A bit of cultural theory
In this post, we return to basics. To the most basic of basics, in fact. To the word. How it is a Sign needing interpretation. A Sign in a whole system of Signs that is totally fabricated, constantly shifting, has nothing to do really with the universe existing outside of our brains, shapes our very individual and cultural existence, and holds as much capacity to deceive us as it does to inform us.
To paraphrase Thelma (of Thelma & Louise fame): language is some tricky shit.
Before going any further, a quick review (for a thorough explanation of these ideas, please see my post, “What’s in a Word? Two Things,” 15 March 2023). A Sign (word) operates by a sound—the Signifier—being voiced (in the chart below, the sound-image “tree”) and then a listener associating that sound with a concept—the Signified—that the listener has been taught by social convention (in this case, the broad-spectrum notion of tree-ness).
At first glance, this process might seem a simple enough call-and-response transaction. Someone says X and someone else thinks X. No problem. But here’s where we encounter Thelma’s tricky shit principle. The Signifier is an arbitrary sound—that is, any old grunt will do as long as we all agree to it. More problematic, the Signified is a generalized concept—that is, any old listener can interpret that sound in any number of more specific ways. Thus, when someone says X, someone else might think Y—or Z. There’s lots of wiggle room.
But even beyond the inaccuracy of how we interpret words, there’s the tricky-shit issue of how we manipulate words. And here we arrive at the bit of cultural theory for today: the Battle for the Signified.
In a nutshell: Who gets to say WHICH generalized concept (Signified) is triggered by any given sound-image (Signifier)? Even more important to consider, whose Signified dominates or is enforced as THE Signified? Whose meaning of the word counts most?
We’re squarely in the realm of social power and influence. I think it no exaggeration to say that much of politics—and maybe all of political campaigns—is a Battle for the Signified. The politician needs to convince citizens—and, if in a democracy, voters—that the Signified he (usually) has in mind is the right concept for everyone to have in mind.
Maybe this convincing is accomplished by open and honest debate. Maybe by duplicity and propaganda. Maybe by a jackboot on the neck. Maybe by a mixture of such power techniques. Whatever the case, always present in civil life is the battle for the politicized signified over key words and phrases.
Quick example: terrorist.
When this word came into mainstream usage decades ago, it was generally understood to mean some manner of small, fringe, wild-eyed, desperately violent, underground group that stooped to attention-grabbing atrocities in the pursuit of its fanatical (usually religious-inspired) political agenda. Fast-forward to today and the term “terrorist” is practically synonymous with “enemy.” That is, everyone applies the label to whomever they are in conflict with. The government of Israel calls Hamas a terrorist organization while Hamas calls Israel a terrorist state. After 9-11, America got caught in the same linguistic crossfire with its invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The same two-way application of “terrorist” is happening in the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war.
In all of these examples (and many more could be named), political meaning is being stage-managed by the speaker and political reception depends on the viewpoint of the listener.
We’re back to the wisdom of Thelma.
Applying this bit of cultural theory
In the scorched-earth landscape of current American politics, there are any number of key words and phrases whose meanings are being fiercely contested.
Woke. White nationalist. Critical Race Theory. Authoritarian. Unborn child. Fetus.
All of these are concepts that one political party wants to define in a way that supports its ideals and policies...while simultaneously working to the detriment of the other political party’s ideals and policies.
My aim here is not to try to unravel (as fun as that would be) the accuracy or nonsense of any of these definitions. Nor is it to try to determine which side—Republican or Democratic—is mounting the more persuasive argument to convince its opponents to change their ideals and beliefs and so their political affiliation. Clearly, there’s not a lot of party-jumping to be had these days.
Sure, both parties are looking to pick up the votes of Independents. And Democrats certainly hope to attract the votes, however reluctant, of some moderate Republicans who can’t stomach Trump any longer. Just like Republicans are hoping to poach a few of the macho-men among traditionally Democratic-voting groups. But I don’t think these areas are where the really crucial battle for the political signified is being waged.
Instead, my aim is to take a look at where one side seems to have better appropriated a particular word or phrase in the service of activating its own political base.
That is, where have the Republicans harnessed a few good word-bombs to hurl at Democrats to the especial delight of the red-meat Republican faithful? In return, what heatseeking concept-missiles do Democrats let fly at Republicans in an effort to flush liberal voters out of the coffee shop and into the voting booth?
It seems to me that, in politics, preaching to the choir—mobilizing the hearts, minds, and ire of those already committed to your politics—is every bit as important, if not more so, than converting the heathen. With this impression in mind, I’ll offer a few humble opinions about where each side is winning the Battle for the Signified among its faithful in this run-up to the 2024 presidential election.
On the Republican side, two terms strike me as being distinctly effective when it comes to influencing their base. The first one has been in use for some time: socialism. (Or its alternative boogeyman terms: Marxism and communism.) Rightwing politicians and pundits spout this conservative obscenity constantly and without much fear of meaningful contradiction. Why? For one thing, actually understanding the ideas of Marx and similar communitarian thinkers requires a combination of intellect and empathy. Perhaps qualities in short supply for many Republican voters? (Just wondering.)
For another thing, the well has been poisoned against socialistic thought for a good century or more in America. Early 20th-century union busting. The Red Scare of the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War. The “Reagan Revolution” ushering in foaming-at-the-mouth neoliberal free-marketism in an effort to cancel out all the social gains brought on by Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Keynesian post-World War II period of prosperity. These are all matters of history that you might not be very familiar with because, well, such things tend not to get taught in American schools.
Most Americans have been conditioned to equate democracy with capitalism. As a result, no one—conservative or liberal—tends to know what socialism is really all about. It’s no wonder, then, that you can shout “Socialism!” whenever you want to put a cheap fright into folks and nobody is likely to call you out on it.
A second and even more pernicious term the Republicans, and Trump in particular, are using to devastating effect these days is: fake news. The term itself has been around for some time. In the first decade of this century, Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show was labeling itself as “fake news.” That is, as a satirical parody of actual news programs, most notably of Fox News (a satiric jibe in and of itself seeing how Fox plays fast and loose with factual information). The Onion, The Colbert Report, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, The Borowitz Report are all examples of this older brand of satirical fake news.
However, nowadays the term means something altogether different. One current meaning of fake news is: seemingly authentic journalistic media content that is, in fact, deliberately fraudulent and intended to deceive ordinary consumers of media. Watch any broadcast by Tucker Carlson, for example, and you’re watching this kind of counterfeit journalism (see my two-part post “Need One More Reason to Dislike Tucker Carlson?” of 17 & 24 May 2023). A notorious illustration of a fake news story is the Obama birth certificate controversy, that is, the lie cooked up and disseminated by rightwing politicians (Trump foremost among them) and conservative media pundits (such as everyone on Fox News) claiming that Obama wasn’t born in America and so could not be president. Needless to say, this kind of pseudo-journalistic bullshit also floods social media, such politicized disinformation endlessly liked, shared, re-tweeted, and quote-tweeted (Xed?).
Another current meaning of fake news is to use it as a political weapon by categorizing any journalistic content that you disagree with as “fake news.” In the process of discrediting a specific news story in this way, the accuser simultaneously calls into question the legitimacy of any and all free, independent, and responsible journalistic sources. Why do this? Because the reporting of principled journalists not only contradicts the political beliefs of the accuser but, when a politician, such real news jeopardizes the fortunes of that political actor.
Donald Trump, of course, excels at this second kind of fake news.
In fact, I’d wager that Trump’s whole political fortune hinges on it. Somehow, Trump has absolutely convinced his most faithful followers that only what he says is true. That anything anyone says against him or is reported about him in the “lame-stream media” is, in fact, a lie and just fake news, a hoax. It’s difficult to fathom the loyalty of the Trumpian hardcore. Their dedication to Trump goes beyond simple gullibility into some manner of thinking I can’t quite name. Anti-elitist elitism? Intellectual anti-intellectualism? Whatever it is, they appear to bask in an unshakable glory that only they know something no one else knows—no matter how many facts can be lined up against it or how very lamebrained their viewpoint looks to the rest of us.
All I really know for sure is that when I watch Jordan Klepper of The Daily Show interview Trump rally attendees, well, the necessity of emigrating to Canada creeps into my head (see here).
In short, Trump and the Republicans have flat-out won the Battle for the Signified when it comes to “fake news.” The term itself, as it is currently used in either recent sense, only came onto the public radar screen in some newspaper reporting from 2014 to 2016 (for example, see here and here). By early 2017, Trump had completely captured the use of “fake news” as maybe the most powerful tool in his political arsenal. The trouble, of course, is that while the original meaning of fake news as a device of political satire contributed to the free and vibrant debate of ideas that is fundamental to a functioning democracy, these two current iterations of fake news represent existential threats to democracy by undermining the practice of traditional journalism that—although by no means perfect or always perfectly accurate—is necessary to any non-authoritarian social order.
On the Democratic side, two terms seem to me to be landing noticeably well among liberals and progressives. One is how Biden has captured and repurposed Trump’s signature campaign slogan: MAGA (Make America Great Again). By attaching the suffix “extremist” to the acronym, the (duly elected) President of the United States has turned the Republican catchphrase derogatory. Moreover, MAGA-extremist (or MAGA-extreme or MAGA-extremism) nicely separates bulging-eyed Trump supporters from more “moderate” Republicans (whatever that actually means). That is, Biden does not want to insult all Republicans or any Republican-leaning independents by painting everyone with the same MAGA-extremist brush. Instead, he wants to invite (well, maybe more guilt) them back into adhering to the Constitution by dumping Trumpism and voting Democratic in 2024.
In fact, with the elevation of Mike Johnson to the Speaker of the House, Democrats have been able to shorten the political slur to the acronym itself, as in: MAGA Mike. The once proud Republican call-to-patriotic-arms is now every bit as much shorthand for all things un-American currently threatening our grand democratic experiment: authoritarianism, insurrection, rule-by-billionaires, racism, sexism, limitations on privacy rights (i.e. anti-abortion laws), religiosity, voter suppression, gun violence, paramilitary goons roaming the streets, and on and on.
In a bold stroke of resignification, Biden has transformed all those red MAGA baseball caps into dunce caps.
Notable as well is Biden’s invention of the “Dark Brandon” meme as a tool to combat—in fact, to kick the ass—of the rightwing meme “Let’s Go, Brandon” (see here). Whereas Trump’s base seems to prefer the red meat of nasty smears and ludicrous fabrications, Democrats respond better to pointed wit and clever subterfuge—kind of the oak-milk latte as opposed to the Bud Light (well, after the boycott, maybe Coors or Miller Lite?) of political repartee. All in all, the Biden White House looks to be assembling a formidable “anti-MAGA majority” coalition as we head into the campaign season (see here).
A second and especially important word that Biden has reclaimed is: Bidenomics. Republicans coined and attacked the term when they assumed inflation would run rampant and none of Biden’s fiscal policies would get through Congress or work. Now that inflation seems under control (well, as under control as inflation ever can be) and the U.S. economy is booming, Democrats have the high ground and are looking to stuff Bidenomics down Republican throats.
The trick, of course—particularly in the face of all the fake news circulating nonstop—is to get American voters to understand Biden’s successes as he turns the U.S. economy away from the disastrous, neoliberal, “trickle-down” policies of post-Reagan Republicans and focuses instead on getting more money into the hands of a viable working and middle class. (Biden’s efforts, by the way, represent a return to the kinds of social gains brought on by Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Keynesian post-World War II period of prosperity that I mentioned above.) I anticipate that once the primaries are over with and Biden gets out actively on the campaign trail, the President will be touting Bidenomics as a hopeful and future-facing vision for America that contrasts starkly with Trump’s nostalgic MAGA-movement and grim vision of “American carnage.”
So what?
No doubt in the 2024 presidential race the Republicans will double-down on their gambles of fake news and voter suppression, above all in the battleground states. They know Trump can never win the popular vote (unless they voter-suppress out the wazoo), so an Electoral College victory is his only hope, as it was in 2016. As he tries to dodge his several court trials, Trump will continue to be his disagreeable self (because his base eats it up and contributes lots of money for his antics), will continue to call Biden old and mentally incompetent to serve in office (anyone seen Trump rambling away at one of his rallies recently?), and will continue to assert that America is weak and that only superhero-genius HE (just maybe...I don’t know...some say the greatest superhero-genius OF ALL TIME) can make it strong and great again.
In short, the same old same-old.
The task of the Democrats is clear. They must attract and get out the vote of the widest possible anti-MAGA majority they can muster—coalition building in the big-tent Democratic Party never a simple job. They must highlight, relentlessly, the clear and present dangers of Trumpism—most fatally to American democracy, to reproductive rights, and to racial-ethnic-cultural pluralism. They must, must, must make voters understand the boon of Bidenomics. They must let Joe be Joe—that is, get Biden out on the campaign trail doing what he does best. Namely, being his bona fide Regular Guy self just talking with other Regular Americans about actually Real Stuff.
In short, juxtapose Biden, in the most compelling ways possible, against the certified weirdo that is Trump.
What is our part in all of this? Well, go vote, of course. But more than just show up at the polling station, be mindful of the Battle of the Signified that is being fought over your vote.
In a “Letter to a Young Clergyman” (9 January 1720), Jonathan Swift wrote, “Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired.” Often this quote is put into more pithy forms, such as, “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” Either way you say it, as voters in 2024, our most basic job is not to be “that guy.”
Be sure that you’ve been reasoned—not bamboozled—into your political opinions.