"When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases … one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human, but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them."
– George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946
The latest assault on our civil rights in the name of public safety and security has created a renewed interest in George Orwell. The similarities between the world of Big Brother and the Bush administration’s war on terror are disturbing, but they will pass. Eventually Americans, and those of us who suffer in their shadows, will grow tired of both the war and the restrictions on freedoms.
Less immediate and threatening is the continued decline of language and its usage in politics that George Orwell first noted in 1946. Orwell’s essay was an attack on the poor English that leads to foolish action, and a call to regenerate politics through clear language.
Half a century later, the situation has worsened. Disturbing new trends in political language so completely fill our daily lives that we read and hear them with anesthetized acceptance. Orwell believed the political language of his day was afflicted with dying metaphors, pretentious diction and meaningless words. Today, we face additional obstacles to clarity. Politicians strive to evoke emotions instead of thought, and embed catch phrases instead of ideas. The metaphors come in streams. Pretentiousness continues to rule political debate. The list of meaningless words has grown so large that politicians can deliver entire speeches without using a concrete expression.
Great Leader Bush cannot be accused of pretentiousness, but he is guilty of all other offences in this and other utterances: "Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve."
Speechwriters worked hard to create the cadence and classic structure of the phrases. The work is let down by the tired metaphor of "steely resolve" and vague words such as "American foundations" and "resolve." These words may resonate, but they are empty echoes.
Today, meaningless phrases such as "weapons of mass destruction" beat on our consciousness daily – 720,000 hits on Google and counting. Anything that can cause mass destruction is a weapon, and anything used often enough can create mass destruction. Both machetes and cars have killed more people than anthrax, sarin gas and all the other tools of terrorism put together.
"Weapons of mass destruction" is the most popular phrase today, but it has many rivals: "family values" (300,000), "friendly fire" (95,000), "collateral damage" (150,000) and – a personal favourite – "axis of evil" (110,000). The last term is devoid of meaning. The countries called out are not an axis in reality or in metaphor; evil is a deeply relative term that has no meaning without a context.
The Bush administration and political hacks around the world use these terms instead of explaining the context. The Bushites do not want to define evil or evildoers – the definition would have too many elements of a self-portrait. (Developing and using chemical and nuclear weapons on civilians sound familiar?) Instead, phrases are created to throw at foes, and the public is left to infer what it will.
Such dramatic words are not the Canadian way, but our politicians are just as guilty of abusing English. Read the 2002 Throne Speech twice – once before reading Orwell’s essay and once after. The first time, the meaningless terms pass through you as they do each day. The second time, they will stand out as if italicized: globalization, innovation, competitive cities, healthy communities (a ridiculous anthropomorphism), knowledge economy, lifelong learners, life chances gap. The metaphors and pretenses are few, although we do "tap into and unleash energy" and have compassionate care for "gravely ill and dying children."
Orwell states, "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." His indefensible acts were larger than those possible in Canadian politics, but Jean Chrétien’s letter to Paul Martin informing him of his resignation is a remarkable document. Hours had to be spent creating a letter that both informs a person of their "resignation" and laments their departure.
Closer to home, Albertans have a leader whose ability to separate language from action is rivaled only by the free-trade-loving, tariff-imposing Bushites. Klein’s willful abuse of English requires more than an essay – check out Quotations of Chairman Ralph by Calgary author Ian Doig for a career of political ramblings from the ministry of truth that will turn your eyes into blank disks.
ONLINE RESOURCES
· www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html – Orwell’s essay on the death of political language.
· www.sft-ddt.gc.ca/hnav/hnav07_e.htm – 2002 Speech from the Throne.
· www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/06/03/chretien_letter020603 – Chrétien’s letter firing Martin.
· www.lssu.edu/banished – The fight for English is not lost. Lake Superior State University’s List of Banished Words. |
