FoxPolitics.net - Appleton, WI News - What's really going on in the Fox Cities

FoxPolitics.net Blogs

FoxPolitics News

Local/State Govt Links

Salaries

• Appleton School District, 2007-08
• City of Appleton
• Town of Grand Chute
• City of Menasha
• City of Neenah

Candidates

City of Appleton

• Elected Officials
• Salary Watch
• Directory
• Mtg. Agendas/Minutes

Advisory Board

Blogroll

Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America

Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

12/3/2008
There's no such thing as "the American people"

This really bugs me. “The American people” this. “The American people” that. I’m tired of hearing about it. For “the American people.” To “the American people.” One big homogeneous mass of something.

And it’s always said as if he or she who’s speaking isn’t a member of the group being referenced. Above the huddled masses, I guess. Do you know what I mean?

And then an all-knowing somebody who feels above it all, starts telling me what I need. (Of course, it’s never what the congressperson needs, or the pundit or the anchorman or the pollster or the president-elect.) “The American people” need to feel secure in their own homes. “The American people” need jobs. “The American people” need food on their table and a roof over their head. “The American people” deserve the best health care money can buy.

It’s become completely a cliché, really grates on me – and I don’t fall for it. Grrrr.

What do you think? What might be a better way to refer to all of us distinct and special individuals, citizens, non-citizens, males, females, adults, children, workers, retired folks, those disabled, those challenged with chronic mental or physical illness, students, job-seekers, producers, non-producers, the healthy, the unhealthy, the powerful, the not-so-powerful, the wise, the unwise, the brilliant, the practical, the impractical, the lazy, the industrious?

Try substituting “all of us Americans” or “all of us who live in America” in your head the next time you hear some talking head say “the American people”…. When you say it that way, usually such an all-encompassing statement simply isn’t warranted, much less accurate. (The sad part is that it’s not only the talking heads, but folks who should know better – politicians and important, bright bureaucrats and even a scholar here and there. Now, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the dreaded dictum from a Supreme Court justice, but wouldn’t swear to it.)

Maybe it’s some kind of complex I picked up in childhood or something. I still say there’s no such thing as “the American people” and I don’t like some high-falutin’-sounding politician trying to tell me there is.

Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net

COMMENTS

During your campaign for the State Assembly I recieved on multiple ocassions literature that was intended to sway my opinion. It was blatantly anti-gay. In one piece they stated that the "people have spoken" when referencing the so called Marriage Amendment. You seem willing to refer to "the people", and I am assuming you meant the citizens of Wisconsin and yes the American People when you suggested that the "people have spoken".

You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Right wing conservatives tend to use the "people" when it is convenient and often that reference cloaks what is clearly the tyranny of the majority.

billie (Wed Dec 03 08:10:33 2008)

I don't buy your argument Billie. Also, don't know what mail piece you speak of (my campaign did not write or mail it), but indeed, to be specific, the majority of voters in Wisconsin in November, 2006, voted for and passed Wisconsin's Marriage Amendment.

Jo (Wed Dec 03 08:23:33 2008)

Your elegant response supports my thesis. It is hard for me to imagine that you don't know what literature I am referencing. Hiding behind the veil of others campaigning on your behalf is unseemly.

billie (Wed Dec 03 08:28:30 2008)

I don't know if this was intended as a gay issue discussion, but "the people" passing anti-gay-marriage referenda is just delaying the inevitable. Sort of like passing white-only drinking fountains. In this case "the people" represented a majority but certainly will not survive the constitutional challenge.

Nor should it, but it must go through the legal challenges and tweaking that usually results.

I support legal civil unions (which is simply a contract between two parties) but draw the line at teaching school kids the process or in allowing gay adoptions, at least until we know the repercussions.

Like all else, either extreme is bad. But I oppose the masses shoving down the throats of the minority their way of life, unless it affects children.

Jack Lohman (Wed Dec 03 08:58:47 2008)

Geeez. Not intended as a 'gay issue discussion.' But make it that if that's where you want to go. My point was and is: "The American people" is an overused phrase. Politicians might think more before continuing to use it and we Americans should be less willing to accept sweeping generalities and overused, often meaningless verbage.

Jo (Wed Dec 03 09:12:23 2008)

I don't know of which piece you speak. My name and works are here for all to see; I don't hide behind a shield of anonymity.

Jo (Wed Dec 08 09:14:58 2008)

If this is Bug Up The Rectum Day and the discussion is about overused or abused or cliched language let's start with something blatant like the word "folks."

You used it twice up in the comment for this day. Others use it much more frequently. Like "the American people" more egregiously still the word "folks" substituted for
the people conveys the wrong message. It should join "basically" as an overused verbal tic which should be banished from current speech until the day when it returns to its proper usage.

I have submitted "folks" to the banished words list. It is not original by me in pointing
out that "folks" is used to convey some sort of charm but what it actually does is express simplicity. There is an author reference (not just at hand) which gives the following example: Imagine that the Declaration of Independence contained the phrase "of the folks, by the folks and for the folks." I imagine there are a handful of readers of FP who think that
sounds fine just like peppering their speech with the garbage word "basically." Others will see how ludicrous it is.

Before we eliminate at least adequate usage such as "the American people" let's concentrate on banishing the words that really need to go.

For the full list of banished words and a good laugh please see the link added for the Lake Superior State University Banished Words list-- updated every year:

http://www.lssu.edu/banished/

Lon Ponschock (Wed Dec 03 10:33:05 2008)

My nomination for banishment is the phrase-'the fact of the matter is' used instead of 'in my opinion' or 'as I see it'.

Tom (Wed Dec 03 12:26:41 2008)

Jo, I agree with you completely regarding the arrogance of the person who thinks he or she is so all-knowing that whatever idea he/she is proposing must be framed as being for "the American people". I am of the generation who had to endure a small group of feminists who always portended to speak for all women whenever they where pushing something on their feminist agenda. Like all extremists, feminists shoved quotas through the courts and legislatures instead of focusing on positives like applying oneself to get an education and actually be willing to work and sacrifice to succeed in the workforce. I hope you're OK with my comment not being an off-the-wall personal attack as displayed in your previous 2 contributors.

Phyllis Klee (Wed Dec 03 12:53:20 2008)

I totally support what Jo is saying. She [and I] are Christians and, by belief and practice, love everyone but not necessarily their actions when it is against Biblical teachings. Contrary to the other posting, I do not believe that having a gay accepting citizenry is a foregone conclusion. A vast majority of voting citizen rejected that notion with the overwhelming passage of the Marriage Amendment. That amendment states that the union of one male and one female with all the inherent priveleges and responsibility is what we want. If two individuals in a same sex relationship want their partner to save medical or legal authority in the case that the other is uncapable of making that decision, either due to illness or death, they should state so in a legal document. To dissolve a marriage, there are legal and financial ramifications whereas to end a "relationship" either heterosexual or homosexual, you can just "go your separate ways"

On another topic,I know that campaign literature sent out by other groups who support the ideals/standards that Jo and others like me stand for. I don't believe she had the "oversight" privelege to say yeah or nah on what was said, what mailed and to whom it was mailed. I am assuming that most of these groups got the names of the recipients from "target" or "interest" I, like many others, received multiple mailings that were not from Jo or approved by her or her campaign. If you check the bottom of the literature, you undoubtedly saw a disclaimer, as reguired by law, that stated who the organization was sending it and also that it "was paid for by ---- and not authorized by any candidate or political party. Frankly, I don't think some of them were particularly helpful.

Lastly, to say that Jo "hides" behind anything is ludicrous. She is so transparent that you could see through her. If you are a still a "doubting Thomas", then take her up on her offer and view her data.

Barbara Murray (Wed Dec 03 15:49:53 2008)

The fact of the matter is (great phrase for the banishment list), "frankly" is another candidate for banishment. Or "in regards to" where "regarding" would suffice. And a second vote for "basically." I have to think about Lon's tearing apart my use of "folks." An alternative to the staid old "people." I'll try to be more creative and/or more specific in the future!

Jo (Wed Dec 03 16:04:16 2008)

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend