Volume CXXXIII, Number 17 February 22, 2002 f

Politics and political language
PATRICK ROCKEFELLER

If you want to witness one of the greatest differences between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, look at the rhetoric. While Bill quibbles for a definition of "is," Bush unapologetically calls 'em as he sees 'em. Forget the sex scandals, this is the moral clarity that our country has been lacking.

George Orwell wrote an essay in 1946 that is still pertinent today. In "Politics and the English Language," he contends, "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." Politicians use convoluted terms and unspecific words as a means of disguising what they don't want to say publicly.

For example, "The perilous deconstruction of the nation's finances coupled with economic obligations to the proletariat mandates the forced enhancement of state revenue." This is a convoluted way of saying, "We're going to jack up your taxes because we want to spend more money than we have."

Madeline Albright ("Half-bright" in some circles…), the Secretary of State for the second half of the Clinton years, is a prime example of the feel-good word games that characterized that administration. Wary that the term "rogue nation" was too judgmental, she lobbied to have it formally changed to the much more forgiving "state of concern."

Satellite images picked up Saddam Hussein laughing hysterically in one of his palaces as he continued to gas the Kurds in the north. While Clinton was "feeling our pain," Hussein was, as Orwell called it, working on the "elimination of unreliable elements" (killing opposition). Albright confirmed that she was in fact concerned.

Orwell believed that plain, clear expression was the only way for a government to communicate to its people. So, while Bush certainly botches words from time to time, giving some a chuckle and causing his press secretary to cringe, we know what he means and, most importantly, what he stands for.

Which brings us to his most recent and most famous phrase, so far-the "axis of evil." Reminiscent of the Great Communicator's (Reagan) "Evil Empire," the term is important for its clarity and direct approach.

I would consider some criticisms of the phrase valid, specifically the 'axis' part. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are not an axis in the same way as the Axis powers of WWII were, and they don't have much allegiance to one another.

But that's not really the point. The point is that Bush, although surely cognizant of differences between those states, is unwilling to accept any nation's support or sponsorship of terrorism and international instability.
Even if these countries aren't an axis in the traditional sense, a very solid case can still be made for labeling them "evil."

North Korea is the last Stalinist state on earth. Kim Jong Il is a force for repression, making China look like a model of human rights. Furthermore, the nation shares ballistic missile technology, increasing the ability of rogue nations to kill us infidels.

Iran is an interesting case-a very young population, ripe for revolution. However, those in power continue to adhere to a strict fundamentalist religious doctrine a la Taliban. Autocratic theocracies that sell arms to Palestinian terrorist groups generally don't yield to reasoned discourse. Any effort we can make to destabilize their government is better for the people of Iran as it will in the end yield greater freedom.

Iraq needs no introduction. If you need someone to explain to you why the United States should topple his regime, you are probably too sophisticated (or European) for decent company.

The French, and many of our European 'allies,' scoff at Bush's roughshod language. They think it is Bush the cowboy acting tough and meddling in affairs best left for the United Nations and European intellectuals to 'condemn' and then ignore.

But, just as sure as the French in WWII surrendered to the Nazi's in a mere six weeks, Bush's language will set the tone for our foreign policy.

His speech is clear and direct. Bush said that we would clean the terrorists and those that support them out of Afghanistan, and we did, with minimal civilian and American casualties. He said that America will continue to fight terrorism across the world, and we will. The smart money is on the end of Hussein in late June.