Social Security: It’s All in the Adjectives (spoiler: you're a "crackpot" to want SS protected)

[nashville_brook]

It's all about the framing, folks -- and the corporate-conservative language police have achieved a major coup by getting none other than THE WASHING POST to adopt their frame that anyone fighting for Social Security is CRAZY!! You're crackpots! Denialists!

WaPo article here --> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120307247.html

Comments section here --> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120307247_Comments.html

Address letters to the editor here --> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022000709.html

and here --> [e-mail]

-- brook



http://my.firedoglake.com/ericlaursene/2011/02/13/social-security-its-all-in-the-adjectives/

Social Security: It’s All in the Adjectives


People who want to cut Social Security benefits to lower future budget deficits are “reasonable” and “serious.” Moreover, economists have reached a “consensus” that this should be done. People who oppose balancing the budget on the back of Social Security recipients are “denialists” whose views are “maddening,” “crackpot,” “strident.”

(snip)

The adjectives applied to defenders of Social Security, quoted above, aren’t from Fox News, the Cato Institute, or a Rush Limbaugh broadcast. They are drawn from a news article in the Washington Post (“strident”), another editorial in the Post (“denialists” pursuing a “maddening strategy” of opposing cuts), and a New York Times op-ed by former White House budget director Peter Orszag (“strident” again”).

What a relief to the Post’s editors, then, that “reasonable people” in both parties are willing to consider deficit-cutting plans that include cutting Social Security. No less delighted were the editors of the Miami Herald to report that there’s “a consensus among economists” that “raising the retirement age makes a lot of sense.”

The truth behind each of these descriptions is something else. Lawmakers, economists, and political activists who defend Social Security are called “strident” because they’ve managed to make themselves heard over the anti-deficit echo chamber that is Washington today. Their strategy is “maddening” only because it’s been fairly successful of late. According to the Wall Street Journal, their campaign against Social Security cuts had a direct impact on President Obama’s decision not to include a reduction in the COLA formula in its budget proposals.

They aren’t “denialists,” either. They’ve generated a crop of reasonable ideas for reducing Social Security’s long-term fiscal imbalance and cutting the deficit and have promoted them vigorously in recent months. The main reason their ideas, which range from raising or eliminating the cap on income subject to payroll tax to instituting a financial transactions tax, are not better known is that elite opinion in Washington favors spending cuts, not revenue raisers.

(snip)

[DirkGently]

1. You're on the right track hitting framing again, NB. Public discourse is a puppet show ...

in which WE are not asked to participate.

[nashville_brook]

5. The Art of the Hissy Fit -- oldie but a goodie by Digby

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/art-hissy-fit

The Art Of The Hissy Fit
By Digby


I first noticed the right's successful use of phony sanctimony and faux outrage back in the 90's when well-known conservative players like Gingrich and Livingston pretended to be offended at the president's extramarital affair and were repeatedly and tiresomely "upset" about fund-raising practices they all practiced themselves. The idea of these powerful and corrupt adulterers being personally upset by White House coffees and naughty sexual behavior was laughable.

But they did it, oh how they did it, and it often succeeded in changing the dialogue and tittilating the media into a frenzy of breathless tabloid coverage.

In fact, they became so good at the tactic that they now rely on it as their first choice to control the political dialogue when it becomes uncomfortable and put the Democrats on the defensive whenever they are winning the day. Perhaps the best example during the Bush years would be the completely cynical and over-the-top reaction to Senator Paul Wellstone's memorial rally in 2002 in the last couple of weeks leading up to the election.


(snip)

In a political context this translates to a fear by liberal politicians that they will be rejected by the American people --- and a subconscious dulling of passion and inspiration in the mistaken belief that they can spare themselves further humiliation if only they control their rhetoric. The social order these fearsome conservative rituals pretend to "protect," however, are not those of the nation at large, but rather the conservative political establishment which is perhaps best exemplified by this famous article about how Washington perceived the Lewinsky scandal. The "scandal" is moved into the national conversation through the political media which has its own uses for such entertaining spectacles and expends a great deal of energy promoting these shaming exercises for commercial purposes.

The political cost to progressives and liberals for their inability to properly deal with this tactic is greater than they realize. Just as Newt Gingrich was not truly offended by Bill Clinton's behavior (which mirrored his own) neither were conservative congressmen and Rush Limbaugh truly upset by the Move On ad --- and everyone knew it, which was the point. It is a potent demonstration of pure power to force others to insincerely condemn or apologize for something, particularly when the person who is forcing it is also insincerely outraged. For a political party that suffers from a reputation for weakness, it is extremely damaging to be so publicly cowed over and over again. It separates them from their most ardent supporters and makes them appear guilty and unprincipled to the public at large.

Ritual defamation and humiliation are designed to make the group feel contempt for the victim and over time it's extremely hard to resist feeling it when the victims fail to stand up for themselves.

(snip)

[DirkGently]

8. Like a Democrat apologizing for being "a tax & spend liberal?"

[nashville_brook]

10. one of the lowest points in democratic history. just disgraceful.

[Raksha]

18. Damn, that's a great article! Thanks for reposting it.

Somehow I missed it the first time around.

[Faryn Balyncd]

2. K and R.

:hi:

[nashville_brook]

3. backatcha!

:evilgrin:

[Poboy]

4. recommend.

[shanti]

6. the sheeple are being herded

as per usual. what is making americans so docile??

[nashville_brook]

7. low-info folks notwithstanding, i think the days of compliance are numbered.

[DirkGently]

17. Our cellphones all make pancakes (apologies to G.C.)

[leftstreet]

9. K&R

Interesting links!

Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. 1984 - George Orwell

[Hannah Bell]

11. The only crackpots = the ruling-class nut cases pushing this crap. Mad with power.

Good to know, when Limbaugh & the "papers of note" are all calling someone "crazy," the truth is exactly the opposite.

[nashville_brook]

12. for sure. mad with power is spot on, too.

[nashville_brook]

13. morning kickee

[JoePhilly]

14. CNN was also in on the game yesterday .... they had an on-line question ...

asking people "What would it take for you to support cuts in Social Security?"

Notice the framing ... it was as if the corporate media was in search of reasons that people would accept as "good reasons".

My guess is that their intent is to figure out which "reasons" people might accept so that they can turn around and SELL those ideas back to the masses as THE reasons it needs to be done.

[Hannah Bell]

15. agree.

[DirkGently]

16. Where the hell are our journalists? All blogging? Is no one out there not fully co-opted?

[jtown1123]

23. journalism is dead

[DirkGently]

24. News organizations canNOT be owned by other corporations. Literally killing us.

[Raksha]

26. That sounds about right. It's why I sometimes boycott polls.

If I sense I'm being manipulated to provide the PTB with "plausible" talking points, or that my responses could be used against me in ANY way whatsoever, I pass on by. No point in giving 'em ammunition.

[suffragette]

19. Language and word choice matter

Great analysis of what's going on here.

K&R

[gratuitous]

20. Well, duh

I've been on this kick for months now, and you'll see posts right here at DU using these very memes. The conventional wisdom is already that the Deficit Reduction Commission made several concrete proposals to reduce the federal deficit. Bipartisan, sensible, and very serious proposals.

Right from the get-go, that's 100% false. The Catfood Commission blew its deadline, never issued a report, and never garnered enough votes for any of their proposals to qualify as a commission recommendation. However, if you notice this, you are a hopeless nit-picker, and Not Serious About Deficit Reduction. Reporters and the politicians they cover have agreed that the Catfood Commission issued proposals, so that's what happened. Even though it didn't.

So, since there is no report, anyone can say anything that was ever considered by the commission was a proposal, and in that detail lies the devil. Look for Serious Commenters to propose tort reform, cutting future social security benefits (to divide current retirees from those greedy future geezers), and raising the retirement age some more. Anyone who doesn't sign on - at a bare minimum - to these proposals will be deemed Not Serious About Deficit Reduction. They can then be safely ignored or, because these proposals weren't in the president's original budget submission to the House, derided as WRONG.

[DirkGently]

25. "Serious" and "Sensible" are fast becoming code for "Here comes the screwjob."

[Generic Other]

21. These "serious" ones should voluntarily cut theirs first

Let the leaders lead us by piloting the program with their own extended families. A year of cuts, then report back to us. They need to voluntarily refuse any form of entitlement, subsidies or grants.

[jtown1123]

22. It's not just WaPo. It's CNN, AP, FOx, etc. Just about every MSM outlet

[truedelphi]

27. The RW and the Corporate Owned DLC hacks use browbeating and

Ad hominem attacks in the place of logic.

Thank you for the re-frame on this most important issue.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. If they can't keep this promise, what promise can they keep?

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Interestingly, the WP article doesn't mention Social Security, and the 'strident' includes Bernanke

What it says are 'strident' are calls for short-term spending - which is not the argument about Social Security at all. And it says many economists are against short-term cuts, including Bernanke.

The reality of deficit reduction remains more complicated, however, particularly against a backdrop of stubbornly high unemployment and strident calls for short-term spending to boost the economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics released a surprisingly weak jobs report Friday showing that the unemployment rate jumped to 9.8 percent in November. Emergency jobless benefits expired this week, and the price for keeping them flowing through next year, as Democrats favor, is $56 billion.

Meanwhile, tax cuts enacted 10 years ago during record surpluses are set to expire on New Year's Eve, and the two political parties are waging a bitter battle to extend some or all of them - adding trillions of dollars to future deficits. Even as they applaud the commission's work, lawmakers have so far demonstrated little appetite for the painful job of raising people's taxes and cutting their federal perks.

Many economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, argue that this would be the wrong time to pursue austerity measures, anyway. Fresh spending and tax cuts may worsen deficits in the short term, but they could serve to shrink them in the long run by boosting economic growth, increasing business profits and swelling personal paychecks - all of which increases the flow of tax revenue to federal coffers.

Perhaps the FDL blogger picked the wrong article to back up their argument about language.