<"Our Work Here Is Done..."/The Reckoner>
<i.>
Hijacking language is an old, old game, one that the far right has played supremely well, sadly, to advance its interests One of the more obvious examples is the Orwelllian renaming of entities with opposite intentions, like the Alliance Defending Freedom. It's a noble-sounding moniker, presumably chosen to conjure images of the Boston Tea Party, Patrick Henry, and the like. In reality, the only freedoms that the ADF ever defends are those of Christian nationalists. For examples, see the 303 Creative case, in which a web designer successfully argued for the right to turn away gay customers on free speech grounds, even though none had ever sought her services. The hypothetical nightmare that gay and lesbian hordes might gatecrash her website any moment was sufficient to swing down the gavel in her favor. The 303 Creative ruling carried on the dark path opened by its cousin (Masterpiece Cakeshop), where a majority of good people convinced themselves that a sterling compromise had been struck -- rather than the greasy carveout to the Christian right that it actually represented.
Another example is the weaponizing of the term "woke," which actually originated in Black culture. The earliest reference comes from "Scottsboro Blues," a 1938 recording by Lead Belly, who urges listeners to "stay woke, keep their eyes open" for potential dangers -- like those the nine teenagers faced in the Scottsboro case. The term became a byword for "being well-informed" or "politically aware," as seem in works like If You're Woke, You Dig It (1962), a novel that sent up white beatniks' appropriation of Black slang -- or the play, Garvey Lives! (1972), in which a character vows to "stay woke," to liberate other Black people. Knowing these examples makes the W-word's current ill-begotten appropriation by the likes of Trump and his clique all the more distressing.
Now comes another variation, of words you can't say, or shouldn't use -- as seen in the so-called "45 Woke Words" list recently proposed by Third Way, of terms for candidates to avoid on the stump this year. The idea is for them to "stop talking like they're leading a seminar at Antioch," claims executive vice president of public affairs Matt Bennett. "We think language is one of the central problems we face with normie voters, signaling that we are out of touch with how they live, think and talk."
The list proposes six categories of no-no language -- think of it as the political version of the late George Carlin's monologue, "The Seven Words You Can't Say On Television" -- to avoid using. The suggested categories cover crime ("incarcerated people," "involuntary confinement," "justice-involved"), gender ("birthing person,” “heteronormative,” “cisgender,” “deadnaming,” “LGBTQIA+"), "organizer jargon" ("barriers to participation," "food insecurity," "stakeholders," "the unhoused"), race ("allyship," "BIPOC," intersectionality," "Latinx"), "seminar room language" ("cultural appropriation," "Overton window," "systems of oppression"), and "therapy speak" ("microaggression," "othering," "privilege").
Even terms that seem closer to creative license are deemed off-limits, such as "existential threat" -- whether to our climate, planet, or democracy itself. Never mind that the general consensus, among those without some special interest axe to grind, suggests that we're moved long past the initial stage of general concern, to code red alarm. Try selling that one to island nations endangered by rising water levels -- like the Maldives, or Vanuatu -- and see how far soft-pedaling catastrophe gets you.
<"Words To The (Not-So) Wise"/The Reckoner>
<ii.>
Suffice to say, this approach begets numerous problems, starting with its source. Third Way emerged in 2005, billing itself as a champion of "moderate policy and political ideas." The trouble is that it's funded by corporate interests, ranging from Amgen, to CVS Health, Facebook, PG&E, Qualcomm, and so on (see link below) -- the same-old, same-old unholy alliance of players, all dedicated to keeping the status quo frozen in place. Most of Third Way's key players are the same faces recycled from previous Democratic administrations -- like Bennett, who served as a deputy assistant to President Clinton -- who further distinguish themselves via utter hostility to progressive ideas like Medicare for All (see below), or the apparently quaint notion that greed should have some kind of an upper limit.
Instead of government intervention, Third Way's preferred solutions for our present ills lean toward a blending of social liberalism and old school Main Street capitalism. In other words, gay couples can stay married, and smoke pot in the privacy of their own home. They just shouldn't expect affordable housing, clean air and drinking water, non-corporatized healthcare, nor non-discriminatory lending policies.
In Third Way's view, that business is best left to the market -- that is, the same handful of corporate initials that long ago cornered it -- who will finally do the right thing, once their own "Eureka!" moment finally arrives. How, we're never told; presumably, after Jacob Marley's ghost comes knocking. or the modern version, perhaps (amid some interminable solo at a Dave Matthews Band show, causing the ponytailed Boomer to wax in anguish over the results).
Stranger still, some of the words on Third Way's no-no list have actually been used by far right figures like the notorious Leonard Leo, who's freely invoked the "Overton window" metaphor as ample justification for his ongoing court capture project.
Other suspect words seem long, yet do accurately describe the issue, as we see from a quick look at the Oxford Dictionary definitions of "heteronormative" ("denoting or relating to a world view that presents gender roles as fixed, and heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation"), or "incarcerated," for instance ("imprisoned or confined"). What's Third Way playing at here, exactly? If predatory corporations are people, too, why can't the inmates they stack up like cord wood enjoy the same status?
Other suspect words seem long, yet do accurately describe the issue, as we see from a quick look at the Oxford Dictionary definitions of "heteronormative" ("denoting or relating to a world view that presents gender roles as fixed, and heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation"), or "incarcerated," for instance ("imprisoned or confined"). What's Third Way playing at here, exactly? If predatory corporations are people, too, why can't the inmates they stack up like cord wood enjoy the same status?
Most distressing of all, however, is the "organizer jargon" category, which seems bent on relegating the most marginalized to the scrapheap. As someone who has experienced hunger personally -- and gone to extraordinary lengths to relieve it, like selling artwork, musical equipment, and rock memorabilia, to raise the capital needed to pay the corporate groceries' greedflated prices -- I cannot abide the idea of avoiding the subject.
Food insecurity, whether Bennett and his denizens like it or not, is a reality for an estimated 47.4 millions Americans, including 13.8 million children. Not talking about it to curry favor with corporate donors or unsympathetic voters is simply unconscionable. The same goes for Third Way's desire to avoid the issue of homelessness, via "unhoused," despite rampant levels of inequality. Which naturally begs the question, how do you slap a positive spin on starvation? Call it "food purchase opportunity," or "involuntary fast," perhaps?
After all, manipulators like Mr. Bennett and his fellow pundits -- that's basically a term for anyone who can't get a real job, remember -- have never experienced the joys of juggling multiple jobs to make extortionate rents. Excluding "barriers to participation" feels equally troublesome, since it's a term that accurately describes what so many millions are expected to swallow every day -- not enough money. Not enough resources. Not enough time. Not enough work.
As my subhead suggests, this whole exercise in linguistic futility -- which I can't imagine anyone but a corporate neoliberal embracing -- feels like a bad joke, or ample fodder for late night comedians, except that they mean it. They're serious. And they're determined to fool enough people into embracing whatever their corporate masters are pushing, is which what makes most think tanks such noxious entities.
All the more reason to push back all the harder, away from the air-conditioned suites they inhabit so naturally, yet deny so freely, to those who cannot pay triple-digit utility bills. But while we're on the subject, let's also push back against liberals and moderates who failed to push back themselves, against the weaponization of "woke," or any of those other MAGA-era greatest hits ("fake news," "lawfare," "Let's Go, Brandon," and so on).
All the more reason to push back all the harder, away from the air-conditioned suites they inhabit so naturally, yet deny so freely, to those who cannot pay triple-digit utility bills. But while we're on the subject, let's also push back against liberals and moderates who failed to push back themselves, against the weaponization of "woke," or any of those other MAGA-era greatest hits ("fake news," "lawfare," "Let's Go, Brandon," and so on).
That failure to push back reflects a lack of moral clarity that any opposition, no matter how beleaguered it may feel, is obliged to provide -- which, in turns, helps fuel the drumbeat of a new vocabulary, one that feels more in tune with the times (as opposed to the endless invocations of "the long arc," and "making good trouble," perhaps).
The emergence of a more timely vocabulary may possibly even give Third Way some pause, especially if more progressive candidates continue to win elections. But even without that natural check and balance, Third Way's so-called "Woke List" is doomed to fail -- for two reasons to which I keep returning, via two quotes from the late activist lesbian poet, Audre Lord, the first one being:
The emergence of a more timely vocabulary may possibly even give Third Way some pause, especially if more progressive candidates continue to win elections. But even without that natural check and balance, Third Way's so-called "Woke List" is doomed to fail -- for two reasons to which I keep returning, via two quotes from the late activist lesbian poet, Audre Lord, the first one being:
"Your silence
will not protect you."
And then, last but not least, this quote, the most pertinent one here, by a country mile:
<"The master's tools
will never dismantle
the master's house.">
A simple point, isn't it, one that eludes most overeducated neoliberals and their fan followings, who never grasped one of punk rock's most enduring principles ("If you're going to be simple, be as simple as you can"). In other words, maybe if you offered more than the usual downbeat messages -- "This is the best we can get," or, "We're not as bad as them" -- then voters might actually respond. Food for thought, isn't it? --The Reckoner
Links To Go (And Remember,
You Can't Always Have It Both Ways...):
NPR: What Does The Word "Woke" Really Mean,
And Where Does It Come From?:
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/19/1188543449/what-does-the-word-woke-really-mean-and-where-does-it-come-from
PR Watch: Centrist Third Way...
Attacks Sanders In Iowa:
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2020/01/13535/centrist-third-way-funded-corporate-interests-attacks-sanders-iowa
Yahoo News: 45 Words And Phrases
NPR: What Does The Word "Woke" Really Mean,
And Where Does It Come From?:
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/19/1188543449/what-does-the-word-woke-really-mean-and-where-does-it-come-from
PR Watch: Centrist Third Way...
Attacks Sanders In Iowa:
https://www.prwatch.org/news/2020/01/13535/centrist-third-way-funded-corporate-interests-attacks-sanders-iowa
Yahoo News: 45 Words And Phrases
That Democrats Should Stop Saying...:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/45-words-phrases-democrats-stop-194617212.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/45-words-phrases-democrats-stop-194617212.html
