The Occasional Observer

Liberals have a long history of trying to confuse the average person, who knows his own mind fairly well, with a game of semantics.

Sure, you may be against abortion (the killing of unborn children), but aren't you for "choice"?

Sure, you may be against socialism (the government takeover of the economy), but aren't you for a "new deal", a "fair deal", or a "great society"?

Sure, you may believe there's no such thing as a free lunch, but how can you argue with someone who says "health care is a right?" This country's all about "rights," right?

With the semantics of marketing liberalism in view, I bring you environmentalism's new playbook, courtesy of the NY Times:

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”