Barack Obama is a talented wordsmith. His use of language is so facile that he
believes he can use it to persuade anyone of anything. Thus, he is convinced he can persuade the
American people that he is committed to a free press even as he shields his
Attorney General from charges that he abused it.
But our president is more
ambitious than this. He believes that he
can redefine the language so that it better suits his political needs. Just as he assumes he can “define” the “War
on Terror” out of existence, so he images he can characterize the political
landscape anyway he desires.
Let us take the word
“politicize.” In Obamaspeak this now
refers to statements and activities that make his administration look bad. Accordingly, when Republicans highlighted
e-mails that showed the White House and State Department altered talking points
so as to misidentify the nature of the attack on our Benghazi consulate, they were
engaged in politicizing this issue.
On the other hand, when
Obama and his cronies sought to discredit these Republican assertions, they
were not engaged in politicizing their response. Because they were only telling the truth
about misguided opponents, they were “educating” the public as opposed to
manipulating the facts.
The president is also fond
of excising uncomfortable words from his lexicon—and from ours. Foremost among these are the words
“terrorist” and “terrorism.” Thus when
Major Hassan brazenly shot dozens of American soldiers on a military base this
was “workplace violence.”
It did not matter that in
perpetrating these deaths and injuries this Army doctor shouted out his loyalty
to Allah. Nor did it count that he was
in contact with avowed enemies of the United States in Yemen. They too were not terrorists—even though they
sponsored terror against us.
Obama also choked over the
idea of calling the Boston marathon bombers terrorists. Although they built their bombs and placed
them with the objective of causing the most injuries and fear they could, they
were protesting against American intransigence rather than terrorizing.
Another word absent from the
president’s vocabulary is “Islamist.”
Around the world in Libya, Algeria, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Iran, Israel, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Chechnya, Dagestan, Mali, and
Nigeria activists have been inflicting damage in the name of defending Islam
and yet our chief executive sees no connection.
Now granted that most
Muslims are not actively engaged in attempting to harm us, but can any sane
person doubt that the tenets of Islam have been used to justify doing so? Nor should we avert our eyes when huge
majorities in Muslim countries support the introduction of Sharia law that
commands the stoning death of unfaithful wives.
These same Islamist fanatics
espouse a “jihad” to wipe the Little Satan (Israel) and the Great Satan (the
United States) off the face of the earth.
Yet we are not supposed to define a jihad as an avenging war, but as a
personal quest for spiritual growth.
All of this might be
amusing, except for the fact that people are going to die because of this
head-in-the-sand mentality. Playing word
games when one is intent upon wooing voters in an election can be an estimable
skill, but substituting language for policy thereafter can be disastrous in a
chief executive.
The person who is in charge
of setting our domestic and foreign policy agendas should be more concerned
with consequences than with verbal gymnastics.
The idea is not to sound smart, but to be smart with respect to critical
decisions.
Barack Obama needs to
realize that in the long run people will judge him on the basis of what he does
rather than what he says. If our
national foes see weakness, they will take advantage of this. If those who wish us ill detect confusion,
they will not be charmed by poetic cadences.
Words can be powerful, but
they are no replacement for actual power.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment