Do you like the rhetorical use of the double negative? I can't get no satisfaction from some rich and powerful guy deploying the old double negative device as a way of seeming close to the working-class folk he represents.
There's much more to say about double negatives. (Check out the Wikipedia article on the topic. Do you know when a double negative is litotes?) What I want to talk about is what Trumka says can't get better. The "it" in "it don't get no better" is not Warren herself. Trumka doesn't commit the offense of referring to a woman as "it."
Trumka is talking about who ought to serve as President of the United States, and his preceding sentence is: "She has a very well defined set of values and unlike many politicians, she actually sticks by those values and fights to implement them." So the "it" that "can't get no better" is the quality of having a very well-defined set of values and sticking by them and fighting to implement them.
At some extreme, we're talking about an ideologue, a person who resists new information and who closes her mind to changing circumstances and practical realities. But the point at which we disqualify a candidate as an ideologue depends on whether we are averse to the particular well-defined set of values that person is sticking by and fighting for.
Is Elizabeth Warren an ideologue? Is Scott Walker?
0 Comments