Muy relacionado a lo que decía en este otro post, el maestro Thomas Sowell con la claridad de siempre sobre la extraordinaria capacidad para el verso de la izquierda:
It has long been recognized that those on the political left are more articulate than their opponents. The words they choose for the things they are for or against make it easy to decide whether to be for or against those things.
Are you for or against "social justice"? A no-brainer. Who is going to be for injustice?
What about "a living wage"? Who wants people not to have enough money to live on?
Then there is "affordable housing" and "affordable health care." Who would want people to be unable to afford to put a roof over their heads or unable to go to a doctor when they are sick?
In real life, the devil is in the details. But the whole point of political rhetoric is to make it unnecessary for you to have to go into the specifics before taking sides.
You don't need to know any economics to be in favor of "a living wage" or "affordable housing." In fact, the less economics you know, the more you can believe in such things.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have a gift for phrasing things in terms that are unlikely to arouse most people's interest, much less their support.
Do words like "property rights," "the market" or "judicial restraint" make your emotions surge and your heart beat faster?
La palabra social encuadra en cualquier concepto progre.
ReplyDeleteActually, words like "the market" turn me on ;-)
ReplyDeleteBromas a parte, la cosa curiosa del término "property rights" es que ningún "progre" en su sano jucio lo usaría, pero cuidado con sugerir el uso compartido, a lo comunista (JUAS), de su auto, o su casa o... Ahí de repente se enarbolan en defensores de los "property rights", así de un plumazo, y que le jodan al "affordable housing".