Issue 33.15
Well, it looks like we are underway in the process of choosing a new president. The nationally televised debate last week of some of the Republican contenders marks the beginning of the public process, though some of these people have been campaigning for months or even years.
As in all debates, the candidates want you to notice them but they also do not want to say something that will be widely criticized in the media or by the other candidates. Many campaigns have been destroyed by one misunderstood phrase or one statement of fact that people did not want to hear. Truth and accuracy have surrendered in large part to political correctness or foggy language that can’t be nailed down as to what the candidate really thinks. When a candidate says something clearly and with passion, they paint a target on themselves and their campaign.
Why does this work against the person of principle and understanding and tend to give us leaders who are wishy-washy or unprincipled or even downright wrong on the issues? It is because people do not understand language and demand clear answers of their candidates. That allows the insincere and dishonest to excel in the debate and campaign rhetoric process and punishes those who stand strongly FOR something.
When we take our evaluation of where a person stands from media, from personalities such as movie stars and sports figures, or from political talking heads that are hired to make the opponents look bad by twisting their words, we are at fault. It takes more effort and thought to actually listen or read what candidates say and make our evaluation without resorting to Robert Reich or Rush Limbaugh and buying their company lines (Reich on the left and Limbaugh on the right).
George Orwell, in his classic book “1984” and in his essays brought forward the idea of “doublethink” which has evolved into the term doublespeak in today’s politics. What it means is using words to distort, disguise or reverse the meaning of the plain words that could have been used. Euphemisms such as “downsizing” instead of firing or layoffs misplace meaning. The pentagon repeatedly was criticized for using misleading phrases such as “servicing the target” in place of “bombing” and other such terms.
The book “Beyond Hypocrisy” by Edward S. Herman was published in 1992. In it, Mr. Herman speaks of the acceptance by a blind public of obvious propaganda. He focuses on abuses of the language in the United States, particularly in politics. Others have worked to help people see through the words to the truth. Organizations such as the Doublespeak Committee and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Committee of Public Doublespeak have made efforts to shine the light on abuse of language to change perception of the truth. They even offer “awards” to the most obvious offenders in an effort to shame them and illuminate their dishonesty.
I encourage all to read up on the concepts and then watch carefully for such strategies from candidates from all parties. Only when we demand honest and clear statements from our political players and then demand that they live up to what they say they stand for will we get true representative government. It is our responsibility to do so and to kick out any of them who are not willing to be clear and honest.
Lynn West is a thinker, a teacher and a patriot. You can reach him through email at forgingthefuture2021@gmail.com or through this newspaper. Liberty is a state of being which must be continually created. These articles can help all of us discover the ways we can contribute to that outcome.