Orwellian Newspeak has been thrust upon us by the new administration. For those of you who either don’t remember your summer reading from high school or chose not to read it at all, “Newspeak” was the means by which George Orwell, in his novel 1984, demonstrated the power of an oppressive regime’s control over dialogue and thus thoughts. The novel describes newspeak as “the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year.”
Language is the key to our very understanding. Studies have shown that most people think and contemplate by using a running dialogue in their head. Through the manipulation of the language that is used in the marketplace of ideas one can essentially control the parameters of any discussion. Essentially, the words used to describe the thought controls the thought. Here’s a quick refresher on Newspeak.
The basic idea behind Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) which reinforce the total dominance of the State. Similarly, Newspeak root words served as both nouns and verbs, which allowed further reduction in the total number of words; for example, “think” served as both noun and verb, so the word thought was not required and could be abolished. A staccato rhythm of short syllables was also a goal, further reducing the need for deep thinking about language. (See duckspeak.) Successful Newspeak meant that there would be fewer and fewer words – dictionaries would get thinner and thinner.
In addition, words with opposite meanings were removed as redundant, so “bad” became “ungood”. Words with comparative and superlative meanings were also simplified, so “better” became “gooder”, and “best” likewise became “goodest”. Intensifiers could be added, so “great” became “plusgood”, and “excellent” and “splendid” likewise became “doubleplusgood”. Adjectives were formed by adding the suffix “-ful” to a root word (e.g., “goodthinkful”, orthodox in thought), and adverbs by adding “-wise” (“goodthinkwise”, in an orthodox manner). In this manner, as many words as possible were removed from the language. The ultimate aim of Newspeak was to reduce even the dichotomies to a single word that was a “yes” of some sort: an obedient word with which everyone answered affirmatively to what was asked of them
The new administration has instituted at least two instances of Newspeak principles in the first 60 days. First, the administration has decided that we will no longer refer to terrorist attacks as such. They now fall under the category of “man made disasters.” How reassuring. Under the Obama administration we can be certain will be free of terror attacks. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services describes man made disasters as follows: “Man-made disasters are events which, either intentionally or by accident cause severe threats to public health and well-being. Because their occurrence is unpredictable, man-made disasters pose an especially challenging threat that must be dealt with through vigilance, and proper preparedness and response.” In fact, Janet Napolitano, the Head of Homeland Security, now refuses to use the words terrorism or terrorist threats. She calls their use part of the old “politics of fear.” By eliminating the use of the word “terrorism” the administration seeks to transform attacks on U.S. sovereignty from acts of war to merely unpredictable events similar to those caused by nature in the form of hurricanes or floods. Man made disasters “feel” much more palatable than terror. I know I feel safer now.
Further, the Obama administration had decided to no longer use the term “enemy combatant” instead substituting it with the term “detainee.” The Obama administration is seeking to sanitize an unsavory ingredient in combat, that of the enemy. It appears that under the new administration there will be no acknowledgment that the US actually has enemies. Individuals seeking to seek and destroy this nation are merely regular old gents hoping to be the source of man made disasters. Perhaps we should give this a try with the economy as well. Referring to the current state of the economy as “doubleplusungood” is sure to boost consumer confidence.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM
WellsR
Winston,
The administration has rolled out a third example recently, the “global war on terror” has been re-termed as “overseas contingency operations.” It’s hard to make this stuff up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html
Is there a theme building?
March 25, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Winston Galt
Well, I feel much better now. Thanks for the update.
March 25, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Billy ray
Alright guys, blogging 101 is in session.
First lesson: blogging and reporting information without posting a link makes you look like a hack, editorial writer. It would have been easy to post a quick link for each of the two policies.
Making blog readers do their own research on things that are not common knowledge is bad blogging.
March 25, 2009 at 4:19 PM
You Know Who
How was it not “newspeak” when Bush CREATED the phrase “war on terror” out of thin air? The world knew what terrorism was, and didn’t need any new phrases. Yet, when Obama refuses to continue on the newly created phrase, he is censoring? Any argument you make applies equally to Bush or Obama. Keep digging that hole.
March 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM
WellsR
Oh fun, an anonymous poster who fails to make a point. You Know Who, no I don’t know who, but I will respond to your e-smack talk none-the-less. I guess it’s my thoughtful conservative ways that compel me to respond to your comment. However, because you probably aren’t willing to consider any conservative view point from the outset, I will direct my response to the others who read this response.
I am certain that you didn’t read Winston’s post, or at least your response appears to give that conclusion. Winston was attempting to point out recent specific examples of where the Obama administration has taken to re-terming important terms and phrases that deal with a significant military conflict between the US military and a litany of shadow organizations. I recall quips from my liberal friends during Bush 43′s term that he actually spoke in terms of “those who will do us harm”. We all understand that the most vocal liberals have fully adopted a relativist POV, and Bush’s terminology had no place in their high and enlightened level of thought. Enter Obama.
Now, we are literally re-terming the “global war on terror,” “acts of terror,” and “enemy combatant” as recent examples. By blunting our terminology, we are adopting a less definite stance in the international arena with regard to our commitment to engaging “enemy combatants” on foreign soil. I suppose that is what you voted for anyway, You Know Who? If we don’t fight, surely they won’t be mad at us anymore. So under your thought process, if we shade the actual meaning of these terms and phrases, the global conflicts will magically cease or heal themselves? It reminds me of Kerry’s suggestion that we can control terrorism through an international police action. Surely, you don’t hold that POV, You Know Who?
Bush was actually doing just the opposite of “newspeak” by giving a clear definition with regard to our objectives and our enemies. But at core, there is no logical reason that you can bring forth for these kinder-gentler words. Well, at least I would love to hear that response, not that I expect it, You Know Who…
March 25, 2009 at 8:35 PM
MadeinAmerica
I REFUSE to use the BS PC that this administration insists on promoting. War on Terror is just that…don’t “sanitize” it!!
March 26, 2009 at 10:36 AM
You Know Who
WellsR:
There’s more than one way to skin a cat (or so I’ve heard).
The new approach to terrorism uses different words to show a different approach, not a lower commitment. Using the word “war” evokes a commitment that the means justify the ends. For example, the abuses that we witnessed at Abu Ghraib and the deplorable conditions at Gitmo would not have been justified absent a “war.” The fact that cutting back on these abuses also has the effect of giving our enemies one less reason to hate us is surely a benefit. More importantly, these acts are not in line with American values that respect the human dignity of all persons. Numerous sections of our Bill of Rights give protections to “persons,” not citizens of the United States. Was this a mistake? I think not. Toning down the language to show that not all actions will be justified is in line with America’s commitments and may, in the long run, decrease the number of people who want to do evil things to our country.
Second, the use of the word war is legally incorrect. To declare war, our Constitutions specifically requires that a war be declared by Congress. However, no such “war” has been authorized. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States) This begs the question: Who is using the newspeak? Is it the President who used a Constitutionally defined term without following the Constitution? Or, is it the President who refuses to continue the inappropriate use? You decide.
I think this is an issue that people with and without croakies can agree on!
You Know Who
March 26, 2009 at 6:41 PM
WellsR
YKW, if I may abbreviate your full name. To begin with the end of your comment, I find croakies a bit unnecessary of late, and have abandoned them. I appreciate a thoughtful response, which is ALWAYS welcome. Discussion is what I live for, so thanks for the response.
As to your points in the last comment. I have a few responses.
First, let me state at the outset I am not a Bush apologist for much (especially his lack of spending discipline), but I think it is beyond rational debate to argue that his national defense policies have created a safer environment for American citizens, and will be the centerpiece of his legacy. Were they perfect? By no means, but “peace through strength” does have a lot of merit. With regard to Abu Ghraib, and the early sub-standard conditions of Gitmo, I cannot state in more clear terms that those were DEPLORABLE acts, and could only be taken to represent our nation or military by those who are looking for reasons to dislike us. It was not positive from a PR standpoint, and was a major embarrassment, but people know conflicts are nasty and terming a conflict an “overseas contingency operation” will do NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, to change the potential for future Abu Ghraibs. Now, if we could just get CNN International to quite providing fodder to those who would like to do us harm abroad, we could really improve our image without having to sacrifice necessary military measures. I imagine their coverage of our future “overseas contingency operations” will be more positive, don’t you?
Second, I have to challenge your assertion of a “using different words to show a different approach.” There is some truth to your assertion, under federal law the “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay cannot be tried in military tribunals if they aren’t found to be “unlawful alien enemy combatants.” So if we are using different words to show a different approach, I suppose future military tribunals are now out of the question. And because they are no longer believed to be “enemy combatants,” what justification have we for continuing to detain them? The fact that we call them “detainees?” I think you see how that hurts the case.
Third, Obama’s policies with regard to handling “detainees” is actually almost IDENTICAL to Bush’s. How so? The Center for Constitutional Rights says, “whatever they call those they claim the right to detain, they have adopted almost the same standard (as) the Bush administration with one change, the addition of the word ‘substantially’ before the word ‘supported.’” They go on to say, “this is really a case of old wine in new bottles.” Just in case you were wondering, the Center for Constitutional Rights is no shill for conservatives.
Fourth, count me as not surprised that Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU, made his contribution to the discussion this week by stating, “It is critical that the administration promptly narrow the category for individuals who can be held in military detention so that the U.S. truly comports with the laws of war and rejects the unlawful detention power of the past eight years.” I assume that was music to your ears, but there are two MAJOR problems contained therein. First, as you have so rightly pointed out, we are not officially at war, and thus, the Geneva Convention has problems here. Second, Anthony argues that Obama himself is acting illegally by adopting essentially the identical detention policies as his predecessor. It’s starting to get a bit dirty isn’t it.
Fifth, with regard to your valid point that we have not issued a formal declaration of war, thus we are not at “war” per se, several points come to mind. First, please stop referring to the following conflicts as: The American Revolutionary War, The American Civil War, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Persian Gulf War, The War in Afghanistan, and most recently The Iraq War. NONE of these were actually “War” under your truthful proposition that Congress must declare war. As a matter of interest, there have only been five wars declared by Congress (War of 1821, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, WWI, and WWII). But the Congress has another power up its sleeve, a power used 12 times to date, the power to authorize the use of military force. Which by the way, was the means of authorizing both the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts. So whether you want to use a definition of war like the official declaration of war, or an authorization of military force, they are both wars. Just ask any enlisted person, or someone in your corner like Cindy Sheehan. I bet they will agree war by any other name is still hell, and stings just as badly.
Sixth, the issue over whether Guantanamo “detainees” are to be afforded protection under the US Constitution was settled in 2008 with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 split decision in Boumediene v. Bush. While they are to be afforded the right of habeas corpus, the court issued a reminder that almost no other cases brought by “detainees” would “look like this one.” So I suppose this point is somewhat asymmetric to our discussion.
Last, let me close by disagreeing with the fundamental premise of your statement that “[t]oning down the language to show that not all actions will be justified is in line with America’s commitments and may, in the long run, decrease the number of people who want to do evil things to our country.” I was poking fun when I suggested shading our intent by blunting the terms we use to describe them would make the global conflicts magically cease. I now see that that is a fundamental argument from the liberal POV. That was a bit of a surprise to me, but I guess it shouldn’t have been in hindsight. I will close on this point to say that you can be serious. I will believe this type of thinking when UBL himself calls for a truce. And for the record, UBL has already weighed in. In January 2009, he called for a renewed Jihad, and said “[t]he duty is to urge people to jihad and to enlist the youth into jihad brigades.” But I suppose Obama will mop all of this up in an “overseas contingency operation”?