:: blame the extended gestation.... ::

:: Friday, December 19, 2003 ::

In the past few weeks I've been fascinated by the use and political ramifications of language. We now live in a world where the cry "he'll raise your taxes" will get you electoral defeat but use the phrase "he'll sell you a bond"--which raises my taxes once I'm out of school and many of you are retired--and most the public won't even bat an eye. "Special interests" has now become the token phrase for labor, women, and minority groups--you know, the majority of us; and "evildoer" has become the main argument and justification for war and aggression. Terrorism magically is always "their" terrorism against us and never the more neat and well packaged "state-sponsored" kind we love to take part in (how else was Bin Ladin a "freedom fighter" untill he turned against us?). The moral undertone that has attached itself to our langue is doing more harm than good--distorting the debate when clarity is called for.

Our collective memory easily forget the rhetoric we bought into yesterday which inevitably makes us look for new justifications for yesterdays actions. How else can you explain the fact that yesterday Iraq's "imminent threat" was a "mushroom cloud" on our doorstep while today it has merely become a "developing weapons programs"--that we are having a terrible time putting our finger on--and the atrocities of a dictator from 15 years before, back when we supported him.

Karl Rove's magic Owellian touch has made the Bush administration a lover of freedom and democracy while it spends its time walking over civil liberties and enabling dictators; not to mention the wonderful benefits of Bush's tax policy and Medicare plan--the "average taxpayer", and "average senior" should throw a party since things are going so well for them, maybe they could invite the "average unemployed worker" who's since been swept under the carpet.

A glowing example of all of this would be the recent capture of Hussein and the dialogue that has ensued. Maybe I'm wrong--nitpicking when I should be looking at the bigger picture--but it seems to me that some words (e.g. monster, evildoer) do harm to properly understanding Hussein and his capture. In a way, I think calling Saddam a "monster" explains away his crimes and the complicity of others while those crimes were taking place. When President Bush or Dan Rather get busy writing off Saddam in neat mythological terms we tend to forget that monsters don't violate human rights or become vicious dictators--humans do. That goes for hobgoblins, warlocks, and the lot of them.

In the end its the arguments behind the words that we should be looking at. Maybe I'm a hypocrite--call me anti-corporate globalization protester not anti-globalization protester, Anti-Bush not Anti-American, ticked off college student not coddled liberal white kid--making mountains out of molehills; but it seems like common sense to call it "marriage" when two people commit themselves to a relationship for life; not to mention calling it "homophobic" and "intolerant" not "compassionate" when people want to discriminate simply on the basis of who it is that is in that relationship. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there might not be justifiable arguments for backing dictators, violating international law, corporate welfare, bonds rather than tax increases, bigotry rather than tolerance. All I'm saying is maybe we should start hearing those arguments instead of trying to hide what we truly believe in and stand for by masking difference of opinion in polite voter friendly terms.

:: Jim Nichols 12/19/2003 10:59:00 PM [+] ::
...