Newspeak under the Bush Administration

[John Galt]

A blog I read has been highlighting some of the Orwellian Newspeak tactics that have been deployed and effectively utilitized by the Bush Administration. The convention really caused these twists of language and meaning to come to fruition. I think Karl Rove has so fully embraced the David Horowitz strategies for transforming American politics (which are largely composed of Newspeark) that I really fear any successful president in the future will only take us further down this road.

This an essay by Henry Giroux about Newspeak in the Bush administration:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Giroux0820.htm

And this is from a blog by a noted log cabin conservative (who is going to vote against Bush just because of gay rights concerns) lamenting the Orwellian tactics used in the convention:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_08_29_dish_archive.html#109418570873093116

Anyway, just food for thought.

[gstelmack]

A blog I read has been highlighting some of the Orwellian Newspeak tactics that have been deployed and effectively utilitized by politicians. There, fixed it for you.

[albionmoonlight]

Interesting links.

gst--does the fact that all politicians (in your words) misuse language make it OK for Bush to do? Is there no point in critical review of someone/thing as long as the criticism could also apply to others?

[Glengoyne]

You know what. I thought it was an interesting read. Right until I got to the "Tax cuts for the rich", and "slashing of school lunch programs". Both of those are age old Democratic scare tactics used to smear the entire republican party. To employ them in an article asserting that the Bush administration is manipulating public opinion is, to say the least, ironic.

[CamEdwards]

Andrew Sullivan jumped the shark quite a while ago. And JohnGalt... I thought this was going to be a new, non-partisan you. You have no idea how disappointed I am.

[John Galt]

Andrew Sullivan jumped the shark quite a while ago. And JohnGalt... I thought this was going to be a new, non-partisan you. You have no idea how disappointed I am.

I prefer the term anti-partisan. ;)

And I'm not non-partisan, I'm focusing on criticizing language and argument. If Kerry is president, I plan to do the same thing. And the legacy of Newspeak is old (the easy Clinton one is "I did not have sex with that woman"). The point is, just because others do it, as albionmoonlight points out, does not make it any better. And I'm concerned that Horowitz's book and Karl Rove have really made things much, much worse.

As for Andrew Sullivan, I'm no fan of the man, but I found his comments on the convention to be right on.

[Ksyrup]

JG is "postmodern partisan", thank you.

[John Galt]

JG is "postmodern partisan", thank you.

That's much better. :D

[gstelmack]

gst--does the fact that all politicians (in your words) misuse language make it OK for Bush to do? Is there no point in critical review of someone/thing as long as the criticism could also apply to others?
No, it doesn't make it okay for Bush to do it, but it also means that posts decrying newspeak should attack all sides and attack newspeak in general, not just use it as an excuse to poke at one.

[John Galt]

No, it doesn't make it okay for Bush to do it, but it also means that posts decrying newspeak should attack all sides and attack newspeak in general, not just use it as an excuse to poke at one.

Why? If the Bush Administration is in power now and they have had particular occassions to engage in Newspeak, why does it matter if others do it as well? Engaging in a historical discussion of Newspeak and "attack[ing] all sides" would be a book, not a post. I'm unsure how this discredits anything posted above.

[gstelmack]

Why? If the Bush Administration is in power now and they have had particular occassions to engage in Newspeak, why does it matter if others do it as well? Engaging in a historical discussion of Newspeak and "attack[ing] all sides" would be a book, not a post. I'm unsure how this discredits anything posted above.
Your post seems to indicate that Bush's use of newspeak is somehow new and revolutionary:

I think Karl Rove has so fully embraced the David Horowitz strategies for transforming American politics (which are largely composed of Newspeark)
I'd argue that it's been going on for a lot longer than that, and Clinton and his cronies were also masters of this (heck, Clinton found a way to redefine "sexual relations"). I don't see precisely how American politics has been "transformed".

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I understand bills and laws are complex things, but shouldn't there be some sort of regulation for deliberately misleading names? For instance the "clear skies" legislation which in fact weakens environmental regulations. If we can do it for a package of cookies why cant we do it for our laws?

[John Galt]

Your post seems to indicate that Bush's use of newspeak is somehow new and revolutionary:


I'd argue that it's been going on for a lot longer than that, and Clinton and his cronies were also masters of this (heck, Clinton found a way to redefine "sexual relations"). I don't see precisely how American politics has been "transformed".

That I can understand, although I think the first essay makes some arguments why things have changed. I do, however, what you are saying now is quite different than saying a post should attack all sides to be relevant.

[John Galt]

I understand bills and laws are complex things, but shouldn't there be some sort of regulation for deliberately misleading names? For instance the "clear skies" legislation which in fact weakens environmental regulations. If we can do it for a package of cookies why cant we do it for our laws?

And who would determine that? No bill ever has a "bad" name - Democrats may want to name Bush's tax cuts, "The Screwing the Poor Act" while Republicans would not be so inclined. I think "Clear Skies" was one of the more egregious examples of confusing names. However, I'm much more disturbed by names like "Patriot Act" which invoke a lot of symbolism for very insidious acts by government.

[Huckleberry]

Better than newspeak is the ability to avoid the topic and quickly force one's debate opponent to waste time defending himself instead of his argument. If you can simultaneously attack a third party your opponent is using to bolster his position without addressing his point either, you're the man.

Cam demonstrated the ad hominem skill quite ably in this thread.

[CraigSca]

OMG, I never noticed this before. I am now switching my vote from Bush to Kerry. Thank you so much!

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I knew Craig wouldn't let me down with his comment.

Clearly rational discussion isn't something he is comfortable with.

[CraigSca]

Rational discussion is yucky and pooey. Always has been.

Here's hoping I didn't let you down with that one :)

[JPhillips]

Cam: Let me guess, by "jump the shark" you mean "stopped supporting Bush".