Collecting Political Jargon

[TMA_1]

there has been an issue that has grown to really disgust me. When listening to politicans here in America, you can almost immediately pick out their dialogue from the dialogue of (most) intellectuals and laymen alike. Its this kind of political jargon that is so easily spotted because of the fact that it is totally canned. It is a homogenization, a group-think mentality that seems to get worse and worse each day. You can almost picture think tanks coming up with new political key words and terms, and for me, it really damages any kind of opinion I have for a specific politican that uses these terms. I want all of you guys to pick up any of these obvious terms that stick out, and post them on this thread. Terms like "activist judges" and "cut and run". Now this thread could get really vague, but that doesnt bother me, the thread isnt to be taken seriously, obviously this issue really isnt an important one, it is just one of those many things that really reveal the absolute phoniness of politicans throughout the west. I guess what I am trying to say is, it would be kind of fun.lol

[nemafakei]

The pen is a weapon that can be wielded for good and for ill, and political jargon can often be very dangerous, in particular, the charged rhetorical terms that encourage us to abbreviate our thinking. British soldiers recently taken captive by Iran in the Gulf were instantly dubbed "hostages", causing us to make all kinds of associations that wouldn't make any kind of sense if lined up with the sequence of events. In that case, and many others, it wasn't deliberate, but a cause of the prevalent prejudices and associations (presumably, the media immediately began to assume the situation was the same as the 1979 hostage situation).

Political jargon can also be of a different nature - almost the opposite effect, in fact. As I've read more and delved into things, I've found myself able to understand a whole host of new vocabulary of analysis. For the left, jargon isn't a rhetorical tool, but a convenient shorthand. Terms like "vanguardist" and distinctions between "popular fronts" and "united fronts" mean nothing to most people, and can therefore be alienating, but they have very specific, technical meanings, and carry a range of connotations that I know I don't always pick up on.

They're one and the same phenomenon, though. The real issue is the way they're used. A phrase like "activist judges" is a powerful and emotive rhetorical device solely because it's used as an insult, and because that use is legitimised by its acceptance as such. It doesn't mean "a judge who sometimes joins in when there's a peace march going on". It doesn't mean "a judge who seeks out controversial cases and makes explicitly conservative rulings on them"*. But the only reason it doesn't mean any of these is because it's not being used that way: "activist judge" means "any judge who rules according to liberal principles, that being a gross abuse of power". Similarly, though "vanguardism" could in theory include any political philosophy in which a group of politically "enlightened" bods attempts to co-ordinate something, in practice, it is more specifically used in a revolutionary context, and in most cases, it's a term used by anarchists to be derogatory about either Trotskyism or Stalinism. The reason it's weird jargon is because it's not a word found all over the media, so no-one knows what it means.

* Yet. Perhaps US liberals will start to use the term of their political enemies. And yes, I'm being lazy and using the US conventional terms for their various right wing factions.

[Sneakgab]

There is the dictionary and the agreed meanings within it. If jargon is not included in this ''good book' :D, then this jargon is not agreed upon in it's definition and technically has no (understandable by those who agree with the dictionary meaning). Deriding a word via use until it's meaning is assumed to be something else, assuming the person using the word means something else, a person using the word with a meaning other than the one in the dictionary,e.t.c are all common nuisances that decrease understanding.

Of course, sometimes a common or obvious meaning is attatched to a word for ease of discourse without having to have everyone up to date. By using common sense one can determine wether it is worth it to sacrifice technicality and therefore create a chance of misunderstanding when hearing or expressing a word for the sake of easier discussion, and this is fine of course.

However, there are obviously ''wrong'' reasons for the derision of words such as propoganda attempts.

Personally, people who do these things annoy me greatly, and having their BS brought out into the spotlight as suggested by the thread poster does atleast sound fun to me. :)

[Gunwounds v2.0]

Phony phrases:

"The Way Forward"

"Stay the course"

"Cut & Run"

"Stay & Die"

"A better America"

"A true American"

"Unpatriotic"

"Making Progress"

"Backwards Policies"

"Big Brother"

"The common man"

"grassroots candidate"

"Dream of a better tomorrow"

"I'm proud to be black"

"I'm proud to be a woman"

"This tax policy will help the poor and cannot be evaded by the rich"

"I will balance the budget"

"Together we can make this work/happen"

"we support the troops"

Halo

[nemafakei]

Halo, while I'm sure all of them have been used falsely, they're not all loaded jargon. I mean... "I will balance the budget"?

[Egeides]

Democracy and dictatorship?

The whole map of political language is twisted on its axle since the main elements forming its compass are out of place (or a bit everywhere). One can wonder for the cultural compass too: what would that be now? Freedom as in "no one can tell someone else that he should do otherwise"?

[TMA_1]

Things like the slogan "support our troops", or terms like "hate speech" have dangerous connotations. I mean, they put you into a corner in debate.

Take "Support our troops" for example. If Congress finally decides to cut the war funding, people can say the congress men and women are failing to support our troops. If you attack the struggle in Iraq, you are basically saying (in the minds of folks who use this horrid statement) that the troops are needlessly sacrificing themselves. You are immediately put in a negative light. This is why you cannot even debate a conservative who supports the Iraq conflict on their level, which is what so many democrats and independants against the conflict do. If a military action is incorrect, it has nothing to do with the base level military personnel. It has to do with the architects,planners, and enactors of the military action. The Military personnel are in fact the direct responsibility of the people who ordered this unethical, currupt, and terrible action... The fear I feel concerning the curruption and lack of concern for the welfare of this nation and it's people grows with each new thing I learn. Folks in power are tied to other people who placed them into that station of power, and in order to get reellected tehy have to pander to every possible person they can. Instead of doing what is right for the nation as a whole, all they have to do is give people bullshit promises of bipartisanship and cooperation. And in the end they do nothing that really is necissary for the salvation of this republic. The only thing they end up doing is helping themselves and the people that they owe some sort of debt to. it is so simple to see how phony, reckless, and dangerous this stuff is, and that statement is a perfect example of it.

[Egeides]

What do you mean by republic, TMA? It can be a challenge to know what to save :P

Some would relate it to the party, modern theorists, some modernized Plato or no Plato at all.

These slogans look a bit like tools, used by opposite camps in inversed ways. Some sell a bit of their soul by going lower and lower until it's hogwash. Which standards could help debates? (no personal comment, etc.)