At Maclean’s, Aaron Wherry took issue with parts of my piece from yesterday on the way the NDP has used the words from Jack Layton’s last letter.
My contention was that, though they were nice things in spirit, they have been co-opted, packaged and sold to us as political sloganeering. As such, they should never been seen as anything but part of the cynical political system within which we operate. That is, rather than us all becoming cynical about the words because of the overall tone of discourse, or the way we all approach politics generally, the framing of the words from day one was inherently playing into that structure. So, there is no way to not be cynical about the words and view them as purely partisan marketing.
Anyway, back to Wherry.
“Jack Layton’s last letter was, in whole or in part, a ‘political’ statement. In the paragraphs preceding those memorable final sentences, the late NDP leader addressed his party members and MPs,” he writes.
I agree.
Yes, the final letter was a political statement. And, as Wherry says, in a lot of ways, that was always clear. So we have no issue, there, I don’t think.
But a bit further down, Wherry says this:
“If you took some apolitical meaning from Jack Layton’s last words, if you attach some significance to the sentiments and ideas expressed that are removed from the world of partisan debate, nothing about how those words are used for political means—maybe nothing even about what Jack Layton was thinking when he signed his name to them—should necessarily change that. [...] The unseen hands who craft (and frequently disgrace) the English language should not be allowed to own our words.”
Too right. They should not. And yet, and yet, and yet.
Let’s consider what’s followed from the point where we all saw people like Stephen Lewis give blatantly partisan comments, referencing the letter, only days after Layton’s death. Fine for him. But from that point on, Wherry seems to argue, it has technically been up to us as to whether to allow the party spinners to dictate how we use those words. But, quite frankly, this is why people invented propaganda: to make sure words are no longer just words, and to make sure the spin sticks.
Consider, for example, the story Paul Dewar told Wednesday on the Hill — the one I quoted about how Jack Layton was one of those rare politicians who, unlike others, sincerely believed in optimism or hope. Dewar still used the words as if they were still abstract, shared notions, rather than the blatantly partisan terms the party had specifically designed them to be a year before. This is where the sleight of hand happens – and, again, I doubt Aaron would argue with me here. This whole time, the NDP has held up these words as if they were truly non-partisan and apolitical – just wonderful words – but at the same time used them in their intended form, as NDP slogans. So yes, they are sincere, in that they are sincerely tools for the financial and political gain of the party.
This is, for the record, not just an NDP thing. I made that point as well in my piece yesterday. The Conservatives have their own bag of terms to throw around. As it happens, the Liberals don’t – or not a very good one – which is probably why nobody is really sure what they represent right now. It’s what we’re really talking about when we say they’ve done a poor job of building something of a tangible identity. We just don’t have a clear list of words that immediately mean ‘Liberal’. Most of the ones they used to have – health care, peacekeeping, multiculturalism – have actually ended up being co-opted by all parties as just ‘Canadian’ ideas because the Liberals were in power for so long and did this sort of thing for a few decades. This is exactly what the Conservatives and NDP are trying to change.
Fundamentally, I think Aaron and I agree. But maybe this is the difference: Wherry allows for the possibility that one can believe in love and hope and optimism even if you aren’t an NDP supporter. While I agree in part, I tend to think if that is the case, even if you do, you’re going to use different words to describe these sentiments because the NDP already owns those ones. And as soon as that’s the case, you’re losing, and the propaganda is eating you alive from the inside out. They have you by the balls.
The unseen hands shouldn’t dictate how we use the language? Too late.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Colin Horgan
My contention was that, though they were nice things in spirit, they have been co-opted, packaged and sold to us as political sloganeering. As such, they should never been seen as anything but part of the cynical political system within which we operate. That is, rather than us all becoming cynical about the words because of the overall tone of discourse, or the way we all approach politics generally, the framing of the words from day one was inherently playing into that structure. So, there is no way to not be cynical about the words and view them as purely partisan marketing.
Anyway, back to Wherry.
“Jack Layton’s last letter was, in whole or in part, a ‘political’ statement. In the paragraphs preceding those memorable final sentences, the late NDP leader addressed his party members and MPs,” he writes.
I agree.
Yes, the final letter was a political statement. And, as Wherry says, in a lot of ways, that was always clear. So we have no issue, there, I don’t think.
But a bit further down, Wherry says this:
“If you took some apolitical meaning from Jack Layton’s last words, if you attach some significance to the sentiments and ideas expressed that are removed from the world of partisan debate, nothing about how those words are used for political means—maybe nothing even about what Jack Layton was thinking when he signed his name to them—should necessarily change that. [...] The unseen hands who craft (and frequently disgrace) the English language should not be allowed to own our words.”
Too right. They should not. And yet, and yet, and yet.
Let’s consider what’s followed from the point where we all saw people like Stephen Lewis give blatantly partisan comments, referencing the letter, only days after Layton’s death. Fine for him. But from that point on, Wherry seems to argue, it has technically been up to us as to whether to allow the party spinners to dictate how we use those words. But, quite frankly, this is why people invented propaganda: to make sure words are no longer just words, and to make sure the spin sticks.
Consider, for example, the story Paul Dewar told Wednesday on the Hill — the one I quoted about how Jack Layton was one of those rare politicians who, unlike others, sincerely believed in optimism or hope. Dewar still used the words as if they were still abstract, shared notions, rather than the blatantly partisan terms the party had specifically designed them to be a year before. This is where the sleight of hand happens – and, again, I doubt Aaron would argue with me here. This whole time, the NDP has held up these words as if they were truly non-partisan and apolitical – just wonderful words – but at the same time used them in their intended form, as NDP slogans. So yes, they are sincere, in that they are sincerely tools for the financial and political gain of the party.
This is, for the record, not just an NDP thing. I made that point as well in my piece yesterday. The Conservatives have their own bag of terms to throw around. As it happens, the Liberals don’t – or not a very good one – which is probably why nobody is really sure what they represent right now. It’s what we’re really talking about when we say they’ve done a poor job of building something of a tangible identity. We just don’t have a clear list of words that immediately mean ‘Liberal’. Most of the ones they used to have – health care, peacekeeping, multiculturalism – have actually ended up being co-opted by all parties as just ‘Canadian’ ideas because the Liberals were in power for so long and did this sort of thing for a few decades. This is exactly what the Conservatives and NDP are trying to change.
Fundamentally, I think Aaron and I agree. But maybe this is the difference: Wherry allows for the possibility that one can believe in love and hope and optimism even if you aren’t an NDP supporter. While I agree in part, I tend to think if that is the case, even if you do, you’re going to use different words to describe these sentiments because the NDP already owns those ones. And as soon as that’s the case, you’re losing, and the propaganda is eating you alive from the inside out. They have you by the balls.
The unseen hands shouldn’t dictate how we use the language? Too late.
Source: ipolitics
Author: Colin Horgan
No comments:
Post a Comment