Political issues that have been rhetorically flipped around?

February 26, 2008 7:48 PM

What are some instances of a political issue whose public perception has been almost paradoxically inverted through political discourse?

I'm looking for examples of political issues where the advocates of one side of the issue have won by using the other side's main argument (especially in a seemingly paradoxical way).

The best way to illustrate this is through examples:

-"Support our troops" has become a tagline for keeping soldiers in harm's way.
-Spying, infringement on civil liberties to "protect our liberty"
-We should cut taxes because working-class families need their entire paychecks.

See what I'm getting at? I came up with a bunch of examples about conservatives, but I'm curious to hear if liberals have done this successfully too.

Disclaimer: The examples I posted do not necessarily reflect my personal opinion.

posted by lunchbox to law & government (13 comments total)

"Family values" was used to disguise anti-labor policies.
posted by Brian B. at 8:29 PM on February 26, 2008

Tax and spend Democrats, small government Republicans. (When in reality, they *all* want to tax and spend.)

Republicans are the party of War and Strength, the Dems are the party of peaceniks. (In reality, more wars were started under the watch of the Dems than the GOP. And the GOP is historically the party of isolationism.)

Liberals/lefties are open minded, conservatives/righties are closed minded. (In reality, both sides are closed minded.)

Conservatives are imperialists. (Only some are, the current ones. Historically, the party of rabid isolationism.)

Bill Clinton invented oral sex. (In reality, kids just used it as an excuse to try and get out of trouble.)

The vast right wing conspiracy. (It's not a conspiracy, it's outright hostility.)

Liberal media skews everything! (The only thing that's been proven is how the media votes, not how it reports. They, traditionally, report the lurid and sordid no matter who it is, and then drop the story when something shinier pops up. When's the last time we heard of a shark attacking a tourist? 9/10/2001, that's when.)

Good question!
posted by gjc at 9:06 PM on February 26, 2008

The "antiwar movement" is starting to become synonymous with "not patriotic, won't support the troops."

At the same time, "I support our troops" is becoming "I support our troops by not supporting the goals of their current mission."

"Family values" is regularly used in support of discrimination of various kinds.

"Pro-choice" is used as a response to "pro-life." The literal opposite of "pro-life" is a non-starter ("anti-life"?), so you must do some verbal judo to come up with something positive. "Pro-choice" does the same thing in reverse, because it's opposite -- "anti-choice?" -- is also hard to swallow.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:06 PM on February 26, 2008

Oh, and using the Laffer Curve to "prove" that ALL tax cuts are self-financing. That only works if the tax rate is in the steep part of the right side of the curve. And if the economy can sustain it. And you haven't devalued the dollar to make the gross numbers look good.
posted by gjc at 9:10 PM on February 26, 2008

Oh, and there's the classic example from the Vietnam War: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Meaning, we had to destroy the village in order to deny the enemy of its possible use.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:10 PM on February 26, 2008

I've heard DC handgun ban supporters state that the ban was needed so that DC could "protect itself". It assumes the efficacy of the ban, and co-opts the language of the pro-gun side while effectively destroying self protection in favor of collective government protection, which they then argued in the Supreme Court that they had no obligation to provide. (see Warren vs. District of Columbia)
posted by Doctor Suarez at 11:22 PM on February 26, 2008

Bush's "Clean Air Act" is another example
posted by farishta at 11:58 PM on February 26, 2008

Christian evangelist: "The theory of evolution is a religion."
posted by BeaverTerror at 12:39 AM on February 27, 2008

"What's good for General Motors is good for America"--tax breaks/bailouts for big corps is good for the average Joe.
posted by BozoBurgerBonanza at 4:26 AM on February 27, 2008

I would suggest that the examples that you provide are not illustrations of the advocates of one side of the issue using the other side's main argument, but rather a much more prosaic form of public relations: renaming an issue in an intentionally misleading or emotionally evocative way.

This technique is as old as political discourse itself, but one of the most effective recent masters is Frank Luntz, a pollster who has done a lot of work on Republican campaigns recently. He is perhaps most famous for advising the Republicans to refer to the estate tax as the "death tax," in order to generate outrage around a previously uncontroversial topic. The excellent Frontline special, "The Persuaders," has a brief but illuminating interview with him (transcript here). I recommend the rest of the program as well - it talks a lot about the techniques that you are interested in.

It isn't hard to find this sort of tactic throughout the public and private sectors. Groups in favor of and opposed to abortion have renamed themselves "pro-choice" and "pro-life" so that both seem to be "for" something, and neither mention abortion. Products with 10% fat are marketed as "90% fat-free;" products with 1% fruit juice "contain REAL fruit juice." Etc., etc., ad nauseum.
posted by googly at 5:30 AM on February 27, 2008

Have Liberal politicians done this? Uhhh, as a Lefty who believes we need serious radical change in this country, I grind my teeth listening to Liberal politicians spinning, or co-opting, calls for social justice and democracy all the time. Just last night, Hillary Clinton was trying to spin her support for Nafta into criticism of NAFTA. But the best example is Obama talking about Change. Obama's change doesn't mean ending America's role as rogue nation in the world or removing profit from the healthcare system (which is just as ridiculous of a proposal as removing profit from the fire and police departments) or anything like that. Instead, change means electing Obama and little else. Reid and Pelosi regularly rhetorically stand up to Bush while essentially cowering to him on the war; they're probably the best example of this rhetorical flipping.

Outside of Liberal politicians, a lot of liberals do this as well. They use the rhetoric of "realism" and "pragmatism" to defend eschewing more radical proposals. We have to "stand up" to Iran as my old Liberal roommate would say or universal healthcare would be great, but "it isn't realistic." This is crazy talk: the ruling elites make radical proposals all the time that they expect may not pass, but are willing to reframe the parameters of debate on (privatize healthcare, attack Iraq, etc) . But whereas I think republicans and democratic politicians rhetorically flip ideas that are bad for most people because it would be difficult for them to defend and suggest otherwise (We want tax cuts for the rich because it'll trickle down to the poor is a lot easier to sell than because we love rich people and we want to cut the social safety net so that working people have to work more to stay afloat), liberals who are just regular people who flip this kind of rhetoric have more to do with their own alienation and the basic inversion of reality that is capitalist politics.
posted by history is a weapon at 8:15 AM on February 27, 2008

You might want to look at George Lakoff, a linguist at UC Berkeley who has explored conceptions of morality in [specifically, U.S.] politics through a lens of cognitive science and language. Some folks like him, others don't, but he's seems applicable to what you're looking for here.

Wikipedia
Interview about politics, framing, and language here
Discussing the phrase "War on Terror," other conservative catchphrases
Metaphor, Morality, and Politics
posted by youarenothere at 1:08 PM on February 27, 2008

"School choice" is a funny term. It implies that one is deprived the right to attend a private school because the government won't pay for it in order to discredit our free offering locally at the public school. Never mind that the private school has far less accountability, and is either supposed to make a profit from education, or teach religion alongside academics.
posted by Brian B. at 3:46 PM on February 27, 2008