Spin-slop

Some pols and all spinmeisters practice a brand of verbal politics that baffles: the use of heated or derisive language when moderation would be more effective, and moderation -- often defensive understatements -- when heated or derisive language is more fitting. The unbalanced result is usually a laughable heap of distortion that no one takes seriously, and in reality only spotlights their desperation and panic. Just who is it they're trying to reach? Those who are as cerebrally lame as their simplistic message?

The reigning and uncontested king of this rhetorical "art" is, of course, Tom DeLay, that erstwhile pol involuntarily reduced to secondary status of full-time spinner. He now has a regular gig writing for The Politico, where, speaking for the right wing at large, he squares off with another erstwhile pol, Martin Frost, on topical questions. This week's: Can the president recover politically? DeLay's take was an amusing journey through the grandest of spinning styles -- and wholly predictable.

Thus it should come as no surprise that DeLay believes, or, more accurately, says, the president can recover. But it's the way he says it -- his unhinged deployment of full-blown spin -- that persistently checks and ultimately checkmates his message's intended thrust. It's so cocky, so untethered from seven years of empirical evidence, so over the top, it's literally unbelievable. Which is to say, one gathers that even he doesn't believe it.

DeLay's favorite tactics are the euphemistic phrase and unbounded vitriol, depending on the object of his emotions. Pulling out the former, he writes, "President Bush can recover his popularity [even though] the most important issue of his presidency, the war, has not gone as well as people want."

"Not gone as well," of course, implies that something, somewhere and in some way, has indeed gone well. The implication screams for at least some smidgen of proof, but DeLay doesn't even try. This pregnant omission therefore only highlights the fact that everything, in every way, has gone kaplooey in Iraq and even DeLay is smart enough to know it. And if he knows it, who doesn't? So just who in hell is he addressing?

Even better, though, is when DeLay struggles to get real and show the American people how truly realistic he is. To wit, Bush's "credibility has slipped." Slipped? Everyone knows it has nosedived, plummeted and bottomed out. As I recall, that's been in the papers. Hence "slipped" is merely another unbelievable scrap of nonsense tossed on the previously mentioned laughable heap of distortion. So how, in what way, does this advance the right's cause?

DeLay is at his Coulteresque best, however, when stoked on hate. And his most recent column did not fail to disappoint:

"The Democrat overreach; the Democrats' cynical and unforgivable lack of any principled contributions...;[Bush's] domestic agenda ... is being hijacked by overreaching liberal Democrats...; Sen. Harry Reid['s] ... indefensible and idiotic 'The war is lost' rhetoric...; the shapeless, cynical vacuum that is Democrat domestic policy."

Aside from their vitriolic essence, these passages perhaps more importantly advertise the right's adolescence: its adherents refuse to pronounce the opposition party's name correctly. Take that! they're saying. Boy, I bet that stung.

But it hardly stings. It's just pathetic. And for the life of me I cannot figure out why the right would want to appear pathetic ... and desperate ... and just plain silly.

And that's why this brand of verbal politics puzzles me. How, for example, does the bratty, deliberate mispronunciation of a proper noun advance the right's cause or enlarge its base or persuade anyone in any way? It seems self-defeating. But I guess that's why I love it.

Comments

[Jeff Osborn]

Why waste your breath or column space?

Let the man slink off into obscurity, your commenting on his vitriol only keeps the irrelevant criminal in play.

I wish he would disappear like what he is: a fart in the wind. If I give him no bandwidth he will.

[Helen Rainier]

As distasteful as the rhetoric of the Neocons is, it is important to know WHAT they are saying so that you can formulate a strategy to combat the lies and deceit. In the military it's referred to "knowing your enemy."

[Nina]

What's that quote:
"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."
I too agree that as disgusting as these people are, it's better to know what they're spouting.

[Dr. Zorba]

PM, there must be an anthropology textbook somewhere that discusses the linguistic memes of tribalism. Alternatively, non-readers can simply listen to the speeches of various GOP criminals.
I don't know much about belonging to a tribe, other than there must exist a demon that the tribe is charged, usually by supernatural spirits or God, to destroy. It's been clear to me for 25 years now, that people like you me are the demon. Don't say you weren't warned.