signalmankenneth
Verified User
Is it ever appropriate for a newspaper to state that a fascist is a fascist? If so, when? If not, why not? These questions have been plaguing us of late.
Perhaps more recent editions of the Associated Press Stylebook hold the answer. Alas, our copy was published in November of 1990—midway through the “kinder, gentler” George Herbert [Hoover] Bush administration. House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich had just teamed up with pollster Frank Luntz to distribute a memo to members of the Republican Party. Titled, “Language, a Key Mechanism of Control,” a key passage in that memo read:
“The [vocabulary] list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.”
Two things about that sentence seem startling, in retrospect. Though it appears in an official GOP document, it speaks in favorable terms about governing. Also, it contains a reference to the opposition which respectfully uses the correct name of the Democratic Party. Conspicuously absent is the “Democrat Party” slur, heard so often nowadays.
A Republican talking like that these days would be denounced as a RINO. These are minor quibbles, though—mere distractions.
As the cartoon strip “Doonesbury” noted in 2008, the Gingrich/Luntz memo served as “The Magna Carta of Attack Politics.”
The Republican Party was “active, building, candid, caring, common sense, confident, courage(ous), (for the) family, (and) freedom,” and so forth and so on, ad nauseam, right through to its “unique vision.”
The insidious Democratic Party, on the other hand, stood for “abuse of power.” It was anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, and anti-jobs. How it escaped being anti-pet we’ll probably never know. Democrats would “betray” you in their “bizarre” compulsion to serve the “bosses [and the] bureaucracy.” They would “cheat” you, using “coercion.” The “consequences” of their “corruption” would include “criminal rights, crisis, cynicism, [and] decay.
The state of the nation would sink ever “deeper” as Democrats indulged their urge to “destroy.” Their “destructive” ways would “devour” the nation, leaving us all in “disgrace.” Yadda yadda yadda. Nearing the end of their list of pejoratives, Gingrich and Luntz had the gall to include the term “traitors.” Dare we suggest that in light of recent events, this seems just a tad ironic?
It’s been more than thirty years since the Republican Party issued this litany of invective. How has the country changed?
It is as if the Overton window which defines the limits of acceptable political expression had been chained to the bumper of a coal-rolling pickup truck and dragged to a Ku Klux Klan rally.
As we look back over that last sentence, though, we begin to worry a bit. Many respectable news organizations have reported lately that the public, sick of rancor, wants to see more civility and bipartisanship.
https://www.nhgazette.com/2022/08/26/a-fascist-by-any-other-name/
Perhaps more recent editions of the Associated Press Stylebook hold the answer. Alas, our copy was published in November of 1990—midway through the “kinder, gentler” George Herbert [Hoover] Bush administration. House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich had just teamed up with pollster Frank Luntz to distribute a memo to members of the Republican Party. Titled, “Language, a Key Mechanism of Control,” a key passage in that memo read:
“The [vocabulary] list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.”
Two things about that sentence seem startling, in retrospect. Though it appears in an official GOP document, it speaks in favorable terms about governing. Also, it contains a reference to the opposition which respectfully uses the correct name of the Democratic Party. Conspicuously absent is the “Democrat Party” slur, heard so often nowadays.
A Republican talking like that these days would be denounced as a RINO. These are minor quibbles, though—mere distractions.
As the cartoon strip “Doonesbury” noted in 2008, the Gingrich/Luntz memo served as “The Magna Carta of Attack Politics.”
The Republican Party was “active, building, candid, caring, common sense, confident, courage(ous), (for the) family, (and) freedom,” and so forth and so on, ad nauseam, right through to its “unique vision.”
The insidious Democratic Party, on the other hand, stood for “abuse of power.” It was anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, and anti-jobs. How it escaped being anti-pet we’ll probably never know. Democrats would “betray” you in their “bizarre” compulsion to serve the “bosses [and the] bureaucracy.” They would “cheat” you, using “coercion.” The “consequences” of their “corruption” would include “criminal rights, crisis, cynicism, [and] decay.
The state of the nation would sink ever “deeper” as Democrats indulged their urge to “destroy.” Their “destructive” ways would “devour” the nation, leaving us all in “disgrace.” Yadda yadda yadda. Nearing the end of their list of pejoratives, Gingrich and Luntz had the gall to include the term “traitors.” Dare we suggest that in light of recent events, this seems just a tad ironic?
It’s been more than thirty years since the Republican Party issued this litany of invective. How has the country changed?
It is as if the Overton window which defines the limits of acceptable political expression had been chained to the bumper of a coal-rolling pickup truck and dragged to a Ku Klux Klan rally.
As we look back over that last sentence, though, we begin to worry a bit. Many respectable news organizations have reported lately that the public, sick of rancor, wants to see more civility and bipartisanship.
https://www.nhgazette.com/2022/08/26/a-fascist-by-any-other-name/
