-Caveat Lector-
URL:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Partridge121902/partridge121902.html
Newspeak lives
By Ernest Partridge
Co-editor of The Crisis Papers and Online Journal Contributing Writer
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the
[Party's]
world-view and mental habits . . . , but to make all other modes of thought
impossible. It
was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak
forgotten, a heretical thought - that is, a thought diverging from the principles of
[the Party]
- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.
Its
vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to
every
meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other
meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was
done
partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words,
and by
stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings. . . . Newspeak was designed
not to extend but to diminish the range of thought . . .�George Orwell, "The
Principles of
Newspeak," in the novel, 1984
December 19, 2002�Liberals who are wondering just what hit them in the past 20 years
will find much of the answer to their bewilderment in George Orwell's 1984. That
classic
presents an accurate description of the tactics that Right-Wing political operatives
have
employed in their successful anathematizing of the once-honorific word "liberalism,"
and in
their inappropriate adoption of the word "conservative."
In the political strife of the past generation, it is the liberals who have been the
authentic
"conservatives" as they have treated the received political vocabulary with respect and
restraint, regarding the clarity afforded by ordinary language as a necessary and
valuable
medium of civil and reasoned political debate.
In contrast, the so-called "conservatives," unconstrained by such qualms, have treated
language as a political weapon. Because these antics have provoked little if any
protest
from their opponents, the Right- Wing word-meisters have utilized their semantic
weapons
with great skill and effect, and thus have prevailed.
(Terminological note: Because the essential purpose of this analysis is to examine the
use
of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in current political rhetoric, we must use
these
words with great care and circumspection. Accordingly, we will use instead, the terms
"the
Right" and "the Left," mindful that these words are also charged with emotive and
ideological connotations. Indeed, it seems impossible to avoid such connotations when
referring to a political faction).
The Assault on (the word) "Liberal"
The rhetoric of contemporary politics has not infected the pages of Webster's
Unabridged
Dictionary, which thus defines the political sense of "liberal:" "Favoring reform or
progress,
as in religion, education, etc.; specifically, favoring political reforms tending
toward
democracy and personal freedom for the individual . . ." Webster's also notes the that
the
derivation of the word "liberal" is from the latin liberalis: "of or pertaining to a
freeman."
To this, we might add that modern liberals regard popularly elected government,
constrained by the rule of law, as a positive force for ensuring the welfare, equality
and
rights of the citizens. Far from being "anti-conservative," this notion is enshrined
in the
declaration of our political Independence ("to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men") and in the Preamble to our Constitution, which proclaims that
it is
the legitimate function of governments "to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Somehow these authentically conservative principles of liberalism have been obscured by
the word-meisters of the Right, as they have associated the word "liberal" with
"tax-and-
spend big government," naive ("bleeding heart") benevolence toward the unworthy (e.g.,
"welfare cheats"), and bumbling, bureaucratic interference in enlightened private
enterprise.
This semantic coup has been so successful that in political rhetoric "liberal" has
become an
abusive "hot button." Just consider the recent election. In TV spot advertisements
(now the
dominant arena of political "debate,") the word "liberal" is splashed and shouted,
like a
witch's curse, over the name of the (generally Democratic) target candidates.
"Liberal!"
Nancy Pelosi, "Liberal!" Barbara Boxer, "Liberal!" Paul Wellstone. No elaboration is
offered
of just what the word is supposed to mean. No need for that, since the cognitive
content of
the term has long since been drained away, leaving a shell of invective. Thus the
transformed word "liberal" becomes a political weapon�like a piece of rotten fruit, to
hurl
at the candidate.
And so, in tune with the principles of Newspeak, in current political discourse the
political
faction which advocates "reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the
individual" (Webster's), formerly designated as "liberalism," has now been deprived of
its
traditional name. And thus, lacking a name, it has become far more difficult to
articulate
and thus even think of and defend the "liberal" principles of such political giants as
FDR,
LaGuardia, Stevenson and Javitts.
How did it come to this? In retrospect, it is difficult to determine whether the
assault upon
the word "liberalism" was calculated, or merely directed without design at a
conspicuous
target of opportunity. It really doesn't matter; it is the methodology and the
consequences
of this attack that should interest us.
The success of the attack upon "liberalism," and the failure of the liberals to defend
their
political label, can be attributed in part to the respective vocations and traditions
of "the
offense" (the Right) and "the defense" (the Left). Prominent defenders of "the Left"
come
from the academic world, where language is prized for its precision and clarity, and
where
the purpose of political discourse is to persuade by force of confirmable evidence and
valid
argument. In contrast, "the Right," drawing from the practical experience of commerce,
seeks, not to prove, but to sell. Any psychological device that promises to "close the
sale"
(i.e., persuade the "prospect" to buy the product or to vote for "our" candidate) is
fair
game. And if those devices involve the distortion of language, the pollution of plain
meaning, and the subversion of free political institutions, then so be it. George
Orwell vividly
described such semantic shenanigans, calling it "Newspeak," and gave us fair warning.
The
Right, unconstrained by a "conservative" respect for the acquired wealth of meaning in
our
language, follows (by design or, more likely, by independent invention) the Principles
of
Newspeak: "provide a medium of expression for the [Party's] world-view and mental
habits
. . . , [and] make all other modes of thought impossible."
The Right's effective use of language as a political weapon should not have come as a
surprise. There was fair warning
In the early '60s, Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, coined a term
"ComSymp" to mean, of course, "communist sympathizer." I recall that he said at that
time
that this was a "beautiful word," in that it didn't convey just how much the
individual so
designated was a "communist," and how much just a "sympathizer." Thus vagueness,
regarded by academics as a semantic weakness, was openly praised as a rhetorical virtue
by Mr. Welch.
In a similar vein, Vice President Spiro Agnew (more precisely, one of his writers)
introduced the term "Radical-Liberal," soon thereafter abbreviated as "radiclib." Thus
the
long-honored term "liberal" was automatically tarred with the undeserved connotation of
"radical" (i.e., "subversive"). This was a masterful stroke of political gamesmanship,
at the
cost of devaluing the coin of intelligent political discourse.
Finally, there was the abortion debate which followed closely upon the Roe v. Wade
decision of 1973. The anti-abortion forces quickly adopted the semantically powerful
label,
"pro-life." Then a savvy advocate noted that if you combine the words "baby" and
"killing"
you will have a no-lose political issue. Thus fetuses and embryos, back to the moment
of
conception (an invisibly tiny cluster of cells) were called "babies" and endowed with
a moral
significance more precious than that of a fully- formed adult woman. Opposition to the
so-
called "pro-life" and "anti- abortion" platform automatically carried heavy and
undeserved
moral burdens, due to the simple (yet false) implication that the defenders of Roe v.
Wade
were ipso facto "anti-life" and "pro-abortion." These "liberals" paid a heavy price
for their
unwillingness to engage in "merely semantic" debates. Late in the debate, the Left
finally
wised-up and adopted the term "pro-choice," but by then considerable damage had been
done. (For more on the topic of the semantics of abortion, see "The Right to Life and
the
Right to Love").
In sum: "The Left," poor saps, constrained by their genteel "rules of (verbal) fair
play,"
chose not to stoop to the tactical level of their opposition. And thus, of course,
they were
clobbered in the political arena, as an over-the-hill actor was "cast" in the role of
presidential candidate, and prevailed over an authentic scholar and Christian
gentleman.
The poor, hapless, Left forgot the advice of one of their own: "Tip" O'Neill, who
observed
"Politics ain't beanbag."
The Capture of (the Word) "Conservative"
The political Right, which calls itself "conservative," is nothing of the kind. As I
have noted
elsewhere (see "Kill the Umpire!"), they might better be called "radical anarchists."
To
these so-called "conservatives," popularly elected government�which tells them that
they
cannot poison the common air and water, sell unsafe and ineffective food and drugs,
cheat
their customers, or abuse their employees�is some sort of occupying foreign power.
"Government," writes the Libertarian philosopher, John Hospers, "is the most dangerous
institution known to man." The Libertarians can at least be credited for having a
consistency
and courage of their unfortunate beliefs, as they advocate the abolition of all laws
regulating private and "victimless" behavior. (Cf. "With Liberty for Some,") Self-
described
"conservatives," on the contrary, are not constrained by consistency. It is quite
acceptable,
they tell us, for government to interfere with doctor-patient and lawyer-client
relationships,
to establish a religion ("This is a Christian Nation!"), to incarcerate indefinitely
without
charge or access to counsel, and to criminalize sexual relations between consenting
adults.
(As one wit has said, "the Right has taken government off our backs and put it into our
bedrooms"). And finally, as we know so well, the Right has no qualms about
disenfranchising citizens, over-riding state law, and conducting a coup d'etat under
the
guise of "law," in order to install their candidate into the office of the President
of the United
States.
Yet these anarchists have the unmitigated gall to call themselves "conservatives."
Still
worse, the press and public have consented, without protest, to this violation of our
language�to this exercise in "Newspeak."
Semantic Conservatism and the Liberation of the English Language
The Rectification of Names consists in making real relationships and duties and
institutions
conform as far as possible to their ideal meanings . . . When this intellectual
reorganization
is at last effected, the ideal social order will come as night follows day�a social
order
where, just as a circle is a circle and a square a square, so every prince is princely
[and]
every official is faithful . . .�Confucius (as described by Hu Shih)
What, then, is the remedy?
First and foremost, the Left must become aware of just what has been done to them and
to
their language. And then, with this awareness, they must act�alerting the public to the
subversion of our common language, and then piercing the screen of concocted labels to
deal with the reality of public issues and moral principles beyond. They must, to use
the old
slogans of "General Semantics," direct public attention away from words to things and
ideas�from maps to territories.
Second, the Left must acknowledge that the assault on the word "liberal" has left that
once-
honored word in critical condition. Accordingly, "liberal" must be given a prolonged
rest,
and perhaps even retired permanently. In the 1988 Presidential campaign, Michael
Dukakis
sensed the wisdom of this move, as he avoided the word "liberal" (along with all the
unjust
rightist baggage attached thereto), and adopted the word "progressive" to describe his
program. Though it didn't "take" at the time, this "semantic handoff" should be tried
again.
If the word "progressive" can be attached to the meaning that Webster's assigned to
"liberal," then the Left must proudly proclaim that meaning and relentlessly defend it
from
the attempt at semantic subversion that is sure to follow. Hopefully, with the sad
fate of
"liberalism" fresh in their minds, the new "progressives" will be more successful this
time.
Third, the Left must rescue the word "conservative" from the radical- anarchists who
have
captured it. In place of "conservative," another label should be adopted to designate
the
Right wing, and used repeatedly until it "sticks." "Regressive" seems an appropriate
choice,
and it pairs nicely with "progressive."
Finally, as an antidote to the opportunistic subversion of political discourse (i.e.,
"Newspeak"), political "progressives" must steadfastly support the teaching of Critical
Thinking, both formally and informally. Such a program has been in effect in the
California
State Universities for some 24 years. It should be extended, both geographically and
"vertically," throughout all age-groups. "Critical thinking," like virtue, is
universally endorsed,
while it is universally violated. Almost everyone believes that he is a "straight
thinker," and
resents any suggestion that his thought processes might be systematically improved.
Thus
attempts to institute programs in the teaching of critical thinking are likely to face
considerable difficulties.
In one of his final works, Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley recounted the sad
fate
in the late thirties of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis:
Certain educators . . . disapproved of the teaching of propaganda analysis on the
grounds
that it would make adolescents unduly cynical. Nor was it welcomed by the military
authorities, who were afraid that recruits might start to analyze the utterances of
drill
sergeants. And then there were the clergymen and the advertisers. The clergymen were
against propaganda analysis as tending to undermine belief and diminish churchgoing;
the
advertisers objected on the grounds that it might undermine brand loyalty and reduce
sales.
And yet, as political philosophers have reiterated, from Aristotle through Immanuel
Kant
and John Stuart Mill, and on through John Dewey and the late John Rawls in our own day:
the cultivation of critical intelligence is the foundation of moral autonomy in the
individual,
and of liberty and justice in the body politic.
In sum, and above all: "Progressives" (formerly "liberals") had better wake up and
smell
the brew: those who control the language, control the agenda�they control, that is to
say,
what can and will be said in public discourse. Orwell's inquisitor "O-Brien" saw this
clearly,
when he explained: " . . . the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of
thought. In
the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no
words in
which to express it . . ."
We must take back our language, lest others decide for us what is to be "thinkable."
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field s of
Environmental Ethics
and Moral philosophy. He publishes the website, The Online Gadfly and co-edits the
progressive website The Crisis Papers. He may be contacted at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Download a printable version.
For a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader, click here.
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those
of
Online Journal.
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copyright � 1998-2002 Online Journal�. All rights reserved.
You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of
the
content.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A<>E<>R
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; everything sent has to stand on its own merits, not on
my
recommendation. Some are true, some are absurd. It's up to you to decide which is
which.
Yet, some truths become absurd; some adsurdities turn out to be true, unbelievably so.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without
charge or
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of
information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth
shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
