Kamagra online 50mgs | Online Canadian Drugstore! Pills Without Prescription.

In this week’s New Yorker, there’s a letter to the editor that reads, in part:

“…After September 11, 2001, Bush told the American people that the terrorist attacks were the work of those who hated freedom and democracy. By also characterizing the Iraq conflict as a war in defense of those values, he drew a straight line between the two events, even though no known link between Iraq and the attacks has ever been demonstrated…”

– Daniel J. Hannerman

This is just one example of a trend in American political culture, the increasing use of the “fallacy of the undistributed middle.” In short, it goes like this:

A is related to C;

B is related to C;

Thus A is related to B.

In this case, C is the undistributed middle, the thing that seems to connect A and B. On first glance, this connection seems to make sense, but consider this example:

All trespassers are shot, and John was shot, therefore, John was a trespasser

The middle term, the thing that connects John to being a trespasser, is being shot. However, John might have been shot as part of a mugging, or because he committed suicide. Just because he was shot, you can’t assume that he was a trespasser. I could break out some Venn diagrams, but you get the idea.

So, what does this have to do with the New Yorker quote? Well, it seems that one of the strongest tactics in the political toolkit of the conservative movement these days is the ability to connect two seemingly unrelated concepts through a reified undistributed middle. “Reification”, a la Berger and Luckman, is the process by which knowledge gets separated from the process of its production, and seems to just exist sui generis.

In the case of the war in Iraq, by constructing an idea of “those who hate freedom and democracy” and reinforcing it in speeches, press briefings, and elsewhere, the Bush administration reified this idea of evildoing America-haters, creating a meme that could then be attached to any group or regime in its sights. Thus, by using this reified category as an undistributed middle, the administration was able to connect two essentially unrelated groups (al Quaeda and Iraq) in the minds of the public.

It’s not just “evildoers” – this same tactic has been very successfully deployed by the conservative movement in domestic politics. Consider the word “liberal.” Though I haven’t done any hard historical research on the subject, it seems to me that the connotation of the word “liberal” has been reshaped in the past fifteen years. In short, “liberal” has become reified, detached from any clear referent: in much of popular culture, “liberal” doesn’t stand for a particular set of policy stances, or even a larger philosophical orientation – instead, “liberal” just exists as an “other”, a demonized straw man to knock down with impunity.

You can credit Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich and the rest of the early-1990′s conservatives for this reification, in particular the institution of talk radio, which lends itself easily to this sort of idea-construction (remember Father Coughlin earlier this century): as a reader of Walter Ong might point out, radio is oral, which means that it tends to be circular and repetitive compared with print, which lends itself more easily to complex, linear arguments.

The point here is that by constructing and reifying the idea of a “liberal”, and attaching certain premises to it (“Liberals aren’t in touch with average Americans”, “Tax and Spend”, “Treason“), conservatives can infer that any politician is connected to all these premises just by invoking the “L”-word.

An interesting consequence seems to be that many liberals themselves are running scared from the label “liberal”, and are left without any good language to describe what they stand for (hence, the popular notion that Democrats have no platform). It’s not that Democrats have no platform, it’s that they have no safe language to use to express it, because the linguistic rug has been pulled from under their feet.

So here’s a question with which to end: why haven’t liberals fought back, turning “liberal” back into contested turf rather than just rolling over and trying to work with the political terrain as the conservatives have defined it?

Comments 2 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.

David Thomas,

July 7, 2003 at 11:17 am

Interesting. But is the term “conservative” any less reified or, for that matter, any “safer”? Admittedly, I live in a densely democratic population (Baltimore) and am exposed to far less liberal-bashing as a result. But I’ve gotten a sense of “conservative” or “republican” as equally repugnant stances. This is most prevalent, for me, in terms of popular comedic entertainment (e.g. “The Simpsons” or “The Daily Show”) and some dramatic (e.g. “The West Wing”).

Of course, maybe this just means that liberals are better writers.

Justin,

July 15, 2003 at 1:38 am

This is a week late but…

Each side is doing their damndest to villify the other, and the construction of such a choice ultimately benefits both of them (“Donate to X before X’s opponent irrevocably screws up the planet!”) The most tiring but inexplicably effective tactic is co-opting “the American people” as in “The American people won’t stand for a candidate who raises their taxes.” Variations include “The American taxpayer”, “brave and proud New Yorkers”, and “patriots everywhere.”

Since the early 90s, the conservative movement as we know it has worked harder and hasn’t been above smear tactics and infantile behavior. By contrast the more liberal/progressive folks got arrogant when Clinton won, mistaking intellectual backing and personal conviction for popular approval. This came to a hilt last year when the Democrats’ “anyone’s better than a Republican” strategy backfired miserably. Plus many liberals are uncomfortable sinking to the mock-furiosity of right wing talk show hosts.

Whether or not you agree with the Republican platform, a small child can understand it– lower taxes, smaller government, strong military, lots of American flags and khaki pants. Clinton succeeded with simple slogans: “I feel your pain”, “Building a Bridge”, “It Takes a Village”. Gore couldn’t follow suit.

But the pendulum may be swinging back. The press is actually starting to challenge Bush, Democrats are returning to the offensive, Al Franken remains funnier than Ann Coulter, and we all become a bit more liberal when we’re losing our jobs and the economy’s tanking.

Add Your Comments

Name

Required

Website

Comment

Tips

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <ol> <ul> <li> <strong>

Your email is never published nor shared.

Ready?