George Orwell . . . Animal Farm . . . Politics.
The Eton-honed author wrote some marvelously good books and essays, and if you enjoy reading but haven’t yet sampled any of his work, shame on you. Granted, his oeuvre (how’s that for a $5.00 word?) walks a rather dark path at times, but much of what he says about politics and the nefarious cretins who wheedle us into wars, squander our treasure and otherwise beguile us into national sin is crucial. Orwell is not the only novelist to write about such things, but hands down no one does it better.
Let me splash a quotation here from Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language.
(i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.
Quick Aside
Who am I to question Orwell’s counsel? That’s rhetorical, but stay with me for a bit. I understand Orwell is admonishing writers of things political to get their message across honestly and succinctly, and to his points in that context I fully agree. However, his suggestions are not so helpful if they are taken without question and utilized outside a political setting. Words properly used are wondrous things, and a well written phrase can convey not only the message of the words themselves, but also something similar to the rhythm of a musical phrase or poetic prosody. To someone who finds bliss in the ebb and flow of sentences and paragraphs, that less tangible stuff is manna itself. To insist upon cutting phrases and sentences to the bone to facilitate the strict and concise conveyance of a message unnecessarily and artificially subordinates the lyrical character of our language.
Claude Debussy’s Prélude à l’après-midi d’un faune begins with an enchanting flute solo. The introduction of the theme runs for ten measures, and smack dab in the middle the composer inserts a full measure rest; no sound for the entire measure and yet that part is just as important as previous and subsequent measures. The silence … a deep breath … creates anticipation and a desire for more. It is integral to the phrase, and without it the haunting effect of Debussy’s theme would be lessened.
At first blush that comparison might seem a bit obtuse to my point, so let me put things in a nutshell, (and you may quote me at length):
Why use two or three words to make your point, when a dozen or more will suffice?
Returning to George …
The context of Orwell’s essay is how politicians use language to get what they want. Yes, all of us from our earliest moments have used some kind of language to get what we want. But politicians use words differently than most folks. Orwell discusses how politicians abuse language and twist meanings in order to — let’s be truthful here — pull a fast one over their opponents. In other words, politicians all too frequently write in ways that obscure and otherwise hide sinister maneuvers. Thus they are not writing good; they are writing evil.
Something from Orwell’s Animal Farm makes my point:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Plain words hiding a monstrous scheme.
To be fair, I’m inclined to consider most within our current crop of congresspeople more likely to bury their attempts at fraud deep within reams of paper rather than apply clever manipulation of prose. After all, it takes a bit of effort and intellectual vigor to draft something that is at once inscrutably surreptitious and contemptuously legal, and if group behavior gives any indication of a willingness to expend effort and vigor, I would say most of Congress would rather continue playing hopscotch in the playground.
Perhaps Mark Twain said it best:
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Granted, not every member of Congress deserves scorn and ridicule, but there are too many in the ranks who do. It should surprise no one that the vanguard is replete with conservative members of the Republican party, though you may be wondering why I single them out for particular notice in this article.
I’m glad you wondered.
The Republican party has a serious problem; its base is dying. The old white men and women (who care little for those of dissimilar origin, culture or appearance) and who comprise the very heart of the GOP base are draining through Life’s scuppers at an alarming rate, and their numbers are not likely to be replaced.
Unless something changes.
In reality the only things of importance (aside from the players) that can change in a political party are: 1. Its platform — the agreed upon and documented expression of the party’s values — and 2. The way the party’s values are expressed. One of those things is not subject to manipulation. The other is most assuredly malleable. During Barack Obama’s two terms Republicans in Congress altered the expression of their values by absolutely refusing to cooperate or compromise with President Obama or congressional Democrats. It was not just a once in a while refusal. It has been an across the board refusal to govern our country. The GOP leadership made it abundantly clear that the fundamental and primary goal of the GOP in Congress was to make Obama a one term president. Thus they refused to do anything but stonewall.
The other thing they made clear — another expression of their values — was their absolute unwillingness to compromise on anything of importance; an attitude and behavior that said “Our way, or no way”. There is no hiding real and true GOP values. They are plainly exposed to all who care to look and listen. I mention all that because many in the GOP heartily agree with this observation made by GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie:
“We don’t have to abandon our existing friends to make new ones.”
That sounds harmless enough as his voice echoes off the walls in an almost empty room. Ed Gillespie means the GOP doesn’t need to change its system of values (that is so attractive to existing friends) in order to bring new friends under their tent.
Or do they?
Let’s take a peek behind the curtain for just a moment and check out the “existing friends” Mr. Gillespie is referencing. (This is a very long list, so I’ll restrict it to the loudest, most powerful voices within the GOP.) Let’s start with the noisiest friend of all:
That’s cuddly Rush Limbaugh, referring to Sandra Fluke’s comments about access to birth control within health insurance plans. He expanded upon his remarks the following day:
Adorable, ain’t he? Okay, I know I’m picking the lowest fruit among the lowest fruit here, but simply put Limbaugh wields immense influence within the GOP. He moves needles when he opens his mouth, and pity unto the conservative politician who fails to curry his favor.
Speaking of wielding immense influence, next up we find the richest friends:
Only what happened didn’t stay there. Somebody goofed … or blew the whistle. At any rate, a list of invited guests was left in a hotel room; it was a directory of “Who’s Who” among the uber-wealthy conservatives in America; the millionaire/billionaire business friends who are attracted to the GOP’s values.
Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t despise people for their wealth. However, I deplore what many of them do with their wealth, and these people — in particular Charles and David Koch — are doing all they can to turn The Village into their personal fiefdom. They work behind the scenes and behind closed doors; the public and the media are not welcome.
These are the friends of whom Mr. Gillespie speaks; friends who intend to win, not work together.
Since I mentioned not working together, let’s look at a couple of “friend” states run by a GOP governor and GOP legislature, to see how they have been expressing their values recently:
The Republican-controlled Arizona state Senate voted along party lines Wednesday to pass Senate Bill 1062, a measure that would allow businesses to reject service to any customer based on the owners’ religious beliefs. (It must be noted, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the bill. Not because she necessarily disagreed with its core value, but because it would have been used as a political cudgel against Republican candidates around the nation in upcoming elections.)
As I mentioned, this list of friends could go on and on, but I’m hoping you get the point.
What Mr. Gillespie is suggesting has absolutely nothing to do with altering GOP values to become more inclusive. He’s saying, essentially and in effect, there’s nothing wrong with a set of values that bring about vile rhetoric, hidden scheming and pustular, discriminatory legislation. No, nothing wrong there. What’s wrong he says is the way the GOP is presenting their public message. They don’t need a new pig; they just need a new shade of lipstick. Some might call that a Trojan horse, like when the Trojan army made something quite dangerous (Trojan soldiers) look like something quite harmless (a big wooden horse).
And then Ka-BLAM!
So, what conclusion can we draw from the empty room at CPAC? Remember that room? The topic for discussion was GOP outreach into minority communities.
And nobody came. Nobody cared.
Mr. Gillespie, a panel member, made things plain: The GOP need not alter its platform. Simply re-word and re-package the message … slather a bit more lipstick on the pig … and snare the unsuspecting.
As they are currently expressed in American politics, Republican values embrace white, wealthy, conservative men and their distaff counterparts. (And by distaff I mean the white, wealthy, conservative women who also believe there’s no need to change the values within the party in order to reach out to women voters. Just change the wording of the message, but not the values behind the message. Reorder the words so they sound inviting to other women, without letting on that the GOP will forever continue to block and oppose equal pay for women and women’s reproductive rights, among many other vitally important issues.) The Republican leadership sees no reason to change those values — the core of their politics — but they do believe they can and must change how they express those values to the non-GOP American public.
What Stephanie Schriock (President, EMILY’S List) said in June, 2013, remains just as true today:
Republicans have done a lot of soul searching to try and figure out why women voters opposed them at historic levels during the 2012 election. They’ve questioned their message, and their messengers. But they haven’t reflected on their anti-woman policies.
Instead, the GOP just wants to “re-brand,” as if a make-over could cure a disease.
The GOP’s cynical attempt to disguise its corrupt heart brings new meaning to the definition of disingenuous.
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
I’ll close with an interesting side note:
Ed Gillespie’s minority outreach panel ran late, into the time scheduled for the next meeting. All the empty chairs began filling with people taking their seats for the next meeting in the room . . . with Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association.
And the room was packed with people and values they will . . . not . . . change.
Who knew?
