money is spent, it doesn’t make me unpatriotic, racist or any of the other non-sequiturs that the left trots out at the earliest chance.

    The government answers to me and how they spend my money is important.

    If you disagree, go live in China, Cuba or Venezuela.

    Highway 6 runs both ways.

    Ag80 (e828a4)

  85. __________________________________________

    Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family.

    I’ve often mused that liberals/liberalism is like a set of permissive, naive, ridiculously two-faced parents while conservatives/conservatism is similar to a set of boundary-setting, realistic, school-of-hard-knocks parents. The “parents” represent a mix of social, cultural and political entities (including schools, churches, government) in a nation, while the “children” are the public in general.

    If the “parents” are permissive and naive (and foolish), then the “kids” in such a family had better be intrinsically reliable, self-disciplined, resourceful and stable. IOW, that society had better have damn good demographics. If not, then that family is going to end up living in the proverbial house of cards. For example, the “house” of Mexico, the “house” of Greece, the “house” of Venezuela, the “house” of Rhodesia, the “house” of France.

    Mark (3e3a7c)

  86. I’d rather see conservative government as an autistic savant who is the only guy who can figure out these 3 specific tasks, but is actually a bit of a disaster generally, so we only let him do these three things because we have no other resort.

    And liberal government is letting that autistic savant handle everything. Even making things up for him to do that we don’t even need, or really want. Like voluntary neurosurgery, or painting the car to match the season.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  87. Bfc, this Lakoff fellow doesn’t seem to understand conservatism very well.
    Comment by Dustin — 12/9/2010 @ 8:38 pm

    Must be why he has been a hot commodity with Democratic Party for many years:
    UC scholar to help Democrats refine message / Party is urged to control policy debate

    Washington — 2004-12-05 — House Democrats, seeking to take the offensive against Republicans in an effort to win back a majority, will talk Tuesday with a Berkeley scholar who says Republicans have succeeded by framing the nation’s political debate on their terms.

    The scholar, UC Berkeley professor of linguistics and cognitive sciences George Lakoff, is a hot item in liberal circles these days as he argues Democrats must develop a message that resonates more deeply with voters. His latest book, “Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate,” is on best-seller lists in Washington and the Bay Area. Before the Nov. 2 election, then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who heads the House Democratic Policy Committee, distributed hundreds of copies of Lakoff’s book to their colleagues and staffs.

    BfC (ffa9b4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3098 secs.