Be wary of politicalspeak

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
Be wary of politicalspeak				May 10, 2003

In last Wednesday’s Gazette, an item the Last Word suggested that Mary Minor was an “ultra-liberal.” Despite the fact that there’s been a dearth of liberals, let alone ultra-liberals, in Virginia since the days of Thomas Jefferson, the person nevertheless hit upon a code word that, thanks to its vigorous usage by the right, has developed incredibly negative economic and social connotations. Hence all Democrats are “liberals.”

Language is full of tricks, and this because the people who use it are, in many cases, tricksters who manipulate it to their own advantage. Frequently these linguistic magicians are orators of high ability, like Cicero or, more recently, John F. Kennedy. In other cases, however, the speaker’s intent borders on the pernicious, and speech becomes more demagogic than persuasively truthful.

Most of us are leery of politicians, and with good reason. They tend to say things they don’t mean and make promises they can’t keep. But, given their ability to manipulate the language, they persuade us to loan them some power for a few years by convincing us that what burbles forth from their mouths is wholesomeness incarnate. In truth, and perhaps without realizing it, most of them have become astute students of George Orwell and have perfected to a high degree the fine art of politicalspeak.

What they’re counting on, of course, is that we’re not all semioticians, looking for linguistic road signs that might raise red flags. Hence they liberally use code words or euphemisms that evoke positive responses while hiding sometimes sinister underpinnings.

For instance, just about all the politicians running in our local races, be they Democrat or Republican, are out to enhance the lot of “Virginia families.” Not all Virginians, but Virginia “families.” Paul Jost has his “Plan for Virginia Families.” Tommy Norment (R-3^rd) wants to lower taxes “for working families.” Mary Minor would like to improve the Commonwealth “to serve families first.”

Ever since the days of Dan Quayle, who encoded “family values” to counter the unsuspected success of Murphy Brown and single parenthood, the word “family” has taken upon itself a connotation of exclusivity. Reverting to the days of the all white Father Knows Best and Leave it to Beaver, politicians now tweak our value system by substituting “family” for “wholesome” and thus righteously exclude single parents, singles without children, gays, lesbians and anyone else who doesn’t fit into the “traditional family” mode.

It is not without reason, for instance, that the Virginia organization most adamantly opposed to gay rights is called “The Family Foundation.” Furthermore, since this group and others like it are closely allied with churches on the Christian right, the word “Christian” has become another code word for exclusivity and family values.

What is thoroughly disheartening, however, is that those on the right who support both “family” and “Christian” values know exactly what types of negativity the code words suppress and still opt to uphold it.

“Fiscal conservative” is another heavily encoded term. While none of us wants our tax dollars to be spent frivolously, we should demand that basic services, such as public education, higher education, mental health facilities, and transportation be dealt with seriously.

Yet, fiscal conservatism now implies an unwillingness to deal with the tax code or to raise needed revenues, while at the same time fostering inane tax cuts or signing no-new-tax pledges. Unfortunately, such an approach leads, among other things, to losses in educational programs, loss of teachers, loss of police and fire personnel, loss of mental health care, and loss of programs that provide health and nutritional services for children from poor families.

Finally, despite the fact that no fewer than 28 bills were introduced in the legislature this year to limit a woman’s right to choose, the word “abortion” has suddenly become our candidates’ dirty little secret. While local Democrats try to avoid discussion of the question completely, Republicans rarely describe themselves as anti-abortionists, but rather prefer to “protect the unborn” (Paul Jost) or to “preserve traditional values and freedoms” (Tommy Norment).

What “unborn” Jost wants to protect he doesn’t say. We suspect he’s not talking about mosquitoes or tapeworms, though they too represent potential life in their unborn stages.

As for Norment, he nicely encodes opposing partial birth abortion into “traditional values and freedoms,” whatever they may be. Whatever they are, however, they probably trump family values, since traditional values is an idea so broad as to be even more meaningless than Quayle’s blather. What we can be sure of, however, is that “traditional values” involve the elimination of Roe vs. Wade.

This, then, is how codes work. By accenting an apparent or meaningless positive value, they suppress its negative ramifications. So, when you hear things like USA Patriot Act, Operation Iraqi Freedom, faith-based initiatives, school choice, or Virginia families, beware. Because what we’re really talking about is a loss of privacy rights, no weapons of mass destruction and thousands of deaths in Iraq, taxpayer money to build churches, state tax money for private school vouchers, and a return to Wally and the Beaver.