How Miserly Moneybags Charles Montgomery Burns Came To Be Reborn A “Job Creator”
Where and how did Homer Simpson learn to call Mr. Monty Burns, his well-known boss, a “job creator”? It’s interesting. Springfield Hospital’s maternity ward reports that Burns, early this summer, emerged “reborn” as a new man, a job creator. Since then, rather than being known as merely a miserable conniving rat bastard nuclear power purveyor and destroyer of lives, Springfielders have had to reassess him. Warily, they’ve not yet embraced the new Burnsey, nonetheless, attempts on his life are no longer routine. Burns likes this. A lot. He can cut his security staff by 40%. “Excellent. Unloading the creeps during a recession adds unbounded joy to a procedure normally quite unextraordinary.”
Today, I was reminded of how this transformation came to be. It required no changes whatever in Monty’s wretched behavior. His unmatched disdain for people, puppies, and philanthropy? Intact. Disgust with slack-jawed troglodyte union organizers? Better than ever. Yet, reborn, Monty is a “Job Creator.”
What happened? The explanation is all around us. Today, an email from former Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL), reminded me how easy this was to accomplish, and not just for Monty Burns.
I hadn’t thought about this for a while. As it turns out, that was not a good thing . . .
 |
| I hope the great Gary Larson doesn’t mind . . . if he does I’ll be out of town when lawyers call. |
I get Alan Grayson. Most Democrats do not. Most Dems are now utterly centrist, which in the recent pre-Tea Party past was considered “right-leaning,” and “blue dog.”
 |
| Frank Luntz, shut up! |
Some say, “So what? Politicians lie. When not lying they’re thinking about lying.” Well, Luntz’s approach is not precisely a renewed dedication to downright lying, it’s not a prescription for lavish bullsh*tting either. None of this gambling with political language, of course, is new, either. The reigning method, though, is highly refined for the telecommunications driven 21st Century. As never before, disguised untruth can be pushed to the media outlets in all its forms, 24/7.
What’s critical here is that “Luntzian” Republicans do not simply employ different words and phrases than their opponents to discuss the same phenomena. Rather, terms like “job creators,” “parental choice,” and “death tax” are calculated and devised in Luntz’s famous focus groups with the dedication of a Dr. Frankenstein. In essence, these new wordings seek to erase forever voters’ prior negative associations related to, let’s say, the entire panoply of modern Republican self-centered philosophy, policy demands, and strident legislative proposals for more of the same. Erasing a culture’s commitment to its own “common welfare” is a mammoth undertaking, especially in an America living still in a post-FDR society where the common good was respected.
Here’s a “for example.” For example, take the term “death tax,” which is Luntzian recasting of the familiar term “estate tax” or “inheritance tax” (remember those phrases?). As its subliminal connotations and cany pairing of “tax” with “death” become commonplace by constant repetition in GOP communications, discussing a modest increase in the – now renamed, reframed – “death tax” becomes far more difficult.
In fact, however, a tax on estates, whether one supports it or not, is really just another tax policy that primarily affects the very wealthy. And there’s the problem that the GOP must solve for their benefactors and fellow travelers. By redefining the term, tax policy activists are no longer taking on the “estate” tax. Instead, the replacement term “death tax” morphs discussion into a meaning structure that implies that those suggesting a modest increase in taxes on estates are suggesting punishing a family for the death of its scion, and in its time of vulnerability. The GOP knows that most Americans are not proponents of punishing thy neighbors. So, over time, conjuring the very thought of adjusting or – Heaven forfend! –increasing a tax on estates becomes more and more unthinkable, literally. The phrase “estate tax” no longer resides in the political lexicon, killed off – perhaps with poetic justice – by the term “death tax.”
No (further) belaboring is needed. Other Luntzian alchemy is on display every day, projected from GOP and Tea Party mouths like spit from a camel.
In that spirit, Alan Grayson’s email today was a good, timely reminder that this is not merely a political fight for a 2012 Democratic party electoral comeback. It’s a more important battle than many others before in the fight for our culture to retain a measure of selflessness.
Oh, and here’s one of those Luntzy stylings I heartily accept, “class warfare.” This battle is indeed just that. Are we winning or losing? It’s enough that we fight.
Dear Michael:
If you have been hearing the term “job creators” a lot lately,
it’s because Frank Luntz wanted you to.
As PBS put it, Luntz’s expertise is “testing language and finding words
that will help his clients sell their products,
or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”
In other words, propaganda.
Here are some actual examples of Luntz’s fine work:
Don’t say “oil drilling.” Say “energy exploration.”
Don’t say “inheritance tax.” Say “death tax.”
Don’t say “global warming.” Say “climate change.”
Don’t say “healthcare reform.” Say “government takeover.”
And don’t say “greedy, soulless multinational corporations who don’t give a damn about you.” Say “job creators.”
Luntz is like a serial killer of the English language.
for nothing, everyday, always.”
