Dumb political slogans

The most annoying political slogan (or catchphrase) I have ever heard is "compassionate conservatism." It annoys me because I am a conservative, and, right away when you hear it, you are led to infer that regular conservatism is not compassionate. This is no subtle logic required to reach this conclusion; it is inherent in the phrase. It irritates me to no end that a Republican, and supposedly conservative, president, would use this phrase and thereby confirm everything that liberals have been saying about conservatism -- that it is a cold-hearted ideology.

There is a parallel phrase on the left: "socialism with a human face," as though regular socialism was inhuman. (It is, but that's another matter.) If anything, this slogan is even worse, because the change it suggests is, by implication, only on the surface; socialism will remain what it is, but it will put on a smile to attract more followers. And although the slogan was coined by a Czech leader, the mere awareness of it outside of Czechoslovakia makes it an implicit criticism to socialism everywhere.

What if one wanted to emphasize the compassionate aspects of conservatism, but wanted to avoid the phrase "compassionate conservatism"? I don't have a catchy slogan, but it would have to emphasize the compassionate face of conservatism (implying that, although it has sides that are less compassionate, at least one aspect of it is already compassionate). I would also want to explain why I was choosing to emphasize compassion over other aspects of conservatism. After all, why shouldn't it be compassionate all the time? The reason must be that there is an appropriate time for compassion -- for example, after conservatism's hard-edged virtues had won the Cold War. So I would loudly announce that (for example), having won the Cold War, it was time for the nation to turn to the other side of the winning doctrine: the compassionate side. Not that I think there is a meaningful distinction between compassionate and non-compassionate conservatism; I'm just offering this as a proposition.

Obama's slogan, "Yes, We Can" is brilliant. It is positive and immediately throws anyone opposed to his programs on the defensive -- not only as obstructionists, but as people who doubt the capability of America to achieve great things. The opposition immediately becomes those who believe "No, We Can't," unless they can counter with an equally clever slogan that avoids creating a negative impression. (I don't have any ideas.) This slogan also happens to be the one used by Bob the Builder ("Can we build it? Yes, we can!"). I am shocked that no one, including conservatives, has noticed this connection. It ought at least to be good for mocking in editorial cartoons. I can't help thinking that if it were a Republican's slogan, we would be hearing about how he is setting himself up as a cartoon figure.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l...
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren...
Read more

My privileged life

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hard...
Read more