Definitions
Words have meaning. And when we use them in a sentence, we intend to convey a meaning. Otherwise, all we do when we speak is just make a loud, annoying noise.
In order for one person to speak, and another to understand what is spoken, it is essential that words have a common meaning. Indeed, words cannot be allowed to have their meaning changed, for when words are intentionally manipulated to have a new meaning, it is an attempt to create a new reality.
Yet, during the Bush years, and even prior to that, we have seen many attempts by Republicans and conservatives to take words and redefine them for their own purposes. In fact, not only do Republicans redefine them, they give the words their opposite meaning most times.
The Republicans have tried very hard to make George Orwell’s alternate reality in 1984 become our reality. Under the guise of laudable goals of establishing democracy and liberation, the Bush Administration has engaged in oppression, greed, violence, occupation all in the attempt to forment neverending war. For neverending war is profitable for the businessman and the politician alike. For the businessman, prices rise on speculation and new armanents always require manufacture and sale. For the politician, a country at war is full of citizens living in fear and will to accept almost anything.
So I disagree with Eugene Robinson’s column in the Washington Post yesterday, wherein he says the following:
It’s not a “timetable” for extricating U.S troops from Iraq that George W. Bush is suddenly talking about, and heaven help anyone who accuses him of proposing a “timeline.” No, the Decider says he is now amenable to a “time horizon,” which apparently is a whole different kind of time thing — not at all like the sensible course of action that Democrats and other critics of the Iraq occupation have been demanding.
If Bush were known for exquisite subtlety in his use of the language, I’d note that a horizon is, by definition, a line that can never be reached. But pigs will streak across the sky at Mach 2 before this president displays a diabolical mastery of semantics. His new “time horizon” formulation is just smoke, intended to obfuscate and stall. In six months, Iraq becomes somebody else’s problem.
Actually, while Bush himself cannot be accused of being a master wordsmith, the Republican speechwriters he employs have been operating with exquisite subtlety for years now. Indeed, they all must be wistful as Bush’s term comes to an end, for if they had an effective communicator like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to spread their Orwellian message of fear and fascism, only God can know what horrors would have been unleashed. The phrase “time horizon” is no doubt their invention, not an off-the-cuff Bushism.
And it is a classic example of Republican language reinvention. Against recent events of vast majorities of Americans, Iraqis, and the Iraqi government itself favoring a timeline for American withdrawal from Iraq, this phrase was crafted with the ultimate skill. It was designed to give the impression that even Bush himself was not opposed to bringing our troops home someday. However, as Mr. Robinson points out, this new Orwellian phrase has a certain truth to it.
For when you look for the meaning of “horizon” in the dictionary, you find:
ho·ri·zon – noun – the apparent junction of earth and sky.
As you know, there is no junction between earth and sky. The junction is only apparent to the observer due to an optical illusion. As you walk the sphere of the Earth, the horizon line moves with you, not unlike the various goalposts of success established by the Bush Administration and the various Washington pundits over the last five years. As such, it cannot ever be attained.
Thus, for once, the Bush team of speechwriters have told the truth. By having Bush say he is amenable to withdrawing our troops at some time horizon in the future, all he is saying is that we might withdraw at some point, but it will never happen. It is actually quite masterful politically, when you think about it. Sure we may laugh at the awkwardness of the phrase, but it says to those who can still be swayed by President Bush but who also want to get out of Iraq that he too shares there goals of withdrawing troops; while at the same time he says to his fascist base that he will never withdraw troops.
That is exquisite subtlety, and just another milepost in the Republican war on language.
Great post. Republicans have been changing words for a loooong time. It’s very frustrating. But maybe there’s hope… on the horizon!
The words “conservative” and “liberal” no longer mean what they used to.
The “conservatives” are no longer interested in less spending and smaller government. They’re arguably as bad as the Democrats in that regard.
“Liberal” used to be a good thing, but the current ideology contemporary liberalism is so far from what true classical liberalism was that it’s unrecognizable. It’s morphed into a term that mirrors the policies of social democracies of Europe, which is far from any of the values of classical liberalism and certainly isn’t friendly towards individual liberties.
And remember, it was Clinton who talked about what the definition of “is” is.
Unfortunately, everybody in politics has been playing that game for a long time
pacifying a village=destroying a village is from the LBJ administration and a completely different war, but like old superheroes we brought it back in a nostalgia kick…
If I had my druthers I’d make it illegal to give cool names to legislation like No Child Left Behind, and instead make them call it HB #blah blah….
The irony here is twofold:
1) That the GOP could not have been so successful with this strategy without the MSM being complicit…
2) That in following explicitly the strategies espoused by campaign advisor George Lakoff, the Obama campaign is consciously doing the same thing–Lakoff calls it “re-framing” and it represents little more than building competing ideologically based labels.
Yeah, new politics. Sure.
Spreading democracy = going to war
So what is your point Steve? Democrats should return to the posture of being curled up in a ball waiting for the next kick from the GOP. Is that the only genuine option for people opposed to the GOP’s anti-American crusade? I don’t think so. What was broken now needs to be fixed. I think you missed the point intentionally.
DelawareDem’s point is a good one. Republicans have hijacked our civil discourse and dragged it through the mud through dishonest use of dishonest language in the service of dishonorable ends.
internment=depriving citizens of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry of their civil rights and property, while simultaneously publishing racist images of them in government documents
This is unfortunately a game everybody has played, and when you point that out, all they say is “we can’t stop because they won’t”
Some high ground, huh?
Ah… but Bush and Co have risen to new heights.
Estate tax = Death tax
Why? Because Estates only apply to wealthy people, whereas everybody dies.
Pandora,
I’ve found that there is a dementia that is common to libertarians and other thrid party types. They take it as a matter of faith that Republicans and Democrats are equally bad and corrupt.
And they they are the only pure, decent and honest players in American politics.
Well, I’m sticking to my guns. Bush and Co have taken this little game to new heights.
Although I did like Steve’s idea of not naming bills, i.e. No Child Left Behind.
jason
The only reason you could say I think Libertarians are the only pure and decent people in America is that you don’t read very much of what I write, since I disowned my own party’s presidential nominee….
However, you’re right: as twin manifestations of what can be done inappropriately with power, and as tandem players who consciously crafted a system designed to keep them in and everybody else out, the Demopublicans are both problematic for me
On the other hand, why would that be surprising, since you–a Democrat–feel exactly the same way about GOPers and Libertarians….
In your case, of course, its enlightenment and not partisan political interest.
Pandora, I will agree that the past 8 years has seen Dubya (abetted by the MSM) take what has always been a despicable practice to new depths (I won’t give it heights).
The problem is how to combat it without “fighting fire with fire” which is what Democrats currently seem to want to do….
And Libertarians as well….
I like your original idea of NO political parties, but I don’t think that’s possible.
Pandora– I doubt new heights or rather lows–just more media scrutiny and surveillance, where every sound byte and footstep is perilous. No time for recovery, retraction,regrouping, repentance, or even a little benign neglect. Remember World War 2? You don’t hear a lot of folks talk about the British “baiting” our involvement…only of the Japanese who attacked…and the media played on and on…The whole geo/mili/political climate the 21st century has as a backdrop is really one little filthy fishbowl–with media reports of every excrement the fish releases whether good for the fish, or bad for the fishbowl….and the media can decide. Bush is the target today–but it could have been Humpty Dumpty. I’m more worried about & Co. you mention. They are the nitwits who gave both complicit and implicit consent, and now want to backpeddle for our vote. Shame on them….
On the other hand, why would that be surprising, since you–a Democrat–feel exactly the same way about GOPers and Libertarians….
I don’t feel that way about libertarians.
I get libertarians and fancy myself a libertarian of sorts. I just hate how they sold out to Bush and rolled over on the war on terror like a bunch of puppies getting a belly rub.
I’ll grant you that for about 40% of all Libertarians and 60% of libertarian leaning GOPers
Sorry, wrote that on the run with kids calling–make that 90% of libertarian leaning GOPers
Steve, Why is that? Surely the GOP, with its penchant for invading our bedrooms and love of inserting religion into everything, makes a strange bedfellow for Libertarians.
Oops! I forgot to add… why lean towards any party?
Pandora, traditionally, before the period right after the 1994 elections, the strength of the GOPers came from a coalition Bill Buckley built in the late 1960s after the Goldwater run: libertarians and social conservatives in the same party (plus the defense hawks as a sort of “third leg”).
The uneasy truce between libertarian leaning GOPers and the social cons was Buckley’s assertion (here I am using him as a stand-in for a bunch of writers at Natl Review) that libertarian dislike of regulations and social control would become moral license and depravity without a strong cultural and religious foundation to guide people. So they formed an internal GOP coalition that took them through the Reagan years.
Under Reagan the social/religious cons were never quite equal partners with the libertarians, and they resented the hell out of it–so in the 1990s when they had the chance they pushed the libertarians out of the leadership positions and gave us the theocratic social control GOPers we have today.
But inertia being what it is, a lot of libertarians stuck around trying to retake control of their party from the inside, and not wanting to believe that their long-term allies were craven assholes.
They were still mostly in denial during the run-up to Iraq
Go visit a blog entitled Libertarian Republican and browse the past month if you want to see how badly people like me still get a work-out from so-called Libertarian GOPers like Eric Dondero.
Short question, long answer: there’s a book called The Elephant in the Room that covers this all in detail.
^ Because unfortunately the U.S. is a two-party system. I tend to lean Republican not because I agree with them on all the issues, but because I disagree with them less than I do Democrats.
The GOP preaches religion and legislation of morality while the Dems preach about “common-good” and “rights” that aren’t rights. Not to mention they push their own “morals” and visions of “equality” onto everyone just as much as Conservatives, only on different issues.
Steve – you are spot-on about libertarian leaning GOP’ers being systematically pushed out of the party.
Thanks, Steve. I’ll check out the book and the blog. I honestly never knew much about Libertarians.
Pandora, if you search my archives with “elephant in the room” you’ll find a post from late last year where I summarize the book in some detail
Oooh! The Cliff Notes version! Perfect!
Reductions in budget proposal increases = cuts
Slow down of still growing economy = recesson
Normal semi-automatic pistol commonly available = machinegun in DC
That is why Libertarians lean Republican. Democrats sold their souls to the “guns are icky” crowd.
It will take another generation for the Democratic party to have a shot at the millions of gun owners in the US. Like the Republicans (and a lot of right wing Democrats) of the 50s and 60s, Democrats need to actually recognize their error and try to make amends.
Until then, if he/she has a “D”in the space for party I will never pull the lever in their favor.
I am a generally socially moderate Bright Green and I will never vote for a Democrat based on their terrible track record on this issue.
Like the Republicans (and a lot of right wing Democrats) of the 50s and 60s “on civil rights”
“That is why Libertarians lean Republican. Democrats sold their souls to the “guns are icky” crowd.”
That’s a HUGE part of it, which is why blatantly anti-gun folks like Hillary, Kerry, and Obama try to pander to the gun vote, play themselves off as hunters etc. etc. I’ve never seen a single Presidential candidate pander to the Brady Campaign or the gun-control crowd. Wonder why?
I consider the 2nd Amendment to be a litmus test of sorts. A candidates stance on the 2nd Amendment gives you great insight into his/her character. Not only that, it shows how the candidate views the constituents he/she is supposed to “serve.”
Obviously it’s not the only issue, but it’s a starting point, since it tells me a lot about how the candidate views me. Does he view me as a citizen with rights who should be trusted? or does he view me (and my rights) with contempt and seek to rule over me as an elitist rather than serve me as one of his constituents?
If he / she doesn’t respect the 2A (in actions, not just lip-service come election time) how are we supposed to trust them not to throw the rest of the BOR under the bus? Obviously this test isn’t a failsafe (see Bush) but I sure won’t vote for someone who shows open contempt for my right to keep & bear arms.
After 1994 and the AWB the Dems KNOW gun-control is a losing issue, which is why they avoid the issue if at all possible and offer platitudes and non-answers when it does come up. Of course one only has to look at their actual record to see where they really stand (what they did/said prior to their candidacy.) In Obama’s case, well you can’t get much more anti-gun than he is.
Veroferitas – I doubt they’ll see the error in their ways the way the Republicans did on civil rights. They seem eager to just lump us together as “unenlightened” paranoid nuts when it is in fact they who are afraid of us exercising our rights.
Normally Obama might have a chance with my vote since McCain sucks sooooooooo badly, but his stance on banning handguns, no matter how much he bobs, weaves and lies, is a non-starter.
I will hold my nose, write out donation checks and man phone banks for a candidate who I would not trust as a utility company meter reader under normal circumstances.
Bottom line, a supreme court with more Scalias or more Ginsbergs. My freedom depends on my vote for a supremely shitty candidate.
Good job, anti-gunners.
I’ll bitterly cling to my guns and my Bible until Obama outlaws them both, then I’ll join the Michigan Militia 😀
There are many more like you. Many people dislike McCain, but just will not vote for a guy who doesn’t recognize their RKBA. I think Heller exemplifies the importance of keeping a gun-grabber like Obama out of the White House, particularly when you pair him with a Democratic Congress.
Is it worth it, anti-gunners? Your insistence on stupid and utterly ineffective laws (Chicago anyone) and branding people like me kooks might bring about…
PRESIDENT MCCAIN!!!!
Your only hope is an Obama / Webb ticket. A strong gun rights supporter partially cancels a gun sissy.
So… Libertarians lean Republican because of guns? Steve… do you want to take this one?
McCain represents almost everything I dislike in politics: Corruption, hypocricy, sense of entitlement, stupidity, arrogance.
But Obama represents mommy saying “you’ll put your eye out”.
Some choice.
Guns, and a viceral loathing of the “nanny state”.
I hate infringment of my rights, I really hate justifications because “its for your own good”.
Now here’s a cookie. If you’re a good citizen you can do some state approved activities until legally mandated bedtime.
“Guns, and a viceral loathing of the “nanny state”.
I hate infringment of my rights, I really hate justifications because “its for your own good”.”
Yup, guns, and “Nanny-Stateism” in general are why I’m not a Democrat.
Fair enough, Mike… but you don’t strike me as a Libertarian either.
As a former Republican, here is the though process:
Under either party I would have to have a private room at the library and my own offramp to justify my taxes.
The Solicitor General thinks we have a right to keep and bear arms, unless he thinks we shouldn’t. Obama thinks we have a theoretical right to keep and bear arms, just as long as we don’t actually want to HAVE a gun.
Republicans only get involved in wars with a profit motive (Iraq), Democrats only get involved in wars with no motive whatsoever (the Balkans).
I have a choice between $5.00 a gallon gas with Republicans or mandatory replacement of my car with my choice of a state endorsed unicycle or pogo stick under the Democrats.
This usually leads to the sound of a party membership card being shredded.
“They take it as a matter of faith that Republicans and Democrats are equally bad and corrupt.
And they they are the only pure, decent and honest players in American politics.”
I am a left libertarian, I do not, have not and will not agree with any of the Bush doctrines. I am not part of all of that, but I want the Democrats to start take a different lead by hitting hard with the truth, not letting the GOP frame the debates, and making themselves more open to the idea that civil liberties are natural rights not gifts bestowed by a government. In a democratic society there is not a seperation between the people and the government, the people are the government. If we just follow this simple and elegant premise in good faith, you are going to thrash the R’s and restore the nation to solvency. I am not sure if it is possible, but I would like to see it. Also like any other group both parties need new ideas and a fresh start after what we have suffered through. Anyone however who says good times are coming back, is either 1. lying or 2. not right in the head. We have hard years ahead of us.
Thanks for this DD — it reminds me that I still need to read Jeffrey Feldman’s (of Frameshop fame) new book Outright Barberous. He has always been very good on how the right uses violent language to control the flow of ideas or to limit debate.
“and making themselves more open to the idea that civil liberties are natural rights not gifts bestowed by a government. ”
Brian, good luck getting the Dems to do that. These are the folks who have completely bought into FDR’s concept of “rights” while completely disavowing others (the 2nd) They wouldn’t know what a “right” was if you beat them over the head with a copy of the Bill of Rights.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html
Oh, and liberals change definitions all the time.
“assault weapon,” “armor-piercing rounds,” “machine gun” “teflon-coated bullets” etc. etc.
On the history of libertarianism and the GOP, the libertarians have been getting the shit end of the stick since the dawn of Jerrry Falwell’s moral majority in 1979. The funny part is that the short end of the stick becomes the shit end of the stick by poking the religious right. The only power group who’s gotten what they want in the GOP since Nixon is the corporate and moneyed interests. As far as Reagan being a hero of the libertarian movement, all I have to say is War on Drugs.
Almost all GOP politicians since Reagan have been interested in libertarian policies only so far as it advances business interests, and not at all as it advances personal liberties.
How a libertarian can say they support the republican because he represents less of an incursion into personal rights than the democrat must not have been paying attention to what the War on Terror and the Patriot Act have done to personal liberties. But I guess none of that matters so long as they don’t advocate restrictions on firearms…
“Fair enough, Mike… but you don’t strike me as a Libertarian either.”
-Pandora
Why not?