I am am a US citizen and I am not a “Democrat” but, given my druthers, I’d rather see the Democrats win the elections for the executive and legislative branches of the US government, and, by trickle-down, the judicial branch, rather than the rabid dog Republicans. So, with that in mind, that I am vaguely supportive of the slightly more liberal party, I have previously offered a mild critique I thought was somewhat useful and that they could use to their advantage. I had mentioned before that the Democrats, and all others, cede ground to the right by allowing the corporate right to dictate the actual meanings of words.
Basically, this all involves agenda setting, or framing, and there’s really little I can do about it since I’m a nobody and I can’t change the wind (though I know which way the wind blows, and I will inherit the wind.) But just to vent, I am writing this diary about what continues to irk me, day after day, which is when some right-winger says on the corporate mainstream media, the “job creators.”
What irks me is that everybody “knows” what they mean, and that nobody ever challenges their meaning. They mean the wealthy — who pocket all profits from businesses because they are the owners of those businesses.
But I must pause, because I do vaguely remember somebody writing something somewhere that the real job creators were the consumers because they actually created the demand. So there was somebody somewhere who did try to challenge the right’s “framing” of the discourse.
I protest on slightly different grounds. Anybody who knows me knows that I am a rabid supporter of ESOPs (employee stock ownership plans). I am a rabid supporter of ESOPs because it is a basic fact of American style capitalism that all profits go to the owners of a corporate business, and therefor without any ownership interests in businesses the people will never acquire any wealth. The poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer. That’s pretty simple. That’s why I support ESOPs, because that would start to slowly share the wealth with the employees, and start to retard the continuing and geometric redistribution of wealth to the wealthiest owners.
Anyway, given my views, that profits should be divided equally between owners and employees, as it is in a partnership, you can quickly see that I circle back to Marx’s argument that the owners’ wealth is built on the exploitation of their employees. So, we could just try to call the wealthy owners “exploiters” or “capitalist exploiters” but that brings up Marx and that would be a negative among the great unwashed and the rabid dogs, plus, it sounds clunky.
While the “profit pocketers” gets the message across, contains a made up word, and utilizes alliteration, which always pleases people. So that’s it, I suggest anybody on the “left” who doesn’t mind being viewed as argumentative, respond to anybody who says the “job creators,” with a question. An “innocent” and “quizzical” and head-tilted question, like you really, really, didn’t comprehend the actual meaning of their words: “You mean the profit pocketers?”
The key here is you don’t really want an argument, but it would probably take a few arguments to get to the goal. The goal would be to get the right-wingers to just, resignedly, say, “Yeah, the profit pocketers.”
But, “You know, if one person, just one person does it, they may think he’s really sick …”