Of bailouts and enemy combatants

NPR's "On the Media" had a fascinating interview this weekend with Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and language consultant, about President George W. Bush's linguistic ineptitude. Luntz doesn't focus on dopey malapropisms like "put food on your family" but on how clumsy Bush has been at framing issues. 

For instance, Bush has talked about a "bailout," though it would sound a lot more reassuring if he'd call it a "recovery plan" or "rescue plan." Some of his other locutions -- such as calling prisoners of war "enemy combatants" -- have the opposite problem: They're such flagrant attempts at spin that they invite our cynicism. 

All in all, it's refreshing to hear a Republican talk frankly about something Bush has gotten wrong and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama get right. 

Comments

It's not refreshing, because it comes when everyone is trying to disassociate with Bush et al. Luntz is trying to get out there to advise the next generation of GOP Presidential candidates, and to do that you need a narrative of the last guys weaknesses that you can help overcome. Honesty? No, marketing strategy.

Posted by wallyz | December 22, 2008 2:57 AM

It's odd he doesn't reconcile the difference between what should make for a popular phrase (creativity) and what recently has (repetition).

Also, have I created a false ellipsis?

Posted by Boomr | December 23, 2008 11:19 AM

'Prisoner of War' is a "legal" term defined in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. Only some enemy combatants are POW's. POW's have rights as outlined in the treaties.

To be a POW, you have to follow the Geneva Conventions yourself, when fighting, and your country has to have signed the treaties. There are other requirements.

Posted by Fred2 | December 25, 2008 8:12 AM

As I recall, Karl Rove was known for his extraordinary ability to manipulate language to gain control of debates (hence the universal substitution of "death tax" for "estate tax").

It seems to me that "enemy combatant" came into use during Rove's tenure, and of course "bailout" has come up only since Rove left the administration.

So would the current linguistic ineptitude have been the norm for the past eight years had Rove not been part of the administration? An even ruder question: would this lingustic ineptitude have ended four years ago had Rove not been on hand to put the right phrases into George W. Bush's mouth?

Posted by Barb | December 30, 2008 8:04 PM

Bush would have been far more sucessful with his programs - such as the war, which has been prosecuted well - if he could articulate what the hell he was trying to accomplish

Compare him with John Howard or Tony Blair and how well they defended taking the war to the land of the terrorists with Bush's public justifications and it is so pathetic.

Posted by Jozef | January 1, 2009 8:04 PM

Luntz was responsible for euphemisms such as 'death tax' so let's not shower him with too much praise as he, like all Republicans, jump off the Titanicean White House.

Posted by Phil | January 4, 2009 1:40 PM