No doubt about it — when it comes to bumper-sticker-sized slogans, Republicans have it all over Democrats. In fact, I can’t think of a single slogan of this type — or any other type — emanating from the Democrats. Whoever it was that came up with “it’s the economy, stupid” isn’t around anymore, and no one has taken his place. While I’m mindful of the fact that slogans don’t always win elections (“In your heart you know he’s right” didn’t propel Barry Goldwater into the Oval Office), part of the Democrats’ problem as we approach 2012 may simply be that they’re at the bottom of the class when it comes to sloganeering.
The nice thing about “class warfare” and “job-killing” is that they can be used to criticize any and all economic programs proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. They’ve taken the place of the one-word slogans “socialist” and “communistic” employed by Republicans to discredit programs set forth by Democrats from the 1930s to the 1950s. Well, that’s not quite true: occasionally, Obama is accused of being a socialist. His opponents on the Left take strong exception to this description.
Because of their wide applicability, “class warfare” and “job-killing” can and are repeated time and time again. When Congress is in session, it’s an almost daily event. When primary season is approaching, as it is now, it is a daily event. You’d have to escape the confines of the U.S. to avoid being browbeaten. Regardless of your political persuasion, these slogans have sunk into your subconscious mind. If you’re on the fence, it may tip you to the Republican side — that’s the intent, after all. If you’re against the president, your pre-existing condition is reinforced. If you support the president, you’ll experience a severe case of revulsion, and you’ll accuse — justifiably, in my view — the Republicans, not the Democrats, of instigating class warfare and killing jobs. It is disingenuous to argue, as Representative Paul Ryan did today, that increasing taxes on millionaires to help fund the jobs program “punishes job creation” and incites “class warfare.” During the Clinton era, tax rates for the wealthy were higher than now, millions of jobs were created, and there was no class warfare. Wealthy Americans didn’t wait until the Bush tax cuts to stop playing golf and go to work.
“Class warfare” and “job-killing” are the current examples of pure, unadulterated propaganda. What is the purpose of propaganda, especially propaganda that’s repeated over and over again? It’s to crowd-out serious thinking, investigation, and consideration of the motives and programs of the propagandists. A media that thrives on 30-second sound-bites — the verbal equivalent of bumper stickers — thrives on it. There’s no equal-time provision for a party that gets an F in sloganeering.
The Democrats suffer from sloganeering-deficit-disorder. It may cost them the presidency.
Bill Bugera says:
Hi Marc,
Nice job of pointing out the issue. It applies to many matters these days. Any thoughts on how to change things?
Cheers,
September 19, 2011, 9:39 amWB
Greg Hudson says:
Marc, this was one of the points made by Mike Lofgren in that “GOP Defector” piece–not about these two propaganda sound bites in particular, but the fact that the Republicans get this and the Democrats do not, even in naming legislative initiatives. (Although, Obama did improve by calling his latest “The Jobs Act,” or something like that.)
September 19, 2011, 9:46 amron clearfield says:
Marc,
Forget the slogans and Obama’s blatent and cynical electioneering. I believe the bottom line in his proposal to have millionaires pay their “fair share” is that apparently about 22,000 people are in that tax category, and if their taxes are doubled the additional revenue would be about $19 billion per year. Although not completely negligable, that is a drop in the bucket, given a deficit in trillions of dollars. What’s the point? Surely he could come up with a more realistic plan to reduce the deficit, without resorting to this scheme with obvious political overtones.
September 19, 2011, 12:48 pmMarc Schulman says:
Ron,
Haven’t the Republicans been engaging in “blatant and cynical electioneering?” Since when do the outs, but not the ins, have the right to engage in such behavior?
Yes, $19 billion is a drop in the bucket. But there’s symbolism involved here. If you’ve read the polls, as I’m sure you have, a large and growing number of Americans believe that they haven’t been given a fair shake, that the cards are stacked against them. An additional $19 billion in taxes on the rich is $19 billion that doesn’t fall on the backs of those who are less fortunate. Everybody else is going to be sacrificing for a long time to come; those who can best afford to sacrifice should, too. What’s involved here is shared sacrifice. That’s the symbolism.
September 19, 2011, 1:54 pmron clearfield says:
Marc,
I agree that Republicans do the same thing, although I’m not sure who is “in” and who is “out” with Democrats controlling the Senate and Executive branch, but that is no excuse. I also agree that the tax proposal is symbolism, but I believe the current economic situation needs realism and a realistic proposal, rather than a symbolic, political one. Some people might be appeased by a feel good shared sacrifice, while the country goes bankrupt.
September 19, 2011, 2:12 pmMarc Schulman says:
Ron,
Thanks for your clarification. A sense of shared sacrifice is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. It is a starting point. People who believe that they’re in it together are more likely to solve a problem and to solve it sooner.
I’m not sure what would constitute a “realistic” proposal. What I do know is that the etched-in-stone Republican opposition to any and all tax increases makes their proposals inherently unrealistic.
Another thing I know is that both Democratic and Republican administrations and congresses are responsible for creating the mess we’re in. That is sufficient reason to conclude that an essential characteristic of any realistic proposal is that it be a compromise. Ideological rigidity is the enemy of compromise. On that score, the Republicans are hands-down winners.
Politics, they say, is the art of the possible. It means not sacrificing the good for the perfect. Too many Republicans — the Tea Partiers, in particular — are interested only in what they see as perfection.
September 19, 2011, 2:49 pmron clearfield says:
Marc,
I certainly agree that the missing ingredient in the deficit reduction discussions is indeed compromise. This is on both sides. My idea of a “realistic” tax proposal in that regard would be the report of the Bowles/Simpson commission, instigated, but not supported, by the President. The proposal advocated enhanced revenue, but by utilizing tax reform by actually decreasing marginal rates and closing loopholes and eliminating subsidies. They did not include the symbolic millionaires tax, which would accomplish very little and is obviously not going to pass Congress and in my estimation is only intended to be utilized as a campaign “talking point” against Republicans. We can do better than that.
The commission report, which I basically endorse, is a good example of “the art of the possible,”as the bipartisan group had a significant majority, although not a pleurality, in favor. My only problem with the report was its failure to address Social Security, as it seems apparent to me that the eligibility age needs to be adjusted, given the current life expentancy vis a vis that at the time of adoption, for survival of the program.
September 19, 2011, 6:40 pm