Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The Job Creators

I don't get it. If they're the job creators, why are they eliminating jobs? This doesn't make sense, somebody please explain.

Hewlett-Packard to cut 27,000 jobs by the end of 2014 (BBC)


  1. Go ask Frank Luntz. "Job creators" is his creation. Alan Grayson explains.

    "If you have been hearing the term "job creators" a lot lately, it's because Frank Luntz wanted you to.
    As soon as I heard the term "job creators," I said to myself, "that sounds like Frank Luntz talking." And sure enough, it's right in there in Frank Luntz's latest book, Win: The Key Principles to Take Your Business from Ordinary to Extraordinary. Here are Luntz's exact words: "You don't create jobs by making life difficult for job creators." That's under the heading "The Ten Rules for 2012: What Americans Really Want to Hear from Their Representatives.""

    Grayson also points out that 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. Of course, we all know this. It's just that BS shouldn't ring so hollow.

  2. Indeed, I'm familiar with Luntz's "work". What amazes me is how every Republican from local comptroller to candidates for President and Senate will use the exact same terms, exact same phrases, exact same platform, (tax "burden" "death" tax, government bureaucrats, comparisons to the DMV, etc.) It's like a franchise - sign up and you get all the necessary rules faxed to you on a daily basis. And anyone can join - you don't have to be smart or accomplished, you just have to be willing to follow orders from the wealthy backers (e.g. Scott Walker has no collage degree). This is why I assert that the Republican party is not a political party in the way we Americans are used to thinking about it - it is an authoritarian movement, and we've seen this animal before during the dark days of the Great Depression in Europe. This time it's stronger over here than over there.

    I haven't read Orwell's Politics and the English Language, and it's been awhile since I've read 1984, but what people always get wrong about Orwell is that he was not criticizing Communism per se, he was criticizing authoritarian movements, of which communism was the leading one of his day. Today, of course it's authoritarian capitalism. What better evidence could there be of my assertion that the Republicans are authoritarian than their use of language to shape the thought of the public from the truth into what they want to be perceived. You only do that when your assertions are at odds with the real world.

    Of course I was being facetious in my question. But how long will Americans be able to hold the cognitive dissonance as the "job creators" fail to create jobs, and in fact, eliminate them, even as they're given every break and subsidy in the book? Of course there are some like George Akerlof who advocate that Democrats do the same thing with their use of rhetoric, fighting fire with fire, so to speak. So we can have two Orwellian parties attempting to control the unwashed masses through language. I guess that's what "democracy" means.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.