Jeez, who would've thought it? At the moment, democracy looks more vibrant in Mexico than in the United States, as reformist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, having demanded a recount, takes the lead. Not a large lead, but large enough to make us think about what could have been, back in 2000.
Oddly, my first thought when viewing the Reuters accpunt of Mexico's election concerned a matter beyond vote theft. The headline reads:
"Leftist has early lead in Mexican election"
We never see news services refer to "Rightist" candidates, do we? As in: "Rightist candidate claims victory." This choice of verbiage reminds me of the fracas created by Bernard Goldberg, when he claimed -- falsely -- that the media refer to liberal U.S. politicians by name or title while tagging right-wingers as "conservative." For much of America, "leftist" has a greasy sound; a "leftist" is considered kin to a Bolshevik.
"Progressive" has a better flavor -- but don't expect Reuters to start using that term any time soon.
5 comments:
that would make a good study, to survey news stories, or even just headlines, and see how the right and left, conservative and liberal, are named.
it reminds me of the marked vs unmarked issue in linguistics. you know: woman v man, female v male. clearly the men have claimed the base territory, and the rest of the human race (which does happen to constitute the majority) is left to tag along.
seems like the same with conservatives. they carefully choose what fine upstanding name they call themselves, and then label the rest of us with shameful inflammatories. obviously, this is one very fundamental way they work to keep the upper hand in the public.
but it has always been thus. those in power, use it, abuse it, all just to keep it.
We seem to be switching places institutionally with the third world. We get their free-market paradise of voluntary taxes for the rich, deregulation of business and a strictly procedural democracy (meaningless and/or fixed elections).
Meanwhile, places like Bolivia and Mexico get real democracy, fair election, and real choices.
You think communists don't work for Reuters and AP? Communists prefer to be called "leftists". That way people get confused and vote for them thinking they might be progressives or liberals.
anon 10:05: Yes, in fact, I think there is not a single communist who works for AP or Reuters. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a NUT -- or a right-winger who defines "communist" so broadly as to rob the term of all meaning.
Jeez...the right's fantasyland version of the left is so inane, so unburdened by fact, I don't know how these fantasists can even operate in the real world.
Hey anon. 10:05 -
you should *love* Soviet-style Commies. They believed in unchecked executive power, state secrecy, sham elections and the principle that the law was whatever they said it was, on any given day.
If Stalin woke up in America 2006, he'd think he went to heaven -- all the commie policy goals of one-party tyranny, but with great public relations, people don't even notice. What a triumph of packaging and ideology!
So keep voting Republican and you'll get exactly what you pretend to hate.
Post a Comment