Ron should say "government" and "federal government," not "we" and "America"

[erowe1]

Are you guys serious?

When he says "we", he means the the government. He's not saying "we" as in the audience in front of him.

I agree. But it can come across to people as we being America.

 

[Aden]

I agree with you Yum that we, whether directly or indirectly through our apathy and complacency, are responsible for many evils done by the government. Many of us here probably came to the same realization as you.

However, we only have between now and Super Tuesday to get Ron elected. I believe that if Ron simply adjusted his language when talking about foreign policy, that it would win over--at least not alienate--more Republican primary voters than our money bombs and movie-preview ads ever could.

There are professionals who train workers in sales, retail and hospitality. Paul's campaign needs to contact people who know how words and language effects people, so that he can win them over to his position.

 

[TheViper]

I agree. But it can come across to people as we being America.

The thing is I've never once heard anyone say, "I don't like how Ron Paul says "we" did this or that." With the "we" referring to either America or Republicans. But I have heard many people that it's refreshing to hear a politicians take responsibility alongside the criticisms he gives.

Until we hear a bunch of people complaining on this, it's an absolute non-issue. Until then, how about we keep giving the people a refreshing candidate to choose from?

 

[ds21089]

The thing is I've never once heard anyone say, "I don't like how Ron Paul says "we" did this or that." With the "we" referring to either America or Republicans. But I have heard many people that it's refreshing to hear a politicians take responsibility alongside the criticisms he gives.

Until we hear a bunch of people complaining on this, it's an absolute non-issue. Until then, how about we keep giving the people a refreshing candidate to choose from?

Things like that aren't something you really complain about, but are more of something that comes across on a subconscious level. On top of that, if you emphasize how bad government is all around and specifically point the finger at them, it only helps our case for making everyone against the govt / wanting to shrink the size of it. All we hear on tv is "oh the democrats are at fault" "oh the republicans are at fault." I love when Ron Paul says both sides are at fault and explains the incapability of government, which resonates a lot better than "it's our fault"

 

[Aden]

The thing is I've never once heard anyone say, "I don't like how Ron Paul says "we" did this or that." With the "we" referring to either America or Republicans. But I have heard many people that it's refreshing to hear a politicians take responsibility alongside the criticisms he gives.

Until we hear a bunch of people complaining on this, it's an absolute non-issue. Until then, how about we keep giving the people a refreshing candidate to choose from?

1.) People might not complain because it effects them on a subconscious level without them even knowing it.

2.) Plenty of people do complain. After reading your post I simply Googled "Ron Paul blame America." Do that and look at the links that come up, some as recent as a few days ago.

If Ron took my advice people would be more inclined to say that "Ron Paul blames the federal government." Not blamed "America" or "the people."

 

[erowe1]

The thing is I've never once heard anyone say, "I don't like how Ron Paul says "we" did this or that." With the "we" referring to either America or Republicans. But I have heard many people that it's refreshing to hear a politicians take responsibility alongside the criticisms he gives.

Until we hear a bunch of people complaining on this, it's an absolute non-issue. Until then, how about we keep giving the people a refreshing candidate to choose from?

I haven't heard them put it that way. But the essence of that complaint is one of the biggest gripes Republicans have against him.

They accuse him of being against American exceptionalism, and blaming America for 9/11, and so on, because when he says "we," they reflexively take it to mean the American people.

 

[hazek]

Definitely! this is one of those things the right debate coach would probably fix.

If he would let one help him...

 

[TheViper]

2.) Plenty of people do complain. After reading your post I simply Googled "Ron Paul blame America." Do that and look at the links that come up, some as recent as a few days ago.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the semantics of his verbiage and you know it. It is everything to do with the actual content of his statements. The US instigating Al Queda, talk of blowback, etc... If he changed his statement from "They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because we has been over there..." to "They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because Washington has been over there...", do you honestly think that's going to suddenly change those peoples opinion of Ron Paul?

Doesn't matter if he changes the pronoun to a proper noun. It's rather silly to think that public opinion of him and his policy would be any different based on a grammatical issue that actually portrays more humbleness and honesty in his usage over self assertive fault deference with a proper noun.

 

[Darin]

I'm with TheViper... I totally disagree with this.

- Darin

 

[freejack]

Someone relay this point to Ron. It is critically important. As long he keeps saying "we", the media can continue to use it against him to rile up the people.

 

[erowe1]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the semantics of his verbiage and you know it.

I don't see why you think that.

When they accuse him of blaming America for 9/11, they're not talking about any policy, they're talking about his words. They're focusing on something purely symbolic to them.

I think semantics has a lot to do with that. If he can word things in a way that doesn't lend itself to those charges, I don't see why he shouldn't.

 

[TheViper]

I don't see why you think that.

When they accuse him of blaming America for 9/11, they're not talking about any policy, they're talking about his words. They're focusing on something purely symbolic to them.

I think semantics has a lot to do with that. If he can word things in a way that doesn't lend itself to those charges, I don't see why he shouldn't.

"They attacked us because we were over there."
"They attacked us because the government was over there."

Now imagine you are one of those people that say Ron Paul is blaming America for 9/11. How does number 2 change your perception of his content at all?


Wait, wait, wait...I think I see it now. Are you under the impression that when people say that "Ron Paul is blaming America" that they believe he is saying the American people are at fault instead of the government? This is even sillier than I first thought.

 

[erowe1]

"They attacked us because we were over there."
"They attacked us because the government was over there."

Now imagine you are one of those people that say Ron Paul is blaming America for 9/11. How does number 2 change your perception of his content at all?

It makes a huge difference. I have trouble seeing why you don't think so.

Wait, wait, wait...I think I see it now. Are you under the impression that when people say that "Ron Paul is blaming America" that they believe he is saying the American people are at fault instead of the government? This is even sillier than I first thought.

To them the government represents the people. In order to break through that assumption you have to be clear about what you mean.

In fact, the same thing is true of the perception of the 9/11 hijackers. They attacked American people, because they understood the federal government to be acting on the people's behalf in what it had done in the Middle East. It's an enormously powerful misconception. And I think undermining it should be an important part of all of our rhetoric.

 

[yoshimaroka]

The book that inspired Orwell's 1984 and one of the first (if not the first) dystopian books, We:

 

[TheViper]

It makes a huge difference. I have trouble seeing why you don't think so.

Huge difference to whom and how?

His "we" has always meant the government. Most people recognize that given that he is in the government.

Those that rail against him for his "blame America first" stance could care less what grammar he used. To them "we" and "the government" still mean the US.

So by changing the grammar from a pronoun to a proper noun, all you do is remove his humbleness and that would have a greater negative effect on people's impression of him than any positive impression gained.

 

[erowe1]

Huge difference to whom and how?

A huge difference to me and most people besides you. If he explicitly blamed the government, and the government only, then his detractors would not have a case against him at all. They would sound foolish trying to say he blamed us for what other people did without our consent.

When they accuse RP of saying something anti-American, they're doing the same thing Nancy Pelosi did when she said that those who opposed the bailouts were unpatriotic. Most of the Republicans who buy the argument when it's used against Ron Paul don't buy it when it's used against themselves on some other issue. We just need to help them see that.

 

[TheViper]

If he explicitly blamed the government, and the government only, then his detractors would not have a case against him at all.

I don't think you understand his detractors. They don't say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming the American people". They say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming America".

They say this because Paul, rightfully, acknowledges that many of the problems in the Middle East are directly related to our foreign policy and actions. Their point lies with the idea that they believe the US isn't liable for the problems in the Middle East. So when they say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming the US" They are trying to say that "the US didn't cause the problems in the Middle East."

Therefore, the grammatical usage of a pronoun or proper noun is irrelevant.

 

[erowe1]

I don't think you understand his detractors. They don't say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming the American people". They say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming America".

They say this because Paul, rightfully, acknowledges that many of the problems in the Middle East are directly related to our foreign policy and actions. Their point lies with the idea that they believe the US isn't liable for the problems in the Middle East. So when they say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming the US" They are trying to say that "the US didn't cause the problems in the Middle East."

Therefore, the grammatical usage of a pronoun or proper noun is irrelevant.

I understand them. When they say he blames America, they mean to blur the lines between the government and the people. To them "we" are at war against Al Quaeda, etc.

The sophistry is theirs, not ours. And it's a very effective tool for them.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't play along with that game, and we don't have to. We can be perfectly clear that we blame the government and not the people, and we ought to.

If Ron Paul did that, then they would have nothing they could point to and say, "He blames America." They would have to resort to debating about whether or not the government is harming the people by pursuing policies in the Middle East that result in blowback. I don't think they'd be able to do a very good job at that.

 

[TheViper]

I understand them. When they say he blames America, they mean to blur the lines between the government and the people. To them "we" are at war against Al Quaeda, etc.

The sophistry is theirs, not ours. And it's a very effective tool for them.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't play along with that game, and we don't have to. We can be perfectly clear that we blame the government and not the people, and we ought to.

As I said before, to them it doesn't matter if he says "we" or says "the US government". Their problem is the fact that he is laying blame for the Middle East on any facet of the US...period. Doesn't matter what part of America. He can say we, us, them, government, military, Obama, etc....and it all doesn't matter because that is all still America.

He could say 'American potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.
He could say 'our potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.
He could say 'Washington potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.
He could say 'those potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.

Are you picking up what I'm putting down?

 

[Darin]

I think many are reading WAY too into this. People know what he's talking about. If anything, using the word government for everything negative may do him harm... if you're a patriot you're supposed to SUPPORT government! (<- this is many peoples view)

Then he just may be treated as an unpatriotic anti-government isolationist instead of just an isolationist. People hate the word Washington, though, so if anything, that.

I really think it hits home when he says we and you in relation to war and killing. "How many more are you willing to let die!" That's a very powerful statement.

TheViper is right. It isn't going to make a difference to people. People who want to say he's anti-American, or isolationist, or whatever will say it no matter how he says it because they object to the IDEA.

I'm reading a lot of threads on here that say "He should use this word instead of that word." "Come at it from this angle, not that one." "Say is this way, not that way." If he did this, not only would it be a different message... he'd be so busy fumbling over words and remember how to say things, when to and when not to say things, that he'd never get a point across.

The problem can be found in the original post... we're watching the debates 6 times a week. It's overthinking.

- Darin