Especially since the presidential election, a larger than ever proportion of political commentary is about the language of politics rather than the issues themselves. This is probably because the realities of the current political stew match neither the rhetoric of the politicians nor the hopes and imagination of the voters. The nebulous abstractions don’t hold up well. Take "change," for instance. We’ve always had change, but the devil is in the details. However, reading the details of a 1,000+ page piece of health care legislation, which was apparently pulled out of someone’s hope chest the day after the election, is too much work for the people whose job it is to read it. Not my job, man. So voters started reading it, and asking questions, and it’s the asking of questions that this administration doesn’t like. Haven’t liked it since Joe the Plumber asked a simple question. If they can’t answer the questions honestly, they attack either the questioner or the language.
Here’s just a tiny sample of rhetorical smoke, mirrors, and flimflam in this year’s news:
- · MediaMatters calls for a “quarantine” of Fox News, the most watched news in the country, because it is critical of this administration.
- · David Horowitz says that the new equivalents of the N-word for white people are racist, sexist, homophobe, and Islamaphobe.
- · The government has a lot invested in its own definitions and redefinitions:
“In March, the Department of Homeland Security distributed a document called the Domestic Extremism Lexicon to state and local police. … the Lexicon was soon recalled…. Like its more publicized sister essay, the DHS’s Rightwing Extremism—which was released in April and which portrayed veterans as potential terrorists—the Lexicon has since been disowned by the Obama administration. Even so, it opens a window on official Washington’s attitude toward internal dissent.
“…Consider its definition of “rightwing extremism”:
A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term may also refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. (also known as far right, extreme right)”
Of course people aren’t all going to agree on political goals, but it’s almost impossible to agree on vocabulary or even facts, as this bit of correspondence demonstrates. The writer referred to some articles backing up his opinions, but realizing that conflicting material exists, had to cut off the debate:
“Perhaps there are other papers drawing other conclusions, but it's not a subject I want to spend much time on because in the end people tend to find evidence for what they want to believe regardless. And none of us is perfect.”
Other correspondents have been quick to say they don’t want to debate, they’re tired of the subject, when they can’t argue any more. “The debate is over,” as Al Gore famously said.
Definitions, facts, numbers — we don’t even agree on the weather as it’s happening, much less future weather. “Global warming” was replaced rather quickly by “climate change”” which is giving way to “Isn’t a little chilly for this time of year?”
Maybe Clinton set the stage for this impasse by saying “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Lawyers are exacting in their statements, but so often their intent is to deceive.
Comments