So, many commentators have pointed out that the Democrats have great opportunity this year to pick up a number of congressional seats. Others have said that, minus a legible and relatively unified agenda, the Democrats will not mount a serious attack against the Republicans, even an increasingly fragmented one. I think the Dems will certainly gain a few seats as the Republicans falter with corruption, division, a lame-duck president, and an ailing foreign and domestic policy. This will not be the year they sweep back into power. More energy is needed in creating a unified agenda. The Democrats should take a look at the 1994 Republican Contract With America (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/contract.html).
I'm certainly not advocating becoming more Republican than the Republicans: this is the unfortunate strategy of the DLC and the pseud0-Democratic Blue Dogs. I do look at the "Contract" and a few things stand out. First of all, the ten bills proposed are broad, open-ended, and undergirded by carefully considered and unified neo-conservative ideology. For instance, stating that the government as an institution should model its spending on families and businesses. There's the standard focus on punitive measures for individuals and social groups that could be pegged as "bad" and "socially irresponsible." So, criminals and social welfare recipients are targeted.
Ever read George Lakoff's book, Don't Think of an Elephant? It's an important book that I think rightly reminds Progressives the importance of controlling the debate by framing it in terms that resonate with core constituencies. If you look at the Contract, it definitely does that. What Progressives need is a similar contract to unify them. Those on the left are generally more tolerant of diversity, and thus more likely to be sympathetic to divergent points of view. This would seem to make unity difficult. It will be. but if you look at the Republican agenda it needs to be challenged at a very fundamental level. Assumptions need to be challenged, and this needs to be accomplished at the level of language. The common terms repeated throughout the Contract ("responsibility" "restoration" "reinforcement") have their 21st century equivalents for the left and center-left. But what are they?
One of the reasons for calling my blog "catachresis" has to do with the gulf that separates my understanding of the world with the one framed by the neo-conservatives. Theirs is a misuse of language, and one that recalls Orwellian double-speak. Legislating discrimination against lesbian and gay families becomes the "Defense of Marriage Act." Privatizing public space, eliminating the safety net and social services is billed as the new "ownership society" filled with "personal [savings] accounts" and a "small" government. The list is long and painful.
What is the answer to ending the neo-conservative madness? Should the left become better propagandists than the right? One of Lakoff's most sobering statements is that framing isn't really about truth and the real truth is that people believe what they want to believe. Apparently, the truth doesn't set you free. Catachresis is about finding that misuse of language that works to further a progressive agenda.
I believe that irony and cynicism, bless them, are probably not part of a successful progressive agenda. A catachrestic progressive agenda must involve the positive misuse of language. By positive I mean both non-negative (i.e. little room for irony and cynicism) and "scientific" in the Comtean sense. To develop a progressive "science" of language misuse is really the flipside to what the neo-conservatives have already done. I'm not saying I know exactly how to carry out this agenda, but I do think its important.
No comments:
Post a Comment