The Single-Syllable Principle

A basic truth of American politics: When any debate has been reduced to words of one syllable, the Republcans have already won it.

The latest example: The battle over our Proxident’s judicial appointments, an argument which the Republican stupefaction machine has successfully reduced to the phrase, “Up-or-down vote.”

There have been distortions on both sides of this debate, certainly, but in my opinion, the Republicans’ warping and wefting has been an order of magnitude greater than that of the other side.

Judge — no pun intended — for yourself. Here’s‘s article on the ads being run by the two sides.

John Dvorak’s blog offers a more biting perspective under the title, “Pro-Age Discrimination Judge Supported by New Christian Right Agenda.” Of course, that headline utilizes words of more than one syllable, so we can safely assume nobody will pay any attention.

5 Responses to “The Single-Syllable Principle”

  1. gordon kent Says:

    “Winning” an argument is not necessarily equal to being “correct”. I have several friends and relatives who can best me in an argument. But that doesn’t mean anything. Just because they keep hammering away at their talking points until I finally give up because I realize the futility of the situation doesn’t mean there’s any merit in what they’ve said.

  2. Steve Gerber Says:

    Right. It has nothing to do with truth — just victory.

    In other words, once any political argument has been successfully reduced to words of one syllable, it’s a forgone conclusion that Republicans will get their way.

  3. Bryan Griest Says:

    I’m not even sure “victory” is the goal for some of these partisan hacks; merely making fools of people interested in hearing the truth seems to be good enough for them. Does Bush believe all the tripe he’s shoveled at the American public? He doesn’t even seem to care about the winning, since he’s never really had to face up to losing before. He sure seems to like to follow directions, though, and as long as he and his buddies make a buck, I think he’d say or do anything.

  4. Bart Lidofsky Says:

    I assume that people have read the facts of the case at to see exactly what was going on. The woman in question, who happened to be black and 45, also lost the bank a passel of money by giving substantial credit without checking to a con artist. The key was that she was an officer of the bank, and not a regular employee, and the laws that protect employees don’t protect officers. She was fired as an officer, but NOT as an employee at the time. At this point, she went on a medical leave of absence. After not showing up for work for over 2 years, she was fired, as per company policy.

    The law in question did not specify that a company can fire a worker based on race or age. What the law said was that the Board of Directors can terminate OFFICERS of the corporation at will, for any reason at all. Seeing that they can be held legally responsible for the actions of the officers, this makes sense. The anti-discrination laws of California protected Peatros’ status as an employee, and she was not fired until she stopped showing up for work.

  5. Bart Lidofsky Says:

    A side-comment: I was unaware of this case before reading about it here. My comments are based STRICTLY on my reading of the facts of the case from the link provided, and not on anything anybody, other than Dvorak, has written.