Have america's politicians made dictionaries obsolete?

Question

Clinton debated the words "sex" and "is" and now Bush is debating the meaning of words like "torture" and "winning." What's the point of owning a dictionary these days?

Answer 1

You make a very good point. Just today, for example, Congress held a vote on whether or not to call the Armenian Genocide of 1915 -when over 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Turkish' military and the local Turkish and Kurdish populations- a "genocide". In Turkey and Kurdish territories, it is illegal to even suggest such this horrible event ever happened, and, as with the Holocaust, there are millions of deniers. President Bush stated that to call the Armenian genocide a formal "Genocide" would cause harm to US-Turkish relations.. Which, of course, is arguing semantics, not reality. In fact, the very word "genocide" was created by a Polish-Jewish scholar named Raphael Lemkin who made specific reference to not only the Holocaust, but to the Armenian atrocities, when he coined the term "genocide". In essence, the very idea of a genocide was first suggested by the Armenian holocaust.

This is just one example of how meanings are becoming more and more relevant in political discourse, and how truth becomes more and more obscure. The road to the Iraq War is a lesson in semantics as well. We were first told of WMDs. Then, as none seemed to appear, we began lowering the bar. Bush claimed that instead of finding WMDs, we found "WMD capacity", which is basically a guess. And while we initially went into Iraq on the premise of the WMD "mushroom cloud" drumbeaten threat, we started to shift the focus from a defensive war to a nation building "humanitarian" effort. This served a purpose: it would make it appear that the US was in Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons, something that had the appearance of international respectability. And when it became obvious that the effort was losing ground, we successively lowered the bar for performance there as well. Today, almost all reputable (i.e. non-Fox News) media outlets feel that any news coming out of Iraq are similar to the "Five O'Clock Follies" during the VietNam War. The Follies were daily Pentagon briefings on the VietNam War that, towards the end of the conflict, became a pointless effort in repetitiveness that was really an early form of Pentagon "spin". (remind you of anything?).

There is a lot to be said about subjectivity and politics. There are few politicians, for example, who today would acknowledge their faults or failures. Bill Clinton never acknowledged he had sex with Ms. Lewinsky- he simply re-defined the term. And Hillary has never apolgized formally for her Iraq vote. Instead, she skirts the issue and claims that the error was somehow communal. (It was, but then again, why did Obama get it right?).

Politicsspeak works precisely because people are:

1. Ill-informed
2. Have short attention spans
3. Are generally disinterested in their elected officials.

For example, a well-informed electorate would realize that the fuzzy language leading up to the Iraq War was intended to deceive. The public would likewise realize that the war's focus had shifted once WMD's were not found.

Even if the public has some knowledge about what is actually going on, they soon forget. Have you noticed that few Americans are calling for the impeachment of Preident Bush and his cronies? Given that it is now well-documented that we were misled on purpose for a war that was contrived even before 9/11, given that there was a concerted effort to connect 9/11 with Saddam, including using false testimony by disreputable sources, given unsubstantiated claims made against Saddam (including that he attempted to procure uranium from Africa), given unethical media leaks and CIA "outings", given a wholesale suspension of habeas corpus for prisoners held in Guantanamo, and their torture therein, given secret "renderings" of prisoners to remote locations where there are no human rights, given illegal wiretaps of Americans, given that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have perished since the 2003 invasion, and thousands of Americans have been wounded or killed on the basis of a false and premeditated invasion- one might think impeachment might be TOO LIGHT a punishment! Yet, the public soon forgets, and media spinmeisters use careful language to downplay one president's faults by juxtaposing them to the lesser misdeeds of another. Thusly, Clinton's penchant for sex is seen as morally equivalent to the current President's mishandling (and concoction) of the Iraq War. While the comparison is ludicrous (for one, Clinton had sex and avoided "fessing up", while George W. Bush lied about a war that has now caused hundreds of thousands to perish), the public is quick to accept the comparison as valid. Jimmy Carter's "failure" to bring back our hostages from Iran is juxtaposed with Reagan's inaugural "success" in presiding during their release (even though documents now show that the release was delayed- via secret Paris negotiations- in order to ensure Ronnie's electoral win over Carter in November of 1980.)

Finally, when the elections of 2008 roll around, America's millions of disinterested voters will likely simply stay home (especially if the weather is bad or something "good" is on TV). Electoral studies even confirm that weather is one of the major factors determining voter turnout, besides, of course, "the issues".

To answer you in brief, there is no point to having a dictionary when listening to politicians ramble because you're likely to see completely opposite definitions, depending on who is doing the defining. Thus, one politician's success might be another's failure. One politician's "universal healthcare" proposal might be another's "socialized medicine". One politician's "tax break" might be another's "corporate welfare". One politicians "trickle down economics" might be another's "voodoo". But that should not stop you from calling out these SOB's on their lies.

Answer 2

Wow! What a great dissertation to have to follow. Well thought out and so true.

There is only one piece of advice I have for anyone listening to politicians today. That is.....read between the lines! If you learn to do this, you will realize the meaning of what is said and why it is being said. Bush denies torture because, to admit it, puts him at risk for breaking International Law and eventually ending up in a courtroom, explaining his actions. Thus, the Doublespeak and the smooth lawyers and speechwriters who help him dodge the issue.

Clinton used evasion to avoid embarrassment in a situation where he felt he was being used and abused by the Republican Party, which was definitely true. That was a clear example of using the courts for a political purpose, something Bush would like to avoid.

Each sentence a politician says has a hidden meaning, either to sway public opinion, hide his true goal....money, political gain, public sentiment or fear of reprisal. One has to follow political events to understand what is really being said.

There's the rub. Crafty politicians use wordsmiths and PR people to enhance their public images. Bush has spent our tax money liberally for this purpose. Thus, the person who posted here says "Liberals don't understand the 2nd Amendment," when such a statement takes in millions of people with a blanket observation that is definitely untrue, but is believed because it was publicized and exaggerated.

Thus, are political rounds won and lost in the realm of public speaking, little of it truthful, most of it artfully intended to distort, defend or distract.

Answer 3

what they are doing is merely expanding the meaning of words and phrases.

what irritates me is when they start coining words and no dictionary has the meaning yet, and then everyone picks up on the word but a lot of different people in different areas of the world and businesses use the word differently from each other....talk about not understanding each other...wow

Answer 4

No,they are masters of deception.Ofuscation,misdirection,patter,and euphemisms are used deftly to control weak minds.And even those that know they are blowing hot air,but fail to research their history and agenda,are lulled to sleep as well.Check the bloodlines of these people and what elitist groups they belong to,or are connected to in some way.The Newspeak is right out of Orwell's 1984.

Answer 5

The blood of an innocuous animal changed into required to blot out sin. there is not any sacrifice in killing something that needs killing. It changed into oftentimes an innocuous lamb. no matter if it isn't responsible the sacrifice is perfect.

Answer 6

Don't worry about the misuse of words. For every idiot who mis-uses the language, there is another person who is smart enough to figure out what is really being said

Answer 7

Not sure...Bush can't properly pronounce most of the words, or use them in proper context, so I guess he has!

Answer 8

Other than personal enlightenment, and have a better grasp of the english language...not much.

Answer 9

liberals don't know the definition of the word "the 2nd amendment".