 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
Maybe the language wins because a majority agree with the sentiment? |
Or maybe the new language wins because the Republicans have invested billions of dollars into changing it for the past 30 years, while the Democrats haven't?
Check out a linguist George Lakoff, he has very interesting ideas about this sort of thing. |
Then explain how Conservatives North of the 49th can't buy a sniff of power since the Liberals have monopolised the 'language' that gets elected here.
We speak the same language, but the parties come up with very different results. When the Tories were last in power, for two consecutive majority terms that were very uncommon at that time, the Liberals were firmly engaged in the politics of the left. The Liberals came back, and obliterated the Tories, when they said '**** that', and took back the centre by appealing to the things that most Canadians would respond to.
Since then the right has been out in the wilderness and not anywhere near what the centre would vote for en masse. Curious how much can be different if you step across a border line, isn't it?
The door is open for your Democrats, but feel free to ignore the centre and stay in the wilderness for as long as you like.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
nye, the Republican Party infrastructure doesn't create Conservative radio stations in Canada, it doesn't give training courses in political language to Tory mp's, etc., etc. The Republican Party also doesn't enforce message discipline among Tory mp's.
And it's not the same language. Tell me, do NDP or Liberal mp's call tax cuts "tax relief," D&X "partial birth abortion"? 'Cuz that's the norm for Democrats (and of course the media).
Last edited by Ramo on 08-02-2005 at 11:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
As a matter of fact, the Liberals have been by far the more fiscally responsible party, nationally. They have brought in tax cuts. At the same time they have championed minority rights. Wow, they are playing both sides and winning up the middle. Go figure.
As for radio, talk is pretty right here too. We have our own talk jocks, they just don't get as silly as some of yours. BTW, was Howard Stern a Republican?
The training in political language that our Tories get is watching your politics. It just happens the Liebrals trash their ass when it comes to a national campaign because the Liberals will have already staked out great patches of the issues important to the centre.
It will not always be thus, they will go back left. And then the centre will begin to vote Tory and the pendulum will swing. It always has.
Oh, and if you explained partial birth abortion to any 9 Canadians out of 10, you would end up with restrictions on abortion. We haven't had that yet. If I were the Tories, I'd be putting up graphic posters.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
As a matter of fact, the Liberals have been by far the more fiscally responsible party, nationally. They have brought in tax cuts. At the same time they have championed minority rights. Wow, they are playing both sides and winning up the middle. Go figure. |
Democrats support tax cuts too. But that's not the point, what language do the Liberals and NDP use?
quote:
As for radio, talk is pretty right here too. We have our own talk jocks, they just don't get as silly as some of yours. BTW, was Howard Stern a Republican? |
If you think that left-wing talk radio holds a candle to right-wing talk radio in the US, you're delusional (Howard Stern is a poor example of a left-wing partisan radio jock incidentally, really Air America and Democracy Now only qualify). There simply is no comparison between the two. I don't know how it is in Canada, but I doubt that virtually all talk radio is rabidly conservative.
The Republicans have dropped, huge, huge, huge amounts of money into radio stations, think tanks, and other party infrastructure. And it has paid off very well.
quote:
Oh, and if you explained partial birth abortion to any 9 Canadians out of 10, you would end up with restrictions on abortion. We haven't had that yet. If I were the Tories, I'd be putting up graphic posters. |
And if the mother's life is in danger, what would 90% of Canadian say?
quote:
The training in political language that our Tories get is watching your politics. It just happens the Liebrals trash their ass when it comes to a national campaign because the Liberals will have already staked out great patches of the issues important to the centre. |
Issue-wise, the Democrats own the center. On basically any poll, regarding specific policy programs, the Democrats win. They just have no idea how to articulate it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
I suggest Clinton wasn't an anomally and that he won because he was a centrist. There is a lesson there if people will listen. |
What do you believe the lesson of 1994 was? |
Very simple. Clinton got elected and moved left away from the center. He started pushing for National Health Care and ending the ban on gays in the military among other things. These are nice ideas but it was more then enough to convince the center that Clinton, and by reflection the Democratic Party, was leftist instead of centrist. Bam, we lose election.
Last edited by Oerdin on 08-02-2005 at 13:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
As a matter of fact, the Liberals have been by far the more fiscally responsible party, nationally. They have brought in tax cuts. At the same time they have championed minority rights. Wow, they are playing both sides and winning up the middle. Go figure. |
Democrats support tax cuts too. But that's not the point, what language do the Liberals and NDP use? |
The NDP aren't part of the picture. They stand less chance than a snowball in hell of ever forming a government.
The Liberals co-opted the Conservative fiscal agenda. They delivered on balanced budgets and tax cuts when the Conservatives floundered. Don't tell me that the Democrats couldn't get traction on the issue of deficits.
The language they used was 'responsible government'. Revolutionary, I know, but it might be worth the risk to propose it to the American electorate.
quote:
quote:
As for radio, talk is pretty right here too. We have our own talk jocks, they just don't get as silly as some of yours. BTW, was Howard Stern a Republican? |
If you think that left-wing talk radio holds a candle to right-wing talk radio in the US, you're delusional (Howard Stern is a poor example of a left-wing partisan radio jock incidentally, really Air America and Democracy Now only qualify). There simply is no comparison between the two. I don't know how it is in Canada, but I doubt that virtually all talk radio is rabidly conservative.
The Republicans have dropped, huge, huge, huge amounts of money into radio stations, think tanks, and other party infrastructure. And it has paid off very well. |
I can tell you what I hear. I hear rabid critics of the Liberal government. What I hear only a zombie would vote based on.
I don't live in Toronto, but I doubt the Liberals get a free ride there.
Still, they win.
quote:
quote:
Oh, and if you explained partial birth abortion to any 9 Canadians out of 10, you would end up with restrictions on abortion. We haven't had that yet. If I were the Tories, I'd be putting up graphic posters. |
And if the mother's life is in danger, what would 90% of Canadian say? |
I doubt it comes down to that. I doubt that any from the Liberals or Democrats would ever admit that abortions in the third trimester depended on the mother's health. No, the issue is no restrictions, or Pro Choice 'no matter what', no matter what everyone else thinks about it.
Religion be damned. I am not religious, but the thought of a child who is hours from life outside of the womb being dismembered and destroyed on a whim is disgusting and it cries out for restriction.
quote:
quote:
The training in political language that our Tories get is watching your politics. It just happens the Liebrals trash their ass when it comes to a national campaign because the Liberals will have already staked out great patches of the issues important to the centre. |
Issue-wise, the Democrats own the center. On basically any poll, regarding specific policy programs, the Democrats win. They just have no idea how to articulate it. |
I would say that election results do not back you up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
This is actually points to the fundamental problem of the Democratic Party. In the past thirty years, the Democrats have won some elections, but overall, have been on a downward trend. Republicans like to think that this is the "silent majority" rising up at last against a party not in touch with the country. In reality, this is due to the serious infrastructure advantage that the Republican party has built up.
My main claim is that the Republicans dominate the language of politics. Think about it. Phrases such as the "death tax" and "tax relief" were used frequently in the political debate leading up to the latest election. Now, this is not impartial language. It is language that sets up a right and a wrong side, with the side that eliminates the death tax, and provides the tax relief, as the good guys. But, this language was used by Republicans, Democrats, and the media. Why was that? Why didn't the Democrats counter with their own language? Most importantly, how is it possible that the term "liberal" is an insult?
This language came about because of Republican infrastructure. For the past thirty years, the Republicans have been funding think tanks, and conducting long-term research so that they could dominate the political scene. They have been conducting a unified approach, with weekly meetings between the important think tanks, and have been incorporating the media into their strategy in a fashion that the Democrats have not been emulating. 80% of tv pundits come out of conservative think tanks.
Some people have been asking, "how could the Democrats have lost the last election?" I think that its incredible that we did as well as we did.
So, in response to the topic, moving to the center is pointless. They made liberal into a dirty word, and we are currently responding by calling ourselves progressives. But how long is it going to be before "progressive" becomes just as dirty as liberal is now? Howard Dean, in fact, is the perfect example. He has an A+ rating from the NRA, is a supporter of states over the federal bureaucracy, and probably wouldn't have signed the civil union bill if he was not forced to. He is also a fiscal moderate. And yet people like Lincoln call him a crazy left-wing nutcase. Now, I'd like to just say that Lincoln is an idiot who wouldn't recognize reality if it walked up to him and was like, "yo, i'm reality, go make me a sandwich," but that would be kidding myself. Of course Lincoln believes that. The Republicans just have such an infrastructure/media advantage that they can, right now, define the language.
Really, our only option is to follow suit. We know what the Republicans have done, but right now, there is only one left-wing think-tank actually dealing with the issues of framing the debate, as opposed to a host of conservative groups. In the strictest sense, our positions do not matter, so much as how we frame them, and if our party is to have any success in the future, we will work on the language and media-savviness on a level that we have not yet begun to consider. |
Use paragaphs and I'll read your longer posts.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
Very simple. Clinton got elected and moved left away from the center. He started pushing for National Health Care and ending the ban on gays in the military among other things. These are nice ideas but it was more then enough to convince the center that Clinton, and by reflection the Democratic Party, was leftist instead of centrist. Bam, we lose election. |
Hello? Clinton actually promised to do both those things during the election, Oerdin. If anything, Clinton campaigned to the left of where he actually governed.
And let's face it, if running like a moderate was all it took, we'd have just re-elected President Gore.
Clinton was Clinton, and that's all. People didn't vote for his policies; they voted for him, in all his poor-boy-makes-good, I-feel-your-pain, look-I-met-JFK schmaltzyness. Urging other Dems to campaign like Clinton is like urging other NBA players to play like Michael Jordan.
And, again, even Clinton wouldn't have won a head-to-head with Bush; it took Perot to put Clinton in the White House. There's simply no easily replicable lesson to be learned from the '92 election.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The Democrat party is seen as rabidly pro-abortion. All of the candidates appeared in one segment emphasizing their mutual stand on the 'right' to kill our offspring at any stage of pregnancy. People in both parties do not see that as a great moral position requiring great courage. They see it as exploiting the innocent who have no voice in the debate and promoting a culture of morbidity. Many Democrats see this untoward emphasis as destructive to their other legitimate interests but they lost the debate. So the Democrats are seen as the abortion party. What a great platform...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Well I would vote Democratic and I am anti-abortion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
I suggest Clinton wasn't an anomally and that he won because he was a centrist. There is a lesson there if people will listen. |
I would suggest you don't know what you're talking about. Bush one lost because Ross Perot sucked Bush I's support and the conservatives in the GOP pulled their support because of the tax increase. In 96, Clinton was running against Dole. That's like running against Mondale. It was an easy victory.
Clinton is also an amazing politician. The man can talk you into believing anything. I heard him on Democracy Now, being interviewed by Amy Goodman, and Clinton just made her sound like a fool, when she normally sounds quite intelligent. Part of it was she was unprepared, as she took advantage of an unexpected opportunity when he called WBAI (a Pacifica radio station) to stump for Gore, but most of it was the fact that this man was really damned smart, an excellent politican, and a damned convincing speaker. As my wife says, she hates the guy, but five minutes alone with him and he'd have her panties off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Clinton is also an amazing politician. The man can talk you into believing anything. I heard him on Democracy Now, being interviewed by Amy Goodman, and Clinton just made her sound like a fool, when she normally sounds quite intelligent. Part of it was she was unprepared, as she took advantage of an unexpected opportunity when he called WBAI (a Pacifica radio station) to stump for Gore, but most of it was the fact that this man was really damned smart, an excellent politican, and a damned convincing speaker. As my wife says, she hates the guy, but five minutes alone with him and he'd have her panties off. |
Yeah, he's also a real *****.
edit: And remembering back on that he wasn't so smart. He was just evasive.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2005 11:20
|