Metaphors, Part I: Pigs—on Wall Street, in Washington, and on the Campaign Trail

In this week’s and next week’s posts, Ms. Picky would like to discuss metaphors, which can, used properly, be powerful figures of speech. This week’s post gives some examples of how some porcine metaphors have made a rhetorical impact; next week’s will discuss how metaphors should not be used.

Pity the poor pig. His name is used to disparage people who are greedy, unclean, or overweight—or to imply that a woman is unattractive or of low morals. The metaphor of “pig” (and its derivatives) has been particularly embraced in two parts of the country not usually involved with animal husbandry: Wall Street and Washington.

On Wall Street

“Pigs get slaughtered” is part of an old Wall Street traders’ aphorism that warns traders about being greedy:

“Bulls make money, and bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.”

“Putting lipstick on a pig” is an expression that was perhaps not coined by former securities analyst Henry Blodget but was at least made infamous by him:

“We’ve gotta lot of stock to move today, people. Tell your customers this one’s hot. . . . Just don't mention the fundamentals, they stink. . . . Now let’s put some lipstick on this pig.”

Ignoring Blodget’s securities ethics, let’s look instead at his metaphor. Since lipstick is a cosmetic used by women, Blodget's choice of metaphor alluded to the dressing-up of an unattractive woman to make her “acceptable,”  and so he managed not only to offend the SEC with his transgressions, but also to insult women with his sexism.

In Washington

 “Earmark” is a metaphor that is used so frequently today for a legislator’s way of directing funds toward his own pet projects (and thereby bypassing the executive’s authority to manage allocation of funds) that we tend to forget that it ever had another meaning. In the term’s original use, however, in pig farming, “earmarking” was the notching or cutting of the animal’s ear as a way of identifying its owner—or its final destination.

“Pork Barrel” is a metaphor that describes legislative spending intended to benefit a politician’s own constituents (and so garner their support), rather than spending for the universal civic good. There are at least two theories on how this term was derived. The first relates to the old country store’s having kept a barrel of salt pork open and available to its patrons. The higher the patron’s rank, the more often he would be encouraged to dip into the barrel. The other theory relates to a country housewife’s own household container for curing and storing pork. When things were good, the barrel was full; in bad times, the barrel was low or empty.

“Eating High on the Hog” is a regional metaphor often used by politicians from the South to refer to someone who has recently come into money and is now living better than he was used to living. Since the best cuts of meat on a pig come from the back and upper leg, at one time only the rich could afford to eat “high on the hog,” while the poor could afford to eat only from the underside (the belly) or the trotters.

On the Campaign Trail

In 2008, when Sarah Palin spoke at the Republican National Convention, one of her most widely quoted lines was:

“What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick!”

Palin did not actually say she was a “hockey mom” or a “pit bull,” but, with the use of metaphor, she didn’t have to. She had planted the idea in people’s minds that she was referring to herself as both “suburban mother of the year” and a tough politician. (Lord knows, working mothers have a tough row to hoe, but they’re not superhuman—one wonders just how many soccer games Palin attended while she was campaigning for vice-president. . . .)

Shortly afterward, Barack Obama then chose to borrow the Blodget Wall-Street lipstick metaphor to allege that the Republican Party did not represent real change:

“You know, you can put lipstick on a pig [said Obama], but it’s still a pig.”

The Republican response to Obama’s remark was that it was an oblique slur against Palin, because Palin had identified herself with a lipstick metaphor (albeit not this lipstick metaphor). Was Mr. Obama implying that a pit bull was somehow very like a pig?

The Democrats, of course, denied that Obama was anything but a gentleman and a champion of women’s rights, and maintained that the Republicans were trying to cast a slur on Mr. Obama by accusing him of casting a slur on Ms. Palin.

Metaphor, used for political purposes, whether on Wall Street, in Washington, or in the corporate boardroom, can be a powerful tool. The human mind responds easily to the instant word picture of a metaphor, and metaphor can be used either to express—or to deny responsibility for—an opinion. The use of metaphor allows a speaker not only to make his or her point rhetorically, but also to use positive or negative imagery about him- or herself or an opponent in a way that is safe politically.


Next week’s post: Metaphors, Part II: Dangerous When Mixed

This blog is now read in Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, France, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, the U.K., the U.S., and Vietnam, but not in Smithfield, Virginia, home of the Smithfield ham.