political language

[Victor Steinbok]

Here's one bit that pretty much contains everything I wanted to mention:

http://goo.gl/rvVAk

> Romney and fellow Republicans have turned the label around. "This
> president has been outsourcing a good deal of American jobs himself by
> putting money into ... solar and wind energy companies that end up
> making their products outside the United States," Romney said in
> another swing state, Colorado. "If there's an outsourcer in chief,
> it's the president of the United States, not the guy who's running to
> replace him."

I was going after "outsourcer-in chief", which has been pushed by both
campaigns.

> Although both sides have used the phrase "outsourcer in chief" about
> the other, it wouldn't be fair to view either the president or his
> Republican rival as a prime culprit in the shift of US jobs overseas.

It's only the latest instance of "X-in-chief" in political labeling.

But once I picked that graf, "turned the label around" began to bother
me, as it looked like a blend. A quick search revealed 9730 raw ghits,
some on point.

http://goo.gl/NhHr8
> A refuser trying to turn the label around is unconscionable, but then
> so is spousal abuse.

Well, "some" is an exaggeration--this was the only one. The majority of
the rest dealt with one of three issues: 1) resurrecting the reputation
or sales of particular brand names (e.g., Fendi, Burberry, Christian
Dior)--in fact, in several cases, the "label" was short for "record
label" (e.g., Epic, Oasis, Sony/Columbia, EMI); 2) flipping the physical
label or tag on a container (e.g. can or bottle of food or
cosmetics)--usually to see the ingredient list or some other hidden
information (e.g.,English description in Quebec)--or on clothing; 3)
turning a negative into a positive (seeing the other side of the coin,
so to speak).

The last one is worth illustrating.

http://goo.gl/6cJxZ
> If you have been labeled, remember that all you have to do to see the
> positive side is to turn the label around.

http://goo.gl/oCD6o
> Try this unconditional parents exercise: the next time someone labels
> your child negatively, turn the label around within earshot of your child.

http://goo.gl/1Y5ng
> I'm supposed to turn the label around into something cool and clever
> at this point -- for example the label "fat" would become
> "healthy/curvy/BOOTYLICIOUS".

But two instances of "turning the label around" implying "pointing the
finger back" are not enough to make it a trend. So I still think it's a
mangled metaphor. Jay Carney had a better interpretation:

http://goo.gl/oXbJI
> "I think there is an element here of 'I know you are, but what am I?'"
> Carney said. Romney's attack "doesn’t pass the laugh test," he said.

The third bit from that passage is Romney referring to himself in third
person--although he is not using his name, opting for "the guy" instead.
I'm wondering if anyone picks it up as a "gaffe", once again playing to
the Romney stereotype. It's clear that what he wanted to say was, "If
anyone's responsible, it's the guy in charge, not the guy running to
replace him", but that's not what he actually said. And this is where
the pejorative usage of X-in-chief comes in. The reason why the tag has
worked in the past--liar-in-chief or idiot-in-chief for Bush and
warmonger-in-chief for Cheney, for example--is because it implied
faction leadership, where the entire faction could have been
characterized as X (liars, idiots and warmongers, respectively). The
attack on Romney as the "outsourcer-in-chief" falls in the same
category--he's effectively being described as the "leader" of a faction
of businessmen who outsource jobs, where leader could mean any of a
number of things--one of the early adopters, one who uses it more
frequently than others or a leading advocate, not to mention "the guy in
charge" of outsourcing. The same cannot be said about Romney's
retort--like Bush, Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, but that's not what
made the label work in the past. All that Romney was trying to say is
that Obama is responsible for others outsourcing jobs, but there is no
sense of faction or leadership involved. Merely being something-in-chief
is not enough to make one something-else-in-chief.

VS-)

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org