(With a nod to Val Sears.)
Our task is clear, dear friends. Story in the National Newspaper suggests that the non-stop monkey chatter about coalitions is getting some traction, and crowding out discussion of everything else.
I know I keep going on about this, but we need to seize control of the conversation. We can't let Harper and his armies of Attack ParrotsTM (h/t deBeauxOs) make this all about notional coalitions. It's a lying, cynical narrative, but it appeals to lazy corporate-media types because it doesn't require any thought, research or reflection.
Not like there's any shortage of Harperite sleaze, abuse, arrogance, corruption and contempt to talk about, but we need an effective strategy to make the conversation about that and not about ... well, you know.
So, fellow progressives, let's figure this out fast. Do we simply refuse to engage the Harper slime machine on its own terms? Let him shriek about the C-word into the void, ignore him and refocus the discussion on the things that matter? In my own modest way, I've tried to make a small contribution to that on the Tweeter with the hashtag #Harperslegacyofshame.
Or do we engage him on his own turf, but subvert the coalition fearmongering, and, in a feat of political and rhetorical jiu-jitsu, turn it against him? One humble suggestion: every time a Harper slimebot brings it up, we just dismiss it as "shrill."
Lovely word, that. Just the right amount of negative connotation without crossing the line into bias. We're not going to get lazy shallow corporate media types to start using words like "arrogant" or "lying" or "contemptuous,"but I think we can get them to buy into "shrill."
Every time one of the silly bastards uses the C-word, we jump on it and make sure it's associated with the word "shrill." Soon enough, not a single Harperbot anywhere will be able to say the C-word without people thinking "shrill."
Thoughts, friends? I'm not a strategist or a consultant or an expert in these things. One way or the other we need to make the coalition talk – desperate, pathetic, transparent and shrill though it is – useless as a rhetorical weapon.