Many politicians, pundits and public relations practitioners twist words so that American political speech sometimes resembles a cant. Euphemism, spin and other seedy arts of political speech dull language and facilitate misleading the public.
In George Orwell's 1946 essay, "Politics and the English Language," he decried the use of empty, pretentious speech and writing. The twisting of words is also a recurring theme in comedian George Carlin's routines. Both have noted how an injustice or tragedy can become insignificant or even desirable simply by changing the words that describe it.
Language -¡- especially as powerful and influential people use it - should be viewed suspiciously, as should its users' intentions.
Since 9/11, we have lived in a "homeland," and what was "national security" is now "homeland security." What we called "terrorism" is now simply "terror," which a pre-9/11 edition of Webster's Dictionary defines as "a state of intense fear." Terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create terror for political ends. But Democrats and Republicans, as well as the media, use the two words interchangeably.
How words are used helps determine how we view the world. When we uncritically accept and use "terror," "homeland" and "family values," we allow powerful people with unscrupulous motives to shape our thoughts.
In Orwell's "1984," Big Brother used Newspeak to impoverish English and limit the capacity for critical and creative thought. This doesn't mean "terror" and "homeland" represent a conspiracy to achieve these ends, but the impoverishment of the language across politics, entertainment and everyday life could still have the same effect as Newspeak.
Yet, one needs only to turn on the TV or open a newspaper to find how generic "terror" and "homeland security" have become.
Over time, a word may lose its meaning but retain its emotional value. It can be redefined to mean something else but still evoke the same passion it did before.
Take, for example, "free," which Merriam-Webster defines as "not subject to the control or domination of another."
It's easy to defend the war in Iraq now that we have invaded it, dominated it politically and sold its economy to American corporations, and it's "free." By contrast, Iran exited the "free world" in 1979 when it overthrew a brutal, US-backed, quasi-fascist regime and replaced it with a brutal, albeit native, theocratic one.
Another good example is "free market." Libertarians and conservatives love that term, associating it with mass satisfaction and liberty and portraying it as the American way. In practice, however, it usually means eliminating regulations and letting big business pollute the environment, monopolize industries, privatize the public sphere, exploit workers, advertise dishonestly and sell unsafe products, thereby harming the public good and exacerbating inequality. Thus, people who already have power and wealth gain freedom, while those without power and wealth lose it.
But be warned: Agreeing with anything in the previous paragraph constitutes "socialism." We all know socialism is bad. The word alone says it all.
As such, the inherent evil of "socialism" makes health care for all easy for politicians with vested interests in the health insurance industry to demonize as "socialized medicine."
Then we have "family values." Merriam-Webster defines a value as "something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable." In American politics, however, "values" is nothing but a euphemism for gay bashing and a surrogate for outright hate speech. It enables one to harbor prejudice without considering, let alone admitting, that he is prejudiced.
Next time you hear the meaning of a word subtly changed or the frequent use of a previously uncommon word for some pre-existing phenomenon, don't just adopt it without thinking. We already let politicians speak for us, but do we need them thinking for us, too?
Write to Alaric at ajdearment@bsu.edu