The Name Game is legislative brainwashing; the process by which governments and/or special interests tag a name to proposed legislation which intentionally camouflages its true function.
If I asked what you thought about the “Employee Free Choice Act,” one who was not acquainted with that proposed legislation would likely respond based upon the only information they had; the name. That is what the Progressive/Statist movement has relied upon for decades. Employee Free Choice sounds like a concept with which no one could disagree. After all, freedom is good. Freedom of choice is good. Why shouldn’t employees have freedom of choice?
The problem is that the Act would not only impinge on an employee’s freedom of choice, it would open the door to coercion and intimidation by union promoters and fellow employees who desire to unionize. That pressure would result in an employee losing the free choice about unionization that she currently enjoys. Currently, an employee’s vote as to whether or not to unionize is private. The EFCA would remove that privacy by making your vote known to the union promoter and fellow employees, many of whom may be in favor of unionizing.
Where state versions of the EFCA have been tried, it has resulted in intimidation of those employees who vote against unionizing. As an employee, your vote would be made known to the union and your fellow employees. There are cases of harassment by fellow employees after they learn who voted against unionizing. This harassment has occurred at work and at the homes of those employees who opposed unionizing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_3Luhe-bk8&NR=1
Your intimidation does not require thugs. Rather, it could simply be your fellow employee who earnestly believes that unionizing is the best option for him and thinks that you should agree. His belief that your vote against unionizing stands in the way of his perceived advantage of unionization can result in his invasion of your rights. If, ontheotherhand, your vote was unanimous and secret, his disappointment about his fellow employees’ vote against unionization will not be able to be directed at you and your family. Your unanimity also protects you from reprisals from union persuaders.
Whether you are for or against unions, we can all agree that an employee’s vote should be kept confidential and unanimous. Even beyond unions, are we a nation that exposes how a person votes? Isn’t the whole idea of secrecy to encourage a person to vote their belief(s) freely without fear of reprisals? The EFCA would change that in the workplace. That is what it is intended to do, and that is in fact what it would do. Its proponents (unions) favor it for that very reason.
How then can it be named ”The Employee Free Choice Act?” Actually, the question is not how, but why? The answer is self-evident. Unions favor unionization. There is nothing wrong with that. Bigger union membership means greater power, and more money in union dues. Currently, federal law requires secret ballot voting on unionization and thereby promotes freedom of choice. However, the misleading naming of the proposed EFCA presumes that Americans will not look behind its title.
Americans are the hardest-working people on earth. When we are not working, we want to be with our families, or engaging in some other activity that is entertaining and/or relaxing. We do not have the time to pay attention to politics. We trust that our elected representatives are doing that for us. But, be advised that that is the surest way to losing our freedom. Unfortunately, a freedom must be constantly guarded. In a free society it is yet another obligation on top of the many in which we already toil. The nightly news can only notify us of so much; especially when the latest Britney Spears story occupies 15 minutes. If you watch the news, you do it to stay informed, right? But how much have you heard about the EFCA, which — if enacted — could affect every employee in the United States?
The Name Game: “Separation Of Church & State”
This is both the reason and the danger of misleading titles on proposed legislation. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has made this into an art form. For example, if you were asked to define the constitutional provision guranteeing ”separation of church and state,” you would probably say that it guarantees the separation of the church and the state. You might also be surprised that “separation of church and state” does not exist in the Constitution. Let me repeat: the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about “separation of church and state.”
This title is yet another example of perversion of thought through perversion of language. “Separation of church and state” is instead a misleading title given to the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, but that truth does not matter after millions of Americans are sold on the phrase “separation of church and state.”
The truth requires you to unlearn that phrase, and most of us simply don’t have the time or perhaps the interest. So, when we hear about a local school under attack from the ACLU over a single picture of Jesus Christ which has been hanging there for 40 years (since the time of the common sense generations), we may be believers, but the phrase “separation of church and state” forces us into a false choice.
Ultimately, many of us conclude that, although, we may believe in Jesus Christ, our Constitution says the picture should be removed because the church (picture of Jesus) must be separated from the state (public school). Thus, the ACLU has succeeded in brainwashing millions of Americans into a false choice simply by the name game which changes our thought by changing the language.
The Name Game: “Economic Stimulus”
Another example is President Obama’s “Economic Stimulus” plan. Judging that plan by its name is dangerous because the name is misleading. Once it is named, even your trusted news outlet refers to it by that name. So, when you hear about the economic stimulus, doesn’t that name answer the very question you should have about its rationale and purpose? Gee, the economy is dragging, what does it need? I know, a “stimulus!” But, the devil is in the details, not merely the title. The “stimulus” plan was to print and borrow money and use it to hire new government workers? Who pays the salaries and benefits of government workers? You. Does that stimulate your economy? If more of your money is taken to pay for new government workers, don’t you have less money? Can we agree that if taxpayers have less money, their economic situation is worse? After all, the economy is a measurement of financial well-being. That is why government jobs are never a plus to the economy. Rather, they are a drag on it. Many government workers are necessary because of the services they provide such as military protection, and law enforcement, but that is different than the question as to whether they add to the economy. They do not. They add to your tax burden.
The Name Game: “Global Warming” Morphs into “Climate Change”
A matter of equal concern is the recent name change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change.” This is more than an inocuous name change. Rather, it is the conscious reponse from Global Warming proponents whose message is being defeated daily with record cold temperatures. In fact, the earth has been in a cooling cycle for years, but it has taken a back seat to Gobal Warming’s disinformation campaign. Ironically, we have this brutally cold winter to thank for catapulting the climate facts into the headlines.
But don’t expect the Warmers to give up that easily. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor has said that it will not stop snowing until Al Gore yells “uncle!” Interestingly, the Global Warming proponents have already begun to re-brand their movement. If you listen closely, you will notice that its proponents now refer to the “phenomenon” as “Climate Change.” This Orwellian adaptation tells you everything you need to know about this crowd. They are snake oil salesmen who are more interested in manipulating us than in any kind of global phenomenon. For example, before the re-branding, Warmers sought to explain the 10-year cooling cycle which was occurring at the same time as their movement was gaining ground. They sought to reckoncile the cooling by taking the position that Global Warming was resulting in global cooling. Folks, if you’re willing to buy that, then you are living proof that some people can be fooled all of the time.
For a discussion of the ”phenomenon” of Global Warming, see the Post entitled, The Global Warming Masquerade.