GOOD

Drop the Mic: How Republicans Talk About the Occupy Movement

"I'm a cooperative career Job Creator, and I get it."

Don’t look now, but the political class is nervous about Occupy Wall Street. Frank Luntz, a Republican political operative and pal of GOP presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich, specializes in the Orwellian twisting of language: He famously renamed the estate tax—the levy paid on windfall income by those who inherit a $1 million or more—the "death tax," helping wrongly convince millions that the government is in the grave robbery business while not coincidentally making the world safe for the Paris Hiltons of the world. Now, he's turning his attention to OWS.


Luntz’s rolling lipstick-and-a-pig operation went to Florida last week to talk to a group of GOP governors, and Chris Moody reports Luntz is “frightened to death” of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Luckily for the politicians who pay his hefty retainers, Luntz brought along 10 tips for speaking to constituents who sympathize with the largely sympathetic OWS crowd. We annotate Luntz’s linguistic selections below and suggest who would benefit from his proposed change.

1. Don't say "capitalism." "I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public... still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."

Luntz is sort of giving up the first quarter here: He can’t even defend capitalism? GOOD pal Mike Konczal points out that “economic freedom” isn’t exactly the same as the unfettered corporate power that Luntz and his ilk have in mind: For Occupy Wall Street, economic freedom is freedom from unfair debt and freedom of opportunity. For Luntz, it means freedom from taxes and environmental regulations. The problem isn’t that the public thinks capitalism is immoral, it’s that they’ve recognized that capitalism is amoral, and it takes public-spirited institutions to correct that. I’m not sure this is going to convince anyone who thinks the current system is messed up.

Winner: Mercantilism: It’s working for China!

2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'

You know who else takes from the rich? Robin Hood.

Winner: Big Government

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'

The term “middle class” is a bit vague in its own right (nearly everyone thinks they’re in it) so switching to "hardworking taxpayers" might even be an improvement, reminding people of the virtues of labor and paying their taxes! Luntz is trying to implicitly spread divisive misinformation suggesting that many Americans don’t pay taxes, since almost half of Americans don’t make enough money to pay federal income taxes, but the reality is that the state taxes more than even the average. Maybe we should think about how to make the tax system reward hard workers more than it does investors, who come out on top these days.

Winner: Frank Luntz, and America’s hardworking taxpayers

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'

Luntz points out that more people he talks to want ‘careers’ than want ‘jobs.’ That’s nice and all, but one in 10 eligible Americans still don’t have regular work, and besides the fact that they’d like to earn some money, we need to get them back to work to support broader prosperity. Sure, we’ve got a big economic restructuring ahead as the information age changes the nature of work, but wordplay isn’t going to make up for a lack of solutions.

Winner: People who already have jobs and/or careers

5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.' "It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."

Cat’s out of the bag here—Luntz wants you mad. Tea Party-mad. And if he has to call all government spending waste, so be it. I can get into the usual litany of examples here—Teachers! Policemen! The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program! Our patriotic servicemen and women! Medicare!—but unfortunately Luntz has a point: While most Americans directly benefit from government programs, most of them don’t know that’s the case, or simply won't admit it.

Winner: Ignorance

6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'

Really? Has anyone been confused about Republicans’ non-existent willingness to compromise? Nobody’s been comparing Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to his fellow Kentuckyian, Henry “The Great Compromiser” Clay. Republicans refusal to meet anywhere vaguely near the middle has lead to gridlock in Washington, the same gridlock everyone is so pissed about.

Sure, “I’ll never compromise” is a great thing to say in a presidential primary (along with “global warming isn’t real” and “let’s repeal all the new regulations on banks”), but that’ll be a tough message for regular folks. Luntz says pols should say “cooperate” instead—which apparently means the same thing without implying you’re weak-willed—but that sounds pretty wishy-washy to me. Almost like a compromise.

Winner: China, India, Brazil and any other emerging market hoping to eclipse a deadlocked United States

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'

I’m sure that will solve everything.

Winner: Pepper-spray manufacturers

8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'

An entrepreneur is a person, maybe even a poor person, who starts a business; a job creator is a rich person who already owns a business (or at least a substantial investment portfolio) and makes jobs willy-nilly unless they are taxed and/or regulated, or have an unpleasant luncheon. Entrepreneur also sounds French, which makes people angry and bewildered.

Republican economic policy is designed to advantage the wealthy, which they argue will lead to job creation. Despite the fact that fewer than 1 percent of small businesses would be affected by ending the Bush administration’s tax preferences for the wealthy, they claim such a move would be terrible for these job creators. In fact, tax incentives are a small part of the job creation picture, and most jobs growth comes from growing young companies started by those dreaded entrepreneurs. However, figuring out how to create an economic environment that encourages new enterprise is more complicated than advocating for low taxes.

Winner: Rich people

9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.' "There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."

While this rhetorical tack is clearly designed to butter up everybody's sense of persecution, the problem is that OWS and many other folks understand the reality that certain people haven't sacrificed much at all in our great rebalancing. Failing to acknowledge that fact isn't going to bring anybody on board to your campaign. Just ask Barack Obama: He's been talking about "shared sacrifice" for a while now. Of course, it makes more sense coming from him, since his platform isn't based around cutting public spending (which, see above, nearly everyone benefits from) while lowering taxes on the wealthy.

Winner: Rich people

10. Always blame Washington.

Tried and true stuff from the Republicans, but does anyone think that Occupy Wall Street is going to be confused about who to blame? Sensible people realize that the problems in our society—economic and otherwise—come from an array of sources, and that "Washington" is a stand-in for a rather complex set of institutional interactions, but in the hyper-tight light of the political process, black and white rules the day. Politicians have been blaming Washington politicians for your problems for decades, all in the service of going there themselves. It works pretty frequently.

Winner: Washington politicians

Articles
Photo by Li-An Lim on Unsplash

The future generations will have to live on this Earth for years to come, and, not surprisingly, they're very concerned about the fate of our planet. We've seen a rise in youth activists, such as Greta Thunberg, who are raising awareness for climate change. A recent survey indicates that those efforts are working, as more and more Americans (especially young Americans) feel concerned about climate change.

A new CBS News poll found that 70% of Americans between 18 and 29 feel climate change is a crisis or a serious problem, while 58% of Americans over the age of 65 share those beliefs. Additionally, younger generations are more likely to feel like it's their personal responsibility to address climate change, as well as think that transitioning to 100% renewable energy is viable. Overall, 25% of Americans feel that climate change is a "crisis," and 35% feel it is a "serious problem." 10% of Americans said they think climate change is a minor problem, and 16% of Americans feel it is not a problem that worries them.

The poll found that concern for the environment isn't a partisan issue – or at least when it comes to younger generations. Two-thirds of Republicans under the age of 45 feel that addressing climate change is their duty, sentiments shared by only 38% of Republicans over the age of 45.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet

The healthcare systems in the United States and the United Kingdom couldn't be more different.

The UK's National Health Service is the largest government-run healthcare system in the world and the US's is largest private sector system.

Almost all essential health services in the UK are free, whereas in America cost can vary wildly based on insurance, co pays and what the hospitals and physicians choose to charge.

A medical bill in the US

One of the largest differences is cost. The average person in the UK spends £2,989 ($3915) per year on healthcare (most of which is collected through taxes), whereas the average American spends around $10,739 a year.

So Americans should obviously be getting better care, right? Well, the average life expectancy in the UK is higher and infant mortality rate is lower than that in the US.

RELATED: The World Health Organization declares war on the out of control price of insulin

Plus, in the U.S., only 84% of people are covered by private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. Sixteen percent of the population are forced to pay out of pocket.

In the UK, everyone is covered unless they are visiting the country or an undocumented resident.

Prescription drugs can cost Americans an arm and a leg, but in the UK, prescriptions or either free or capped at £8.60 ($11.27).

via Wikimedia Commons

The one drawback to the NHS system is responsiveness. In the UK people tend to wait longer for inessential surgeries, doctor's appointments, and in emergency rooms. Whereas, the US is ranked as the most responsive country in the world.

RELATED: Alarmingly high insulin prices are forcing Americans to flock to Canada to buy the drug

The New York Times printed a fair evaluation of the UK's system:

The service is known for its simplicity: It is free at the point of use to anyone who needs it. Paperwork is minimal, and most patients never see a bill. … No one needs to delay medical treatment until he or she can afford it, and virtually everyone is covered. …

According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States spent 17.2 percent of its economic output on health care in 2016, compared with 9.7 percent in Britain. Yet Britain has a higher life expectancy at birth and lower infant mortality.

Citizens in each country have an interesting perspective on each other's healthcare systems. UK citizens think it's inhumane for Americans have to pay through the nose when they're sick or injured. While Americans are skeptical of socialist medicine.

A reporter from Politics Joe hit the streets of London and asked everyday people what they think Americans pay for healthcare and they were completely shocked.

Health
via Found Animals Foundation / Flickr

Service dogs are true blessings that provide a wide array of services for their owners based on their disability.

They can provide preventative alerts for people with epilepsy and dysautonomia. They can do small household tasks like turning lights on and off or providing stability for their owners while standing or walking.

For those with PTSD they can provide emotional support to help them in triggering situations.

However, there are many people out there who fraudulently claim their pets are service or emotional support animals. These trained animals can cause disturbances in businesses or on public transportation.

Keep Reading Show less
Communities