Orwell and The Left's Ever Changing Dictionary

We see the attempts by the Left to redefine words all of the time. Our current batch of little Orwellians in office play this game constantly. For example, only a few weeks ago, the Left took to labeling Dede Scozafaza as a "moderate" for the purpose of attacking the "far right wing" - i.e., people who believe in fiscal conservatism and strong national defense. Their aim was to redefine language and, thus, recalibrate what is considered the norm in American politics. To call Scozafaza moderate would, I guess, put Lenin a bit left of center. I and others have blogged on this practice many times before. For example, see here.

George Orwell wrote the book on this practice. Actually, he wrote, wrote several books that include the practice, and not to mention at least one famous article on the topic, "Politics and the English Language." Mark Falcoff picks up the meme in an interesting article at NRO:

. . .[Orwell's] major concern, however, was not merely with literary niceties but with the moral consequences of linguistic obfuscation.

He put the point thus: “The decline of language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer.” He was particularly irritated with the way political words were used “in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition.” Far too many political articles, he wrote, consisted “largely of euphemisms, question begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness.” Such usages were “deliberately intended to deceive.”

Well, here we are more than six decades later, and how much worse the situation has become, particularly in the American press. In recent times, I have begun to make a list of political terms in common usage that are, in fact, private definitions, as Orwell calls them. Perhaps many readers of this journal could add to it. Here are just a few.

. . . “Civil-rights leader.” A half-century ago, when many states in this country denied black people the right to vote or sit where they wished on buses or dine in restaurants of their choice, this term had some real meaning. People risked their lives and well-being to challenge laws that were unfair. However, since the passage of so much legislation in the last 50 years — not just the Civil Rights Act but also the Voting Rights Act — as well as the various forms of “affirmative action” and court-ordered reapportionments of congressional districts to ensure maximum black representation, it is difficult to see what possible dictionary definition “civil-rights leader” could have except “black agitator,” “shakedown artist,” or “poverty pimp.” Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader; Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson — to take just two of many tawdry examples — are merely cruel caricatures of the same. Too bad the media can’t see the difference.. . .

“Progressive.” Here is a term that at least those of us over 50 learned at school to identify with Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, or perhaps William Jennings Bryan. Lately, however, it has become a euphemism for liberalism, left-liberalism, or plain old leftism. Even bomb-throwing Communists or self-described revolutionaries (for example, Angela Davis or Van Jones) are no longer characterized as “Reds” or even “Marxists”; they are merely lumped into the category of harmless “progressives.” To be sure, most people on the left end of our political spectrum could best be characterized as liberal (in the American rather than the European, or classical, sense). That’s what they used to be called. Why has the word “liberal” suddenly disappeared? The answer is simple. Thanks to real-life experience, many people have understandably come to associate the word “liberal” with high taxes, a permissive attitude towards crime and criminals, and social engineering of the most obnoxious sort (school busing, racial preferences, etc.). To force the medicine down one final time, it needs to be rebottled under yet another new label. . . .

There is much more to read. You can find the entire article here.

I would make one additions to the list of Mr. Falcoff's - its the term "discrimination." To be able to discriminate is a necessary survival mechanism of everyday life. We must be able to discriminate between things which are good and those which are bad. Yet the word has become a font of all evil under the pc talk of today, used as shorthand to define the practice of racism. The Left, having effectively made discrimination a modern sin, has carried forward this logic to its extreme under the banner of multiculturalism, where no value judgment are allowed to be made about competing cultures lest it be discriminatory. That doesn't seem to be working out too well for the UK.

Instapundit has a video that makes this point perfectly. Please watch it.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Socialist Coup (Updated)

At least one rule of the EU is simple and unambiguous. A failure of any one member country to ratify an EU treaty (or in this case, the Constitution disingenuously renamed a treaty to get around the need for national referendums) means the Treaty does not come into force. But the EU is not going to let democracy or its own laws stand in the way. It has brushed aside the one democratic referendum held the other day in Ireland and plans to enforce the Treaty of Lisbon regardless. There is a true coup going on in Europe. The rule of law and democracy have been tossed out, and what is being created in their stead is something both both Marx and Orwell would recognize.
__________________________________________________________

If you believe in democracy and the rule of law, what you see today across the pond and in Europe should be horrifying. The Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, blogged below, by law should have ended this socialist coup. But it has not. The EU Referendum quotes a press release from Hans-Gert Pöttering, the president of the EU parliament:

It is of course a great disappointment for all those who wanted to achieve greater democracy, greater political effectiveness and greater clarity and transparency in decision-making in the European Union that the majority of the Irish could not be convinced of the need for these reforms of the European Union. We must not forget, however, that the European Union has experienced crises and times of difficulty several times before. Today, as in the past, we must keep a cool head.

The rejection of the Treaty text by one European Union country cannot mean that the ratifications which have already been carried out by 18 EU countries become invalid. The ratifications in the other EU Member States must be respected just as much as the Irish vote. For that reason, the ratification process must continue in those Member States which have not yet ratified. . . .

Read the entire post.

There is nothing democratic or transparent about the manner in which the EU operates. And indeed, the opacity and centralization of power without any institutionalized system of checks and balances will only increase significantly once the EU is operating under its Constitution. Pöttering's rejection of EU rules regarding complete ratification of the Treaty by all EU member nations as a prerequisite for the Treaty going into effect is unlawful - but it tells you precisely how undemocratic and how utterly determined the intelligentsia of Europe are to impose the EU upon its citizens, wholly irrespective of whatever the wishes of the citizens may be.

And this from the Times:

Britain is pressing on with the tortuous ratification of the European Union’s Lisbon treaty, despite Ireland rejecting it in a referendum.

Jim Murphy, the Europe minister, said today the Irish would be left isolated when the other 26 EU member nations passed the treaty into law later this year. The treaty would establish the offices of a European president and foreign minister, and would reduce the power of individual nations to veto reforms.

Gordon Brown, the prime minister, has rejected calls for a referendum on the treaty, but in Ireland, where constitutional law obliged a referendum, citizens rejected it overwhelmingly.

. . . Legally the treaty requires the ratification of all 27 member states to come into force - but Britain has joined France and Germany in signalling that it will look for a way around that technicality [emphasis added].

. . . The treaty was still good for Britain, he insisted, and the onus was now on Ireland to propose a means of resolving the crisis when EU leaders meet in Brussels next week.

The rest of the EU could proceed with the document in some form without the Irish, he signalled, and would finish ratifying it at the end of this year.

He said: “It is important to reflect then, is it 26 governments who have ratified and is it one that hasn’t? And then we discuss the way forward.”

. . . European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso said the treaty was not dead. France and Germany, too, have urged the EU to press ahead with the project despite admitting that the referendum result was a serious blow.

Read the entire article. And there is this, also in the Times, from socialist Labour MP, Dennis MacShane. He gives you some idea of the mindset of those determined to make the EU super-state a reality, democracy be damned:

It took hundreds of pages of the Federalist Papers, a few dozen men locked for weeks in a sealed room in Philadelphia and a bloody civil war for the US constitution to be accepted. So the little local difficulties in France, the Netherlands and now Ireland must be seen in a broader perspective.

Anti-Europeans are lacing their champagne with Guinness as they celebrate the “no” vote and proclaim with W.B. Yeats “all changed, changed utterly”. Yet the EU, its Commission, existing treaties and directives will still be in place tomorrow. Europe has been here before and will be again.

. . . Ireland and the rest of Europe will wake up on Monday with a headache but not much else. Not a single Eurocrat will lose his job. . .

The big losers are Turkey and Croatia. British Tory Eurosceptics hypocritically proclaim their support for Turkish accession, but know that demanding referendums on future treaties means an end to enlargement [emphasis added].

No EU treaty can come into force until all signatory nations ratify it. But Ireland represents 1 per cent of the EU's total population and some old-fashioned democrats may feel that 1 per cent does not outweigh the rest of Europe's nations which are saying “yes” to the treaty [emphasis added].

But the rules are clear. Had the Irish voted “yes” and the British Parliament voted “no”, it is unlikely that Open Europe and Stuart Wheeler would describe the Irish popular vote as superior to one by Britain's sovereign parliament.

But amid the clamour from anti-EU campaigners in Britain and other nations to ignore sovereign parliamentary decisions, some way forward will have to be found.

. . . “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold,” Yeats wrote, and its complacent political establishment may feel that Ireland is falling apart. Yeats added that “anarchy is loosed upon the world”, and an anarchic bust-up is what many Eurosceptics hope for. But it won't happen. Europe will go on its summer holidays. Perhaps when it comes back, ways will be found to make the treaty work, or the parts of it that do not need any treaty change.

. . . As the hysteria dies down, ways will be found to make Europe work, with or without the treaty. For both pro- and anti-Europeans, things have not changed so utterly at all.

Read the entire article. Mr. MacShane seems to be a little off in his U.S. history. There was no civil war involved in the crafting of the U.S. Constitution. Nor was it a thing crafted in hiding. Indeed, the Federalist Papers he cites and the like are a testament to just how open and democratic the process was in crafting the Constitution. That stands in stark contrast to everything about the EU. Indeed, every effort has been made to muddle the water. The Treaty of Lisbon stood for months as hundreds of pages of incomprehensible amendments apart from the original documents being amended - thus making it impossible for the average person to make heads or tails to what the Treaty actually said or to compare it to the Consitution from 2005. Indeed, it is hard to think of a more grotesque and improper comparison than that which Mr. MacShane makes between the U.S. and the socialist coup that is occurring today in Europe.

And how Orwellian is it for MacShane to appeal to "democracy" to reject the "no" vote of Ireland? The reason only 1% of the citizens of Europe voted against this socialist nightmare is because only 1% of Europe's citizens have yet to be given a vote on it, at least under its current disingenous categorization as a "treaty" rather than a "constitution." When it was named the latter, both the people of France and the Netherlands voted it down in 2005. Which is precisely why the EU renamed it a treaty and sought to ram it down citizen's throats without their opportunity to vote on it.

And what does it tell you of the thought process of Mr. MacShane to attack the Tory party over a referendum on EU enlargement, claiming hypocrisy on the Tory's part because they, the Tories, know a referendum to enlarge the EU will fail. These people have nothing but utter disdain for democracy and a complete belief in their right to impose their will. They are dangerous.

Update: More from EU Referendum on the plans impose the Treaty of Lisbon irrespective of the Irish vote here.

The people of Britain and Europe have collectively shrugged their shoulders and allowed their democratic votes to be taken from them without, seemingly, any concern. I do not understand how this can occur without blood in the streets. I will never understand this mindset and apathy. What is going on in Europe is no less a coup with a bare patina of democracy than was Hitler's accretion of power in the 1930's. I expect the long term ramifications of this grand experiment in socialism to be no less disastrous.

Read More...

Summary only...