GOODY TWO SHOES: The Sounds Of Silence?
In this post for New York Times blog, The Opinionator, Rutgers University philosophy professor Jason Stanley, discusses tactics conservatives use (“[w]ords are misappropriated and meanings twisted”) to “silence” liberals (yeah, those would be the liberals who completely dominate virtually every media outlet in every medium and literally shut out conservatives):
Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is difficult to have a reasoned debate about its costs and benefits when the invasion itself is called “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Similarly, whatever one thinks of tax-cuts, or the estate tax, it is difficult to engage in reasoned debate when they have been respectively relabeled “tax relief” and “the death tax.” It is difficult to have a reasoned debate about the costs and benefits of a policy when one side has seized control of the linguistic means to express all the positive claims. It is easy to say “a tax cut is not always good policy,” but considerably more difficult to say “tax relief is not always good policy,” even though “tax relief” is just a phrase invented to mean the same as “tax cut.”
Silencing is by no means limited to its target. The Fox channel engages in silencing when it describes itself as “fair and balanced” to an audience that is perfectly aware that it is neither. The effect is to suggest that there is no such thing as fair and balanced — that there is no possibility of balanced news, only propaganda. The result is the silencing of every news organ, by suggesting a generalized gross insincerity. …
Silencing is only one kind of propaganda. In silencing, one removes the ability of a target person or group to communicate. … What may begin as a temporary method to circumvent reasoned discussion and debate for the sake of a prized political goal may very well end up permanently undermining the trust required for its existence.
Curiously, Stanley does not give any examples of liberals trying to “silence” conservatives by, for instance, giving unconstitutional, over-reaching legislation such Orwellian names as “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” when it neither protects patients nor makes the cost of health coverage more affordable. Addendum: The Washington Post published a sour editorial today scolding Americans that “[r]ealizing the ideals of the Declaration is not an easy matter of sloganeering. … for most it demands at least a decent respect for the opinions, rights and essential patriotism of others.” The intended target of the finger-wagging was Tea Partiers, but should have been Vice President Joe Biden, who doesn’t think that he and his boss should represent the interests and concerns of all Americans across the political spectrum, and his thuggish union pals who threaten – and sometimes resort to – physical violence to silence opponents. Someone should remind Stanley that names cause far less harm to people’s free speech rights than sticks and stones, which can break bones – and heads.
Comments