Pop Off Culture - [pop awf kuhl-cher], verb, def. - To lose one's cool; become really pissed off over behaviours and beliefs in media / politics / society. Fight the Culture.
Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
Keeping it short because it’s Friday.
The Conservatives are well known for twisting their opponents’ words, just watch Question Period and you’ll see/hear it. A very recent, and well publicized example of this is the leaked Harper speech he gave to his subjugates. In it he said that if he didn’t get a majority, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc would form a “socialist/separatist” coalition and that the Liberals had a secret agenda.
This is hilarious for 2 reasons:
1) Harper has been accused of having a hidden agenda for years now and to be honest, if you’ve followed him like I have, you’ll know that he actually does have one. For instance, he pretends to be a moderate yet he is against abortion and same-sex marriage and wants to get rid of both and would if he had an election. He is a reformer/alliance(r?) and he believes that only God will judge him, so how can he be a moderate?
2) Harper is the one who is now working with the NDP and Bloc to keep his minority government alive, so now who’s working with those “dirty socialists and separatists”?
Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
I’m gonna be honest, I’m having a hard time with this one, it may be due to the fact that I rarely watch the news and instead read the news online, so I’m less likely to actually see this one being done. It may also be that ALL politicians do this and therefore I am desensitized to it. I think both are likely, so let’s start this off with what I can think of off the top of my head.
I actually think of Question Period for this. If you’ve ever watched it, you’ll know that Conservatives never answer questions directly, and instead use the opportunity to ridicule and belittle their opponents (this reminds me to watch QP today, it’s been awhile). I don’t watch QP every day but the times I do, I have yet to see the Conservatives answer a question.
Another example of this, to me anyways, is how the Conservatives pay people to swarm message boards and newspapers with their talking points. They also have on their website a feature where you just input your personal information and choose a topic and it will send a pre-made letter to a chosen newspaper for you. They also provide talking points for call radio; for some reason right-wing people are really big on talk radio, I can’t figure this one out. Maybe because it’s so regressive and shows any lack of progress in the last 30 years, just like they do?
I think another example of this, and it may be a bit of a stretch but it definitely follows the same premise, is Harper not allowing journalists to ask questions at press conferences, unless he chooses them. This definitely had the press up in arms a few years ago, but lately they’re been in a sleeper hold with him on this one. They basically let him get away with this stuff and play his game and endorse him.You’d think the press would want more for this country, but you’re wrong. The media has a job to do and that is to not show bias, unfortunately they have forgotten this.
One of the biggest problems with Harper and his attempt to stifle free speech with journalists is that he speaks freely to US news, mainly Fox News. He has even paid aids of former US Presidents to lobby for him and do PR for him in the US. He used our money to do this. This to me is a hit and run. He’s not answering to Canadians and we are not able to get answers out of him. He spoke on Fox News about our stimulus money and hasn’t yet done so for Canadians. In fact, he very, very rarely speaks to Canadians.
This is truth suppression and unfortunately a lot of Canadians don’t care. They don’t care about what he’s doing; they just see someone who is decisive and stubborn and think he is a good leader doing a good job. What they fail to realize is that he never answers to us (and we are his employer) and never speaks to us. It’s a shame that in this day and age, he can get away with it. Crafty bugger isn’t he?
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Why do the Conservatives make this so easy? I mean when I write these posts, I’m coming up with examples off the top of my head; very little time is spent thinking about these because it’s just too darn easy for someone who actually pays attention to politics and cares about her country. Ok… number 5 – name calling. Let’s go.
1)No explanation needed:
Other names Conservatives have called people:
2) Ignatieff has been called a carpetbagger
3) NDP have been labeled socialist (side: how is this bad? we live in a socialist country!)
4) Bloc have been called separatists as though it’s dirty
5) Bloc have been called pedophiles
6) Ignatieff and Dion have been called academics as though it’s a bad thing… I suppose coming from a party where very few of its members have college or University degrees it’s pure jealousy
7) Harper has labeled women as a LEFT WING FRINGE GROUP
8) the Arts community has been labeled elitist
9) Child soldiers has been replaced with “children in armed conflict”
10) Gender equality has been replaced with “equality of men and women”
11) On Canada: “Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.”
12) Continually telling Canadians that we are becoming more conservative – simply not true
13) Calling parliament dysfunctional in order to break his own fixed election date law
14) Calling anyone who is against his war in Afghanistan a Taliban supporter (let’s be clear here, the Conservatives hate Arabs and Muslims)
Ok I think that’s a good start, enough to make it clear that he uses this tactic. For instance, by continually telling us that we are becoming more conservative, many people will believe it, with very little introspective thought as to whether it is true or not. The fact is, the majority of Canadians live in urban areas; areas not known for being mainly traditional and conservative. Stevie does this to appeal to his loyal rural subjugates.
By labeling Dion and Ignatieff as academics, he is implying that they are elitist and out of touch with Canadians. If anyone actually thought about this, they would realize that a) Harper can also be considered an academic since he has a Master’s degree, albeit from a third rate Calgary University and b) there is nothing wrong with an academic wanting to run this country. In fact, having someone intelligent and prone to thinking about issues before acting is a good thing.
By labeling women as a left wing fringe group, he is appealing to his Real Women of Canada supporters (part of his base) but he is also mobilizing many, many other women, so hopefully this one will backfire.
Basically, he is doing exactly what the description of this tactic says; making people vote for him for fear of being labeled something bad or out of fear of being associated with a dirty separatist or dirty socialist. It’s insane that something this simple works as it plays on grade school and high school lack of self-esteem and lack of knowledge. What scares me the most is that people are so apathetic and have such low self-esteem that they think being associated with Stephen Harper is a good thing and want to be associated with him. Very, very scary.
Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
Easy… this is something the Conservatives do all the time; but more so when Dion was leader of the Liberals. Remember his carbon tax? Well the Conservatives made you believe it was a bad thing and you’d be taxed more… not true. Their plan was to cut taxes in other areas to compensate for this tax; which would have also assisted in reducing pollution.
Another example of this is more current. The Conservatives have called the Liberals EI plan a “fantasy” and a “detriment to the country” and that the proposed plan would cost $4billion dollars. Not true, in fact it would cost $1billion. Also, let it be known that the plan the Conservatives have come up with, only after an election threat, is close to the Liberals $1billion dollar plan, but doesn’t hurt the middle class like the Conservatives plan does.
One last straw man created by the Conservatives – they are the underdogs and the other 3 parties are ganging up on them in order to form a coalition. If they make themselves look pathetic and as though they are being bullied people will begin to hate the other parties and will see them as the bullies. This could not be more false. The reality is, is that the Conservatives have been the bullies for the past 3 yrs; they knew the Liberals didn’t want an election and knew they could get away with a lot of dodgy legislation. They know that the coalition, while perfectly legal, is not something the other parties are running on.
The Conservatives like to claim that it will be the fault of the other parties should the government fall. Again not true. Harper secretly wants an election and in fact, the guy has never been out of election mode. He just wants you to believe that it isn’t his fault so that his party won’t face the wrath at the polls. If he really did not want an election he would try harder to work with the other parties. After all that is what the Canadian people have asked of him, time and time again and he still doesn’t get it, nor does he even try to work with other parties. The only time he comes up with something palatable to Canadians is when the Opposition and other parties have his back up against a wall. He doesn’t really care that his back is up against a wall, what he cares about is how the average, media/politically illiterate citizen thinks of him. Do you perceive him as being ganged up on? As the one trying to work with others? If so, then you’ve been duped.
The Conservatives frame the other parties as socialists, separatists and the Liberals with a leader who will leave the country again should he lose and voila! People who are too apathetic or uninterested in politics will fall for this. The more you say something, the more it becomes true and something like that works effectively with the average person who does not understand politics or is media illiterate.
Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.
I think the first sentence says it all; create rumour mongers. Examples of this to my knowledge are:
Rumour: Harper and Cons claiming that a coalition is illegal.
False: under our parliamentary system this is entirely legal and a lot of European countries use coalitions all the time to make their governments’ work. In fact Stephen Harper signed a letter with the NDP and Bloc back in 2004 (I think) to enter a formal and legal coalition with them should the current Liberal Government fail.
Rumour: Harper claiming the Libs will enter a coalition with the NDP and Bloc
False: This has been denied and even if they did, it is not illegal and could actually be a great step for our country.
Rumour: Everyone wants a Conservative government and will give them a majority.
False: The Conservatives send out talking points and have their ‘fans’ swarm message boards to skew public opinion.
Rumour: The Liberals were the reason the EI blue panel did not work.
False: The Liberals attempted to make it work but the Cons showed up unprepared in an attempt to stall the committee. Finlay and a co-worker even staged a committee to make it look like the Libs were the problem.
Rumour: Ignatieff will return to the US if he loses/ Ignatieff hates Canada/Ignatieff is unfit to lead the country because he has lived outside of it for a considerable length of time.
False: We don’t really know the answer to this, but the Cons love this rumour as it keeps up their story that Ignatieff isn’t a real Canadian. Of course, Stephen Harper being President of the National Citizens Coalition and telling them that we should scrap Health Care; or wanting Alberta to separate from Canada must make him a better Canadian. Let’s not forget this quote either:
“America, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world,” – a speech Stephen Harper made eight years ago to a conservative American think-tank
I think those examples provide enough support to the theory that the Cons are trying to distort the truth for their own political gain with little consideration to the unity of this country and its citizens.
One last point, the explanation of this includes a line about having a mostly silent press in order for this to work. It must be stressed that our media does not do enough to get the truth out; whether they are being paid by the Conservatives or the head honchos are Conservative supporters (both scenarios seem likely) something has to give; citizens need to demand more. Our press does very little to ensure that facts are presented and the fact that our country is apathetic and demands so little allows for the press and our government to get away with these tactics. If you don’t ask for much, you’re going to get very little in return.
