HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Another link today to Legal Fiction, this one to a post fits nicely with my recent set of posts here, here, and here that suggest this may be a transformative election for the Democratic Party.

I particularly like his analysis of the way the Dems have finally challenged the linguistic framework the GOP has trapped them in since the Reagan Administration. Take, for example, this section:

As I've explained several times before, the Dems have been living in a post-Reagan linguistic world. Since Vietnam, they have been susceptible to attacks on both the military/patriotism front, and the so-called "values" front (i.e., social issues). Let me be more precise. Republicans have been winning these debates because they have defined the terms (or the "linguistic arena" in which the debate takes place). Take "values." Republicans are winning on "values," not because they are objectively more moral, but because they have successfully scalded a limited definition (their limited definition) of the word "values" on to the brains of middle-class (largely white) Americans. Expressed more abstractly, their argument is structured like this: "'Values' equals 'X' and nothing other than 'X.' I support X, you oppose X. I therefore have 'values' and you don't." The standard response has been to dismiss religion in politics or to avoid the entire debate over values. But the better response is simply to say "No. You're wrong. Values equals 'Y.'" In other words, values means something different than what you say it means. (I explained much of this in my post "Values 2.0"). The same is true of "patriotism." The GOP says "Patriotism equals X." Rather than rejecting patriotism, Dems should say, "No, patriotism equals Y."

And yes, be sure to check out his previous posts, including the Values 2.0 one highlighted above. One of the best blogs out there IMHO.

One question/criticism I've receivedfrom several people (including my father - thanks for keeping me on my toes dad!) is that there's nothing in Kerry's record that suggests he means what he says, and that this "transformation" isn't based on anything real. And I admit, yes, that is a possibility. My instinct says, oddly enough, that that may not matter. It's the change in the use of language and in the shared mythology that's critical, not the reason it is taking place. But that seems a bit odd to me, so... I need to think on that some more before i address it fully. Give me another day or two on that one...

--------