How often do we hear statements intended to postulate a position on a very complex issue reduced to a few simple words? Statements such as "Bush lied, people died" have become the stock in trade of the left, a type of shorthand that’s designed to convince skeptics if repeated often enough.
This concept of slogans reinforcing ideas arises from marketing principles that have worked very well over the past century or so, albeit they are used to sell products, not a philosophical position. For over four decades the Left has used clichés, beginning in the 1960s to voice opposition to the Vietnam War. "Hell, no! We won’t go", "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong is gonna win" and others have peppered the rhetoric of the Left in what then was a massive movement to oppose one of america’s more unpopular misadventures.
In those days, items such as a lapel button spoke volumes about the wearer’s position on the war and other issues and became shorthand for kindred spirits. Today it has become meaningless gobbledygook that does nothing other than to give away one’s life view.
The Left has convinced itself of its infallibility and no longer finds it necessary to ply convincing, fact-filled arguments when discussing things like the Iraq war, feminism, sexual preferences and poverty. Instead they come up with clever-sounding words strung together to make a statement.
While it sounds dramatic, the slogan "take back the night" really has no meaning, other than to unite feminists in the perception that all men are rapists, unless they display the correct number of non-male traits to make themselves acceptable. "Save the environment" is another such slogan designed to imply that our environment is mortally ill and only drastic actions, such as the Kyoto wealth-reallocation scheme or the cessation of mining and oil drilling happens immediately. and don’t get me started on "Bush lied; people died" as it is the biggest intellectual cop-out of all.
While sloganeering in itself could be construed as being completely harmless, it’s a poor substitute for a rational and logical argument. at best, it’s a form of mental masturbation and at worst it’s an example of how mindless and unthinking the Left has become.
The shorthand has also morphed into how leftists feel about those who question or oppose their views. Leftists tend to believe Rush Limbaugh is a bigot, Dr. Laura is an evil homophobe and Karl Rove can control and manipulate hurricanes. according to them Bush is a racist. Never mind the reality of the situation or the fact that many on the Left have never heard Rush Limbaugh or Dr. Laura and rely instead on the word of mouth from their leftist cohorts for the veracity of their beliefs. It’s a safe, comfy feeling to be among kindred spirits who understand your shorthand and share your views, no matter how bizarre they may be.
The Left has yet to realize that most americans have taken a few steps back and asked "what’s wrong with this picture?" That’s one of the reasons that their support is steadily eroding.
Because we live in an aging society and because mature individuals tend to react more to reason than to emotion, it doesn’t take a wild stretch of the imagination to figure out why those lefties stuck in the 60s and 70s have lost the respect and support of the mainstream. It’s very easy to convince a 19-year-old of your point of view by using slogans and shorthand filled with emotional words. It’s yet another to try to foist it off in the same manner to people much over 40.
Personally, I like the fact that america has shifted to the right of center. Having said that, I’m also concerned that in the absence of an opposition with intelligent views and well-reasoned arguments the Right will stagnate in much the same manner as the left.
If the political Left in the U.S. really wants to influence the beliefs of their fellow citizens, a good place to start would be with a critical examination of the stale words and trite phrases they have been using to further their arguments for the past 40 years.