It Isn't What It Is

Frank Lutz thinks you’re an idiot. Well, uhm, he thinks you’re mentally different (in fairness he doesn’t necessarily think you’re “stupid” but he definitely thinks you’re easily manipulated). Now, don’t you feel better? You should. After all, Mr. Lutz, the author of Words That Work and a political “language consultant”, has made a cottage industry of verbally massaging the egos and sensitivities of the electorate simply by substituting a term here and replacing a term there. And he’s at it again.

During a recent conference of republican governors, Lutz advised governors which terms to use to describe everything from tax policy to the occupy movement. Yes, people actually pay him to do this. The self-professed “word doctor” shared such gems as substituting “taking” for “taxes”. You know, like the government isn’t taxing you. They are taking your money! Now, that is much more intellectually bankrupt and emotionally driven. Yet that is what works. As Lutz’s research supports, people tend to react more emotionally than logically or intellectually.

So, what you think “is” isn’t and what it isn’t is what it really is. So much of what we know, or think we know has been manipulated or misrepresented with a seemingly innocuous term. To paraphrase a former President, it truly does make one ponder what the definition of “is” is.

Thanks to the linguistic acrobatics of Lutz and his types, uhm brethren, a rose by any other name is anything but. Lutz and his ilk have twisted the language so much they have twisted the meaning of words and phrases into a misleading labyrinth of lies and half-truths. In this language sensitive climate, Lutz, the man widely attributed with such cheery phrases as the “death tax” has utilized the power of words for other purposes: misdirection and manipulation.

The so called death tax is a tax administered to the wealthiest of Americans that is taxed on their estate at the time of the death. Formerly dubbed the “estate tax”, the death tax was relabeled by Lutz as the much more sinister “death tax”. Scary, huh? What the death tax infers as that merely by passing along you or your family would be subjected to a hefty tax.

In actuality the death tax is almost anything but. It’s a virtually nonexistent tax that is used to tax the wealthiest 2 or 3 out of one thousand people, roughly .02%, will pay according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. So, while everyone surely will die, very few of us will be involved in the death tax. If anything, most of us would benefit from it as it would be used to pay for services and programs some of us may use. Yet, the “death tax” sounds scarier and makes a stronger impression with would be voters.

Truly speaking from the heart, Lutz measures each word by running them through focus groups. In fact, Lutz carefully selects his volunteers to test market words and phrases to find out what are the most effective terms before he lets them loose on the American public.

Lutz is also responsible for the manipulative phrase, “It’s not what you say it’s what people hear.” However hard Lutz may be trying to manipulate us, he could only be successful if we allow him to manipulate us. His success has more to do with our own weakness and vulnerability than his own manipulation.

Some of the seemingly innocuous word magic Lutz uses is to never say “government spending” but rather say “government waste”. And we should say tax simplification instead of tax reform. We like simple things.

Lutz also suggests we shouldn’t say “cuts”, like tax cuts. Lutz cleverly uses warm and cozy terms like “relief”. “Tax relief” kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Are we so easily misled as to agree with a policy or support a candidate simply by virtue of the word substitution trick? Yes. Absolutely. As much as we might be upset by this it does work.

For instance, you hear these words being used throughout your days. Politicians say we should have a “conversation” rather than saying we should have a debate. Debates are too confrontational and heated. Yet, based on the climate in Washington, heated debate is rampant. But, it is the image and vision of people sitting around a coffee table comfortably talking that people buy into. It’s warm, fuzzy and wholly unrealistic. In other words, it is easily sellable to the public. So, regardless of whether it is true or not, the right words can sell the wrong ideas.

The truly sad part is Lutz is right. Words do matter. But only if we let them.

Vote The Bums In

We say we want change and we vote the status quo. We say we want bipartisanship and we vote for divided government. We say we want agreement yet we look at compromise as weakness. We say we want new leaders and we vote for the incumbent.

For all of our bluster and threats, when it comes to our anti-incumbent rhetoric we really are just all talk. The facts, as persistent as they often tend to be, do not add up to our propaganda. In short, we are all more full of hot air than a Macy’s Day parade balloon.

Alas, “vote the bums back in” should be the rallying cry if we were to be true to our actual voting record.

Our voting habits are even more insidious than just voting for the incumbent. No, not only do we vote for the incumbent in most elections, we also vote overwhelmingly for the candidate for one of the two major political parties (when is the last time a third party candidate was elected President?). At best, the significant difference between these two parties are marginal at best. For anyone with a doubt about this, just measure up our former president’s record with our current president’s.

But, back to our so called “anti-incumbent” furor. We claim to have a 9% approval rating for Congress. Yet, our approval rating in reality hovers at closer to 90%.

Ninety percent. That is the rate at which our incumbents will win re-election, give or take a few percentage points. Even in the hotly contested elections of 2010 when we were in the midst of an economic collapse, the incumbent trounced his or her competition. In the 2010 Congressional elections, 85% of incumbents running for re-election in the House of Representatives won re-election. In the United States Senate, 84 percent of the incumbents were punished with a re-election. And those were during times of so called “anti-incumbent” fervor.

In fact, since 1964, the incumbent re-election rate has never dipped below 50%. In the 1980 election, the incumbent re-election rate reached 55% in the Senate. Mind you, that was after a less than dazzling Carter administration where people were fed up with their leaders.

It’s even harder to win against an incumbent in the House. Since 1964, the lowest the re-election rate for the incumbent has been 85% (in 1970 and 2010 rspectively). In the previous 24 elections for the House (they go up for re-election every 2 years), the re-election rate for the incumbent has been 90% or higher 17 times. Eighty five to 90%; that’s not bad odds.

These numbers just illustrate how we approve of our leaders (why else would we keep voting them back in?) and how married we are to the two party system. It really is indicative of who we are and just how pervasive own contradictory ways are. We often say we will do one thing and do something quite different frequently in our everyday lives. We vow to lose weight before the new year or we vow to make this marriage last. Both of these vows rarely seem to stick. Whenever the least amount of effort, such as helping campaigns for third party candidates, or thought, such as inquiring about third party candidates, enters the equation we are woefully inadequate to our vows. That is what is at the root of all of this

Yes, incumbent enjoy advantages such as name recognition (which many derisively argue is a detriment these days), money from lobbyists and the backing of their party cronies. Yet, we control two things much more powerful: independent thought and the vote. No one can literally make you vote for one or another candidate. Yet, every election we do so. Overwhelmingly, voters vote the candidate with the D or the R next to their names. For all of their talk about being “independent” and not being sheep they follow the dinner bells to their own slaughter much like sheep. In typical American fashion, they say one thing (“vote them all out”) yet they do the opposite (overwhelmingly vote them back into office).

What of third party candidates? Two things happen when you suggest voting third party. The third party candidate is immediately considered “unwinnable”, as though that was any relevant reason for not exercising your most precious right for the most qualified person . Secondly, the person is roundly dismissed as being a nut or out of the loop, as though that was any rational reason for not casting a vote vote for them. But, the real reason for casting them in such light is a part of a much grander scheme. The party elites write the script and the sheepish voters willingly read it. In every election voters are warned to not “throw away their vote” for a third party candidate. Yet what people fail to realize is that if all of us seriously considered third party candidates they would be legitimately valid candidates and no such argument would hold water. It is our own fault for listening to such noise and, even worse, agreeing. How the important process of voting is marginalized and willingly limited by the very same people who want “change” is perplexing.

So, votes the bums back in. And when we do, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Yesterday

A man died Sunday. A bad man. A very bad man.

But, what did his death bring?

Yesterday brought nothing but horror and pain of almost 10 years. All of the hurt and ache we thought we had been able to get past came crashing down all over again. The raw, unfettererd anguish washed over us like it was just a week after the tragedy. You would never know by the reaction of the masses. Then again the masses voted W. twice and spend their idle time watching other people do things they should try doing (like dancing, playing sports, cooking, singing or starting their own business) on television. No, the masses are no sure measure for what is right, proper or true.

As is often the case, the more I heard people praising the killing of the evil doer, the more I took comfort and confidence in my uneasiness. The masses are often easily misled.

Predictably, crowds gathered to celebrate the killing of the man who helped orchestrate the worst attack on American soil. He got what he had deserved. Fair enough (or as I like to say “fear enough”). But, what has really changed? Did his death bring anyone back or truly make us safer? Sure, the world is better without him. But, no, that is not people’s motivation for celebration. They high fived, jumped for joy and partied blocks away from Ground Zero. - the very same sacred ground that remains a painful landmark for many. That seems hardly appropriate or patriotic to me.

Revenge shrouded in the name of “justice” was people’s main motivation for celebration. Old style West “dead or alive” mentality was the cause. This is fine so long as it is owned up to. Sadly, people will not fess up to this small measure of reality. No, I am sure “justice” is what they sought.

I envy them, though. They know not the pain and emptiness of those who suffer daily. They don’t know the pain of seeing an empty chair at the dinner table. They will never know the solitary feeling of not being able to hug their mother or father. Fear not, people will go back to their reality television and sports programming.

Today did not bring joy, happiness, rainbows or even small comfort. It brought tears, pain and emptiness for many.

No, yesterday wasn’t a good day.

Ode To My Niece

Gone forever are the days of board game night and whittling away the days telling jokes and sharing stories. The days of bonding over soda and pretzels while we played our favorite games are simply memories. They’re memories which will never be relived.

Specifically, I remember sitting on our hotel balcony while on vacation making up names for people and things that annoyed us. It was our version of “sniglets”. I think people who wore goggles while they swam in the hotel pool earlier that day were “gosers” (goggles + losers). Naturally, these memories are undoubtedly ingrained more in my remembrance than yours.. These memories are often not considered as memorable to the young.

No longer will you run across the street to greet me after you are dropped off by the bus to run into your uncle‘s arms. The first person you call when you score a goal in soccer or when you are cast in a play will no longer be your uncle but your bff.

Naturally, you would resist some of the activities you engaged in during your youth. Who wouldn’t find a 30 year old woman running into her uncle’s arms just a little but creepy? No, of course, this evolution is only normal. In fact, my image of your childish ways only does you a disservice. Yet, you will always be my “little niece”. Yeah, you could be 40 and I would still remember you as my little munchkin in her “feety pajamas”.

The changes were innocuous and subtle at first. First, you didn’t want to sit with us, preferring to sit with your friends, when your mom and I took you out to the movies . Then, you stopped going to the grocery store and other shops when I asked if you wanted to run errands with me. Of course, going to the mall is a whole other story, fortunately.

Alas, not all of your innocent luster has faded. There are glimpses of your innocent devotion to me. Recently, there was the time you insisted I join you for “movie night” with your mom, even if you might be spotted out with your old uncle.

There was, even more recently, the time I smiled at you and gave you a “thumbs up“ as you read your lines at your Christmas play. For a moment, you flashed your toothy acknowledgment. Yet, .just as quickly, your smile retreated and a rosy tinge exposed an awkward discomfort that would not have been present only 2 or 3 years earlier in such an instance. Such as this was,, special connections are merely moments and glimpses as opposed to the more carefree longer displays of emotions.

It unnerving, somewhat tragic even, the maturation process begins so soon. Yet, then again, perhaps it is my maturing that is to blame.