POLITICAL SLOGANS: PART ONE

Election Season 2008 has yielded a bumper crop of lies and deceptions that have choked out every plant in the garden. Worse than weeds, the current debate puts kudzu to shame. The word 'weed' may begin with the letter 'w' but deceptive politics certainly did not begin with George W. Bush, nor will it end with John "The Same" McCain.  Fortunately, there are online tools to help us whack through the thicket of lies:

FactCheck.Org monitors the accuracy of representations made by politicians in media advertising, debates, speeches, interviews, and press releases. It bills itself as a “consumer advocate" whose aim is to identify deception and reduce voter confusion.

Media Matters monitors the major news outlets - broadcast, cable, radio, and the Internet - for false claims and misinformation. If you are looking for truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, skip CNN and Faux News and go directly to FactCheck.Org or Media Matters.

My purpose here is not to rehash the latest lies and deceptions. Why cover the same ground when there are legions of experts who do a credible job. Instead, my purpose is to examine the language of crafting political slogans, the one constant that runs through every election cycle, the scam for all seasons.

I start with WYSIWYG, a term borrowed from the science of computer visualization. Pronounced “Wizzy Wig,” it means: “What You See Is What You Get.” In other words, what you see on your computer screen is supposed to look like the output on a printed page. The term has several variations:

WYSIWYM (“Wizzy Whim”) - What You See Is What You Mean

WYSINWYG (“Wizzy Not Wig”) - What You See Is Not What You Get

WYSIWYNG (“Wizzy Wing”) - What You See Is What You'll Never Get

I apply these terms to the art of political sloganeering for obvious reasons. What does the political slogan really mean? Is there a hidden agenda? Are there imbedded code words that may mean one thing to one voter and something else to another?  After the election has been decided and a winner declared, did we really get what we thought we saw, or did we end up with different output?  A few recent real-world examples come to mind:

Compassionate Conservative - Is this slogan meant to convey a “Mr. Nice Guy” image, or is it simply “sugarcoating, an empty phrase to make traditional conservatism sound more appealing to moderate voters?” Would Mr. Nice Guy really want to privatize your social security and remove the social safety net? I would argue that the slogan is a ruse, an example of “Wizzy Not Wig.”

I am a uniter, not a divider – On the surface, this slogan suggests an appeal to bipartisanship but, in practice, it means the opposite: Divide and conquer using wedge politics. For Democrats who crossed party lines, this slogan has come to mean: “I will take your vote now and betray you later.” Shall we call this an example of “Wizzy Wing.”

Tax Relief – Here is a modern iteration of an old Roman concept, panem et circenses, meaning “bread and circus.” In practice, tax relief has resulted in an explosion of public debt and a massive transfer of wealth from the middle and working classes to the corporate elite thus furthering an already high level of economic inequality. In exchange for a little cash in their pockets, voters take the bait and act against their own economic self-interest.  A promise of tax relief is a Mephistophelian “Wizzy Not Wig.”

Judicial Activism – Conservatives accuse liberal judges of usurping the power of the legislature by deciding cases based on personal conviction. In fact, judicial activism exists in the eye of the beholder. Last year, the conservative Roberts court overturned decades of established law covering anti-trust, free speech, reproductive rights, and race … prompting Justice Stephen Breyer to say: "Rarely in the history of the law have so few undone so much so quickly." During his confirmation hearing before Congress, Roberts claimed to honor and respect the concept of legal precedence known as stare decicis. Clearly, his assurance was a “Wizzy Wing” hum dinger.

The above examples illustrate a point: A well-crafted political slogan serves several masters – sometimes appealing to one voting block while trying to assuage, or not offend, another. Its purpose is not necessarily to communicate the clear intent of the candidate, but to obfuscate, or sometimes give a contradictory impression. Slogans stir the emotions – anger, fear, comfort, and hope. Sometimes their purpose is to mask a hidden agenda. In any event, sloganeering is never about WYSIWYG. Politicians hurl slogans to win elections, and there is often a surprise after the candidate takes office.

What concerns me most of all is that our side of the political divide belongs to the WYSIWYM School of Political Discourse. We tend to say what we mean and mean what we say without art or guile or hidden motives. One consequence of our naivety is that we have been losing the language wars to conservatives for a very long time. Our candidates have not yet fully grasped the power of short, pithy slogans that resonate with voters.

We also have a tendency to let conservative sloganeering stand unchallenged. We need to expose the vacuous and dangerous jingoism. It should also be noted that repetitive sloganeering imprints itself on the national consciousness. Once the slogan and the conservative brand are firmly entrenched in the minds of voters, the damage has been done. Invasive weeds have taken over the garden.

In my view, every civics class should include a lesson on propaganda techniques so future citizens may become more discerning consumers of political noise - and less likely to be deceived by demagogic appeals.

Please look for Part Two before the next Blue Moon. Meanwhile, I welcome your comments and suggestions.