On Language and Responsibility: A Progressive View

(Crossposted at Political Cortex- but soon we will no longer cross-post on a regular basis! So come join the Cortex and help us grow!)

The Republican message machine is broken--but it's still blaring louder than ever.  In the Situation Room on Monday afternoon, Nicolle Wallace (aka Nicolle Devinish, married during Katrina) attempted to respond to Wolf Blitzer's question about the "horrible" poll numbers the President is racking up week after week.  Sixty-eight percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.  What was Nicole's response?

"The American people know that this Administration is focused on their priorities, you know, securing our borders, and reining in spending." (CNN's most recent poll indicates 65% disapprove of Bush on immigration; only 37% approve of his job performance.)

This brings me to a subject near and dear to my heart, as well as to my profession:  the political abuse of language and truth. Some of you may be old enough to remember a Sunday column by William Safire called "On Language," which appeared regularly in the NYT magazine before Safire retired. (Available for sale online in collected, recycled versions.)

Often just a pedantic rant against misused words, Safire used this feature to defend Republican administrations who neglected truth, ethics, and accuracy in their campaign slogans, messages, and talking points, while also attacking liberals who insisted that language had meaning, intention, and value in public forums.  As a practicing communication consultant, writer, and University faculty member, I frequently read Safire's columns if for no other reason than to note the use of marginally recognized words in the political lexicon and Mr. Safire's distorting, conservative application to impending legislation or policy discussions.  Given the common conservative complaint that liberals were elitist academics and intellectuals, this was particularly curious to me.  In hindsight, it seems to have been an early indication of IOKIYAR.  In other words, Republicans in general, and "conservatives" across the board, seemed more willing to accept "elitist," academic discussions about the use of language from the likes of Safire, George Will, William F. Buckley, and other denizens of the right wing.

Regardless of Safire's motives, however, it was refreshing to see a columnist focus on words and language, even when expressed through complex, and sometimes tortured, syntax.  With no one having picked up his mantle, it's time for progressives to reclaim this territory, since, as "everyone knows," universities and the progressive blogosphere are dominated by "librul professors."  But we also have a conviction that language should convey truth.

Witness the trite, but still "operative" talking points from the GOP's currently most visible voice boxes:  Dan Bartlett, Ken Mehlman, and George W. Bush. Here's Bartlett on CNN last Friday and also on MSNBC yesterday (my emphases). (See if you can spot the circular logic and direct contradictions, while putting aside the media's emphasis on characterizing the President's critics as "Democrats.")

BLITZER: Your critics, especially the Democrats, are already accusing the president of inappropriately playing politics on this Veterans Day. What say you?

BARTLETT: Well, Wolf, it's very regrettable that members of the Democratic party and other critics of the president chose this day or any day during a time of war to level baseless, false charges against the president of the United States. .  .  . But when we're here in Washington, having to have a debate about things that these senators on the Democratic party know are not true, to claim that President Bush misled the American people, is not the type of signal we ought to be sending to our troops on a Veterans Day or to the enemy who are trying to undermine the will of the American people.

BLITZER: But is that appropriate on Veterans Day, to start leveling charges like that? There are plenty of other forums the president can use to go after his Democratic critics.

BARTLETT: And we should do it every day. This is the greatness about our country. That we can have open discussions about the big issues of the day, Wolf.  

(Hmm, guess it's OK for the Democrats to "criticize," then?)

BARTLETT: But it is important on a day like today, where we're supposed to be remembering the sacrifice that our veterans have made and to recognize the sacrifice that is being made as we speak in the war on terror. It's important that a commander in chief be able to speak bluntly to the American people about the challenges we face, the strategy we have to win. It's also important to make sure our critics' charges don't go unanswered, as well. Today is as appropriate day as any to speak to these issues.

Once again, IOKIYAR.  It's OK to talk about these things if the President does it, but not OK for his critics--especially, if they are Democrats:

BLITZER: Basically what the president is saying, and I'm paraphrasing, is that these critics of his policies are offering aid and comfort to the enemy, they're encouraging the terrorists. They're endangering U.S. troops. I spoke with Senator Kennedy just a little while ago. Listen to what he said. (video clip here)

BARTLETT: If we were to follow the policies of Ted Kennedy, not only would Saddam Hussein still be in control of that country, he would still be in control of their neighboring country in Kuwait. He voted against this war, he voted against the war in 1991.

Wolf tries again, taking the bait on Bartlett's reference to Kennedy's vote against the $87 billion.

BLITZER: If you would have followed, the critics will point out, if you would have followed the policies, what Senator Kennedy recommended before the war. And he voted against that resolution authorizing the president to go to war, what, some 2,000 plus U.S. troops would still be alive, 20,000 would not be injured, $200 billion would not be spent. And Saddam Hussein without weapons of mass destruction would still be contained by United Nations overflights and inspections, if you will. He has a point when he says you should listen to him.

BARTLETT: Well, Wolf, everybody recognizes that the costs that we have to pay for freedom in our country is an enormous cost. Today is a day where we reflect upon that cost. The fact of the matter is, under his policies, Saddam Hussein was still a threat. David Kay, Charles Dalfour, other independent investigations clearly pointed out that Saddam Hussein was still a clear threat to our country, to the world. They are one of only seven countries that are a state sponsor of terror. They are the only place in the world where U.S. and British pilots were being shot at on a daily basis. This man was a threat. In a post-9/11 world, it was important that our country start confronting threats before they fully materialize. It was the right decision then and it was the right decision today.

OK.  The rationale shifted slightly again.  Did you notice?  Under his policies, Saddam was still a threat. But it was important that we confront threats before they fully materialize.

So, let me understand this:  Saddam was a threat.  No, wait,  .  .  . Saddam wasn't a threat but his policies were.  No, wait,  .  .  he wasn't a threat, but "it was important that we confront threats before they are fully threats." Is that about it, Dan?  Is that another way of saying launching a "pre-emptive war"?

Now that is not only a new American policy, but it's also a new version of the "truth." Then Wolfie tries to elicit a response to a video clip of Howard Dean stating, "They have some nerve with some 2,056 brave Americans dead to even begin to speak like that and they ought to be ashamed of themselves."

BLITZER: I take it you're not ashamed of yourself.

BARTLETT: Not only not ashamed, but they need to have the debate within the own Democratic party. Over 100 senators and Congressmen of the Democratic party voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power because they saw the same intelligence that George W. Bush saw.

BARTLETT: Saddam Hussein was a threat. Our country is better off with him out of the power. We have liberated more than 50 million people over the last three years during this war on terror. That's something that our country not only ought to be proud of, but be comforted by the fact that it's putting our country on the path to more security.

OK, wait.  Now, I'm confused again.  We're back to Saddam's being a threat.  But at least everyone feel more secure, now.  Right??

BLITZER:   The latest A.P. poll, just out today, shows that 62 percent of the American people disapprove of the way he's handling the situation in Iraq. Only 37 percent of the American people approve. That's a very staggering number from your perspective.

BARTLETT: Well, Wolf, what is desperate is when a party has to advance as a strategy, a willful and deliberate campaign of misleading the American people by claiming the president lied to them. That's not much of a positive optimistic agenda. And I think that's why every poll demonstrates that the American people don't have any confidence in the Democratic party to articulate a vision. Particularly when it comes to winning a war on terror.

Wait.  .  . which party are we talking about?  Which party waged a "willful and deliverate campaign of misleading .  .  . "  oh, nevermind.  (As for the GWOT--remember that one?)

As dissonant as Bartlett is, however, Ken Mehlman may have wrested the trophy for tone-deaf replies from Dubya's fingers in his recent appearance on MTP.  Here are some choice excerpts, after Russert shows video clips from the President's speeches about the intelligence "evidence."

Mehlman: The fact is, the intelligence was voluminous.  It was based on multiple sources.  It turned out not to have been accurate.  But the notion that there is somehow a war that's based on a fraud, that Bush lied, that Bush lies, people die, which is what they're saying now--the fact is, what message does that send to the troops? What message does that send to the Iraqi people?  What message does that send to the terrorists?  .  .  .  The reason it's irresponsible for them to say that, is because the fact that they looked at the same information, the previous administration looked at the same information, and they all came to the exact same conclusions.  And to say that somehow someone was trying to mislead is irresponsible.

Are you getting this?  It's "irresponsible" to SAY someone was trying to mislead.  I guess misleading is, by contrast, "responsible."  Didn't you get the talking points, Tim?

But here is the real kicker, and it was also in Bartlett's public "memo":

Mehlman: There's another issue here .  .  .  .  Would we have been safer if we waited until Saddam Hussein, who we know repeatedly has used weapons of mass destruction, who we know from the Dulfer report was trying to reconstitute his weapons program, who we know had invaded his neighbors, had supported terrorists, had terrorists operating out of his country, if we had waited till it was finely reconstituted, would that have been responsible? Let's also remember the history of intelligence.  [HINT: IT'S THE DEMOCRATS' FAULT.] The intelligence services in 1991 underestimated where Saddam's program was.  They missed that India and Pakistan would get nuclear weapons.  They were wrong about when the Soviet Union would have a nuclear bomb and when China had had a nuclear bomb.  So it comes to this, in a post-9/11 world, do you want leaders who will, when they have to make a tough call, make the call to protect the American people, based on a majority of the intelligence, or who will make one call, and then reverse that call for political gain?  That's the question.

RUSSERT:  Well, what the Democrats are saying is that the International Atomic Energy Agency in real time was saying, "Mr. President, you're wrong. Mr. Vice President, you're wrong."  The head of the CIA, George Tenet, apologized for saying that we had gotten uranium from Africa.  There's a suggestion being the administration cherry-picked intelligence, shared with the public the most dramatic...

MEHLMAN:  Yeah.  (Good one, Ken.)

RUSSERT:  ...and did not give them any of the caveats.  The president talked about the mushroom cloud when, in fact, there was no hard evidence that Saddam had or was on his way to developing a nuclear program.

MEHLMAN:  Did Hillary Clinton cherry-pick?  Did Bill Clinton cherry-pick? Did Jay Rockefeller cherry-pick?  Every one of these Democratic senators--John Kerry--they all talked about the same things.

Get it?  IT'S the DEMOCRATS' FAULT.  When Russert asked about Republican priorities, Mehlman had a solution:

Russert: This is what the voters say.  Preference for 2006 congressional candidates, Republican-controlled Congress, 37; Democrats, 48.  Our congressional Republicans, "Do they have the same priorities as you for the country?"  Same priorities, yes, 24; no, 58.  "In which issues do you prefer the Democrats over the Republicans?"  Environment, gas prices, health care, Social Security, education, reducing deficits, energy policy, economy, government spending, taxes, trade issues, foreign policy, abortion, immigration, ethics in government, and Iraq--16 of the 19 issues we presented to the people, they chose the Democrats.  Your party's in trouble?

MEHLMAN:  Tim, usually, when I get a poll like that, I will fire the pollster.  That's my response that I usually do to that.  Look, in all seriousness, there's no question we're in difficult political times.  And the question is fundamentally, do we have an agenda of change?.  .  .  What they want is change, and they want change because too often, the government hasn't served their needs.

I'd say Mehlman hit one out of the park with that.  But Tim must have been gearing up for Howard next, or by now he just enjoyed pestering Ken:

RUSSERT:  But there's no linkage between Iraq and September 11th.

MEHLMAN:  Well, the lessons...

RUSSERT:  Saddam Hussein was not involved in September 11th.

MEHLMAN:  Well, the lesson of September 11th is we're not going to wait. The lesson of September 11th is that we can't wait to respond after the fact,  that we can't allow a dictator who repeatedly defies the world, who's used weapons of mass destruction, who's invaded his neighbors, to keep going forward, that we have to stop him before he hits us.  That's ultimately the lesson.

Is that the lesson?  Does he think he's still preaching to the choir? But he wasn't finished.  About Scott McClellan's credibility problem:

I give tremendous credit to Scott, I give tremendous credit to the president, I give tremendous credit to people like Karl Rove and others, who are staying quiet, who are not going out there, trying to announce their positions, because it may not help them in the short term, but ultimately, they believe I know, that it serves justice in the long term.

Scotty's downward spiral of credibility is probably the most often viewed public example of Republican cognitive dissonance.  His press gaggles have become routine fodder for the Jon Stewart's Daily Show, Jay Leno, and David Letterman.  I've previously addressed some of Scott's language difficulties here.  But the Uber-Mis-communicator in Chief remains Baghdad Bush, who consistently delivers significant cognitive dissonance.  For example, take this classic confession by the CIC during the push for Social Security privatization:

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Mr. President, in my line of work, the truth isn't propaganda--regardless of the need to repeat it over and over again.

Who could forget his response a few months ago to Amnesty International's report that the U.S. had set up a "gulag" of prisons around the world for detainees:

I'm aware of the Amnesty International report charging that the U.S. had set up a "gulag" of prisons around the world for detainees, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is -- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation.

In terms of the detainees, we've had thousands of people detained. We've investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is.(May 31, 2005)

Ironically, the President's most recent attempt to dismiss Democrats  by accusing them of re-writing history was presciently pre-empted by Eugene Robinson way last summer, when he pinpointed a major flaw in Karl Rove's outlandish attempt to divide the response to 9/11 along partisan lines:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." That is what Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, said to a group of New York conservatives last month, and I don't know how to describe it other than as a Big Lie that could have been ghostwritten by Big Brother. Rove is making an outrageous attempt to rewrite history. There was no "liberal" or "conservative" response to the Sept. 11 attacks; there was an American response. Liberals and conservatives alike died in those world-changing attacks; liberals and conservatives alike experienced the horror of that September morning and resolved to take action.

The Veterans' Day speech targeted critics in general, with a thinly veiled allusion to the opposition party.  Veterans might well have "heard" a message conveying reason and tolerance :

One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it.

As president and commander in chief, I accept the responsibilities and the criticisms and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

But Rove must have liked how Robinson's accusation sounded last summer because sure enough, it made it into the President's speech:

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

But the President was, in fact, once again using language as a tool for propaganda.  His attention-deficit problem, larger than the current budget deficit, doesn't serve his current credibility problem well, either.  Just because he's mis-attributing criticisms (aimed at him) to the Democrats doesn't mean his audience has forgotten the original source.

His attack messages are accelerating again, just as they did during the campaign.  Each time he gives this speech, it gets more personal for Democrats.  Today in Alaska, he more specifically extended the phrase "reasonable people can disagree" from the Veterans' Day language to a more pointed attack targeting Democrats: "Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," Bush said in his prepared remarks.  If you've watched the evolution of his campaigns before, you can't have been surprised by the "subtle" shifts in specifics.

George W. Bush in particular, and his Administration generally, have provided a unique landscape for explorations of language, metaphor, and cognitive dissonance.  If anything, however, the Republican outcomes in Election 2000 and 2004 were largely credited by a campaign that was "on message" and "consistent," regardless of how misleading or inaccurate those talking points were.

This Administration, and its numerous, representative exemplars of language abuse have given Democrats more than enough territory to re-conquer.  Some of you probably read Russ Feingold's diary yesterday, an inspired response to the President's recent aggressive attacks on critics who disagree with him. Democrats are finding new ways to have their voices heard outside the beltway, and we need to help them.

With 62% of the country now convinced the President is not trustworthy, we needn't be troubled anymore that the public will be deceived by this Orwellian language.  We simply have to re-claim truth and responsibility as being hallmarks of Democratic values, policies, and messages.

We've already been reassured that the President's dismal poll numbers simply indicate that the Administration is "focused on the American people's priorities, by securing our borders, and reining in the spending."

Do you feel reassured?

NOTICE: We will no longer cross-post on a regular basis (as of November 25), but we invite you to join us at Political Cortex by creating a free Cortex Account right now! It only takes a few seconds, but the benefits will last a lifetime :).

COME JOIN US!! - SusanG, mcjoan, Georgia10, Btyarbro, ColdFusion04, Devilstower, Hermod, Sdf, Bill Hare, Drew Johnston, Bob Kendall, Frederick Clarkson , NYBri, SM Dixon, and Tom Ball.