WHAT’S IN A WORD? PLENTY. ASK ORWELL
By Kenneth J. Uva
Political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946)
Watching videos of the demonstrations against state closing restrictions during this pandemic, one will see signs with words such as “freedom” and “liberty.” What do those words mean to the gun toting white folks who predominate in those crowds? I would bet that to them “freedom” does not mean a woman’s reproductive rights, or the right of members of the LGBT community to marry who they wish. What they mean is that they don’t want to obey health and safety rules under a state’s police power for reasons that have much to do with opening the economy in order to save the presidency of President Trump.
People with ideology similar to those demonstrators wear “MAGA” hats, the Trump campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.” Have we had a good explanation of when America stopped being great or the year or years to which this slogan hearkens back?
No. The use of “liberty” in this context and MAGA are code words for a particular agenda having nothing to do with actual liberty or with making or keeping American great. In fact, they are just two of the words or phrases that have been used in our history to mask the true goals of those who use the words. This is how to control the argument by controlling the language.
From the same side of the ideological spectrum, we hear the term “voter fraud.” In reality, this phrase is applied to any effort to make it easier for young people and for people of color to vote.
There are many examples of code words. During the Civil War, after extremely bloody battles in Tennessee, the Union general George Thomas was asked if the dead should be buried according to state. His reply: “…Mix ‘em up…I’m tired of states’ rights.” From before the Civil War, through the years of civil rights struggles, “states’ rights” was a term used to oppose efforts toward racial equality. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina ran for president under the States’ Rights Party (aka Dixiecrats) in 1948 in opposition to the Democratic Party’s civil rights platform. George Wallace pounded the same theme in his 1968 presidential bid. States’ rights was the code word for opposition to civil rights acts, voting rights, and school desegregation throughout the modern era. Yet, the only “state right” fought for was to keep African Americans in inferior positions with respect to education, jobs, public accommodations and voting.
During the 1930s and 1940s and continuing somewhat in later decades was the “America First” movement. A celebrity proponent was Charles Lindbergh, one of the most popular Americans of the time. This movement was isolationist and anti-Semitic. The major effect was in efforts to oppose support for anti-Fascist forces in Europe with no real programs to improve the lives of Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_(policy)
The 1960s were full of slogans and buzzwords that masked their actual meanings, many of which made convenient bumper stickers. “America. Love it or Leave it” and “Support the Troops” meant support for the Vietnam War. “Law and order” and “crime in the streets” were thinly-veiled references to crimes committed by young African American males. These words were also invoked by Ronald Reagan against antiwar protests during his campaign for governor of California. “Law and order” was certainly not connected to outrage over murders of civil rights leaders and workers or to the burning of churches in the South.
Another buzzword, although not a slogan, from a prior era that still has life today is “bathrooms.” Phyllis Schlafly fought and defeated the ERA partially by pushing the idea that passage would require everyone to use the same facilities. Fear of this tragic outcome has been used in more recent years when fighting transgender rights.
When fighting against the rights of LGBT people, what better phrase comes to mind than “family values?” This conjures the image of the nuclear family manning the bastions against all sorts of deviant behavior. Pay no attention to the fact that there is no one family model in this country. Divorce rates are high. Single parent families are certainly numerous and blended families of all kinds exist. Yet, by all means let’s weaponize the term “family values” to marginalize millions of people.
There are many more examples of the manipulation of the language for political ends but my favorite is “pro life.” Without it even being necessary to argue about abortion, we can conclude that the term “pro life” is a hoax. Where is the pro-life movement on issues that cost lives—gun control, health care, environmental regulations, or climate change? These are truly life and death issues about which the “pro-life movement” takes no stand. Against abortion? Just say so. Don’t wrap your views around fake words.
In the 1960s, bumper stickers became prevalent as a means of expressing political views. Now, of course, social media is the main channel. It is ironic that with so many sources of information-- print, internet, and social media, people seem to be driven into greater divisions that ever before. Perhaps it is the sound bites, short posts and tweets that work against a more nuanced view of matters. In Ezra Klein’s recent book Why We’re Polarized, he points out that the divisions in the United States are greater than they ever have been. This is due to the fact that so many outlets present one point of view only. The use of code words, coupled with instantaneous messages posted with little or no substance, harm our democracy. The fact is that President Trump, for all his many faults, both in policy and in his personal behavior, still holds about a 42% approval rating. Considering that many presidents fell below 42% for lesser reasons does not bode well for our future.
Orwell was prescient about many things. The debasement of the English language by the use of code words in political debate continues and grows. This, along with the social media that does more than ever to encourage superficial communication, does not bode well for reasonable dialogue in the public forum.
Climate change, health care, income inequality, and international conflicts are life and death issues that determine what our future will be, or if there will be a future at all. We cannot begin to address these issues as long as our political language gives the appearance of solidity to pure wind.
