“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible,” wrote George Orwell in 1946. This is true today as much as it was true then.
The degree to which current political discourse revolves around and relies upon vague euphemisms such as ‘regime change,’ ‘preemptive strike’ and ‘collateral damage’ would, no doubt, impel Orwell to expand his essay on politics and the English language with an addendum: Politics and the American Language.
“Political language,” wrote Orwell, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
When we use words to convey meaning and evoke concrete images, they work as successful tools of communication. However, when we consciously abuse words they turn into dangerous weapons of deception through which meaning is disguised and distorted.
At this, Bush is a pro.
During a press conference on April 6, 2002, President Bush stated that “the policy of my government is the removal of Saddam [Hussein].” Later during the conference, a member of the press brought up the Government’s previous so-called policy of not targeting heads of states, and of letting countries decide who their leaders should be. To this, President Bush responded “maybe I should be a little less direct and be more nuanced, and say we support regime change. […]. I think regime change sounds a lot more civil, doesn’t it?”
It seems Bush is right.
‘Regime change’ does sound a lot more civil than ‘removal’ or ‘overthrow.’ Just as ‘collateral damage’ sounds more acceptable than ‘dead people.’ Just as ‘preemptive strike’ sounds less objectionable than ‘aggression.’
“Abstract phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them,” wrote Orwell in his time.
Collateral damage is hard to envision. Dead people are not.
We think and understand in images as much as in words. Especially emotional responses need images. When words fail to evoke these images – either through conscious deceitful or absentminded use - they turn into mere symbols without concrete meaning.
‘Collateral damage’ currently refers to anything from the effects of the Spam Wars, to the effects of one nation’s collapse of financial markets on other financial markets, to the effects of war. It can thus refer to anything from the rejection of a Macintosh manual by an e-mail server, to a recession, to the death of innocent civilians – women, children, babies; mothers, fathers, grandparents. Even when used in the context of war, the _expression is unlikely to evoke the image of what it stands for: killed innocent civilians – dead bodies.
Collateral; originally, to accompany as secondary or subordinate. Damage. A car usually incurs damage. A bike incurs damage. To say something is damaged, implies that the object continues to exist, merely in damaged, inferior form. What are we then to understand the damage in collateral damage to mean? Death of human being? A dead human being does not equal a damaged human being. Or does it refer to the unsuccessful conduction of a desirable war wherein no civilian lives are lost? Searching for the accurate meaning is futile, as the words were chosen precisely to disguise the meaning of what they refer to.
Not only abstract phraseology, as Orwell wrote, but also euphemistic phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up negative mental images or connotations. If one wants to sound more civil.
As we hear over and over in the media, from President Bush, from press secretary Ari Fleischer, from spokesman Richard Boucher, “the administration is committed to a regime change in Iraq.” (NYT Oct. 15,16,17) We no longer want to remove, overthrow, tip, topple, or conquer the Iraqi government – which would come closer to naming the actual process of Saddam’s removal. It is now our policy to change the Iraqi government. To change. An everyday word for an everyday procedure. We change our clothes, we change a diaper, we change a regime. Quick, simple and civil. Rather than long, forceful and political as ouster, removal and overthrow might imply.
Orwell wrote of political terms in the English language, “words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.” And this is precisely how ‘regime change’ seems to be abused today. Whatever it referred to in its original sense, when first used by the Clinton Administration in 1999, it now refers to anything from the assassination of a head of state, to the removal of a head of state, to the removal of a head of state plus weapons of mass destruction, to the fabrication of a puppet government. Press secretary Ari Fleischer said on October 16 that the administration’s policy of ‘regime change,’ and ‘removal of real threat’ referred not only to the removal of Saddam Hussein, but also to the removal of weapons of mass destruction.
When we hear ‘regime change’ some of us may therefore envision the smooth replacement of one government by another. Others may envision a bloody war, death and destruction, wounded soldiers and dead civilians. Most of us – in this country, anyway – probably envision a slightly simplified version of Saddam Hussein’s face, some troops, a few bombs, a few bombers and various anonymous Iraqi government representatives who comprise the ‘regime’ replaced by other, friendlier anonymous Iraqi (puppet) government representatives.
The more we hear expressions such as these, the staler they become, the less we think about what we’re hearing, and the less we envision anything at all. What Orwell said of political speakers ought to be expanded to include political hearers. “If a speech [the politician] is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying.”
