Doublespeak and the War on Terror

“War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength”
-George Orwell, 1984

“Freedom has been attacked, but freedom will be defended”
-George W Bush, 2001 (Not, technically a Space Odyssey, but an odyssey none the less)


Writing for the Cato Institute, arguably a mostly Conservative-leaning think-tank, Timothy Lynch references Orwell’s seminal novel, 1984, citing the author’s creation of “doublespeak” and writing, “Doublespeak perverts the basic function of language, which is to facilitate a common understanding between human beings.” in his paper titled “Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism”

Essentially a litany of the abuses of power by the Bush II administration, Lynch cites where, time and again, the current administration has been able to sidestep laws, regulations and private rights previously thought unassailable, inalienable, by manipulating the very language used to create, grant and assure those laws, regulations and rights. In what can really only be seen as Orwellian, this administration has created such progressions as “material witness” to “enemy combatant” to “imperative security internee”, each time creating the new definition after the Supreme Court has stepped in declared the previous classification illegal. It’s kind of like opposite day, every day, these days.

Another interesting point brought up by Lynch, if I can be so bold as to use so euphemistic a descriptor as “interesting”, is this government’s manipulation of the meaning of “terrorist”. Dictionary.com defines the word as: A person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism; A person who terrorizes or frightens others; One that engages in acts or an act or terrorism. But, hey, that’s just a dictionary, and the only thing you get from reading books is learning. According to the Bush II administration, “terrorists” now include anti-war demonstrators, political activists, a Catholic nun, drug addicts/users, and, among others, just about anyone flying commercial airlines these days as federal air marshals, needing to meet quotas of “suspicious persons”, will, apparently, enter just about anyone into their databases as potential terrorists.

However, perhaps the most startling and frightening revelation in Lynch’s paper is when he writes about the president’s use of the word “freedom” to frame the national debate in terms of freedom v. terror. In this way, Lynch argues, Bush is able to equate freedom with power in that he, Bush, and parts of government need to expand their power, be granted new powers if they are to combat terror. In other words, freedom is good, terror is bad and the only way to defeat terror is by spreading freedom, and the only way to do that is through unchecked power. Amazing.

Clear and concise, well-researched, Lynch’s paper is clean and neat, not partisan and, if possible, not political as it sheds a moral light on the so-called values of our current administration. I believe that Lynch in particular, and the Cato Institute in general represent true Conservative ideals, a label that this administration has slapped on its lapel underneath its American flag pin.

Link here: www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp98.pdf