Fangs for the Metaphor
Monday, December 6, 2010 at 09:09AM Bernie Sanders, the Socialist Senator from Vermont, has given an old-timey rip-snorter of a speech that’s gone viral among true believers. Figaro declares it a rhetorical failure.
Everything about the speech is off: the timing (better to stir up the troops before the election), the accent (Bernie, who grew up in New York, sounds like a Socialist), and the metaphor. Especially the metaphor: “There is a war going on in this country.”
Politicians love war metaphors. War brings people together to join forces and battle evil. Or it’s supposed to, anyway. But even the sexiest metaphors don’t work if they fail to match the subject. You can declare war on poverty, but poverty doesn’t fight back. It just sits there, a passive-aggressive enemy. You can declare war on drugs, but drugs just retreat back into their dens, where they do drugs. The “war” Bernie talks about isn’t a war at all. It’s a vast shift of wealth from 99 percent of the nation to the richest one-tenth of one percent, as Bernie himself points out.
It’s Label Monday again, so let us suggest a different rhetorical strategy for Bernie and his gauche-wing compatriots: label your opponent, not the phenomenon. Call the super-rich the Vampire Class. They suck the life force from the American economy, hide their identity behind anonymous political ads, and glamour independent voters with their mysterious mock-patriot charm. The Vampire Class. They’re coming to a Main Street near you.
Reader Comments (10)
And right-wing types don't talk about vast shifts of wealth unless they're in the wrong direction.
I think the problem with how the maeaphor of war is used, is that it isn't used, the modern rhetorical use of the term has become a cliché, one can just as easily have a war on prices as a war an terrorism.
The thing about clichés though is that they're usually quite brilliant, and in the process of becoming clichés that brilliance becomes dulled, approaching a cliché from a new angle, such as say with not just calling it a war, but illustrating that metaphor further and building on it, so that people would actually see it as a war, and react to it as one should react to war (which I imagine is what Bernie Saunders would want), would sure be more effective?
1. He is hypocritical in his denouncing the rich as wanting more, more, more. Yet he serves in Congress and believes in government that wants more, more, more. Where is the limit to big government, Mr. Sanders?
2. He states, repeatedly, that the top 1% earns 23% of the income, but fails to also state that the top 1% pays over 40% of the income taxes in this country.
3. He talks about the rising level of poverty in the country and how the middle class is "collapsing." Yet, he has no stats or evidence to support this claim. In fact, he is implying that there is a limited supply of money and the rich are hogging it all. The standard of living in this country is higher across the board than in decades past. That is because our economy, over time, creates wealth. Sanders has stats about how well off the wealthy are over decades, but he does not reinforce his argument by showing with stats that the middle class is equally worse off over decades.
4. He blames the Wall Street for economic collapse. Again, he is leaving the government out of his argument. The housing bubble was fueled by the government forcing banks to engage in subprime lending. Freddie and Fannie packaged the toxic mortgages into securities that were underfunded. Wall Street took what the government gave them. To blame Wall Street alone for our economic woes, Sanders is being disingenuous.
5. The Bush tax cuts brought record levels of income to the government. The tax cuts didn't created the debt. The issue before Congress is not more tax cuts, it is the extension of the status quo. There are no new tax breaks for the wealthy.
6. The government debt is due to Congress spending more than they have. The 2009 stimulus bill added $800-900 trillion to our debt and did nothing to create jobs and stimulate the economy. The health care bill will add to our debt. Yet Sanders rants on and on about how greedy and unfair the wealthy is.
That is enough forensic analysis about how flawed Sander's argument is. If he is serious about the government debt and reducing the burden on the economy and the middle class, he will tell us what is going to be done about the unfunded government liabilities. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are anchors on our economy. I would like to ask Sanders how his rant is going to address those issues. If he showed that much passion towards the solving of those government created problems, I would have a lot more respect and support for his efforts.