It’s been said that George W. Bush has invented his own language over the course of his presidency. They say it’s a language crafted to fool weak-minded Americans into buying into his “American Empire.” Some have even compared it to “Newspeak,” the invented language of Oceania, the totalitarian state of George Orwell’s 1984. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is.
The truth is that liberals came up with their own language a long time ago. Much like Orwell’s “Newspeak,” it’s intended to create a citizenry incapable of questioning the policies of the Left, because they lack the vocabulary to even form the thoughts.
Never underestimate the power of language. It frames our ideas. Those who select the language we use in the course of public debate can also guide the minds of the people to see the issues in a light favorable to one side.
I guess that’s why I have such difficulty talking to liberals sometimes. Though we’re both speaking English, we aren’t speaking the same language. Sorry, I don’t speak Liberal. Quite frankly, their vocabulary infuriates me. The terms “close-minded” and “ignorant” are used to mean “anyone who disagrees with liberals.” When they say that there isn’t enough “diversity” at UMass, they really mean that there are just too many darned white people. “Racism” has come to mean “anything that minorities don’t like”. The name of the upcoming pro-abortion demonstration scheduled for April 25 in Washington would make me laugh it weren’t so sick – March for Women’s Lives. I suppose that the organizers thought that this name had a better ring than what I would call it – March for Infanticide. Indeed, that’s a perfect example of Newspeak in action – the organizers clearly want the public to see abortion as a women’s health issue, and certainly not as the murder of unborn children. When they talk about it like that, it’s hard to disagree with them, isn’t it? That’s exactly the point.
No word in the liberal lexicon irks me more than the word that they use to describe themselves – “progressive.” Putting myself in the shoes of a liberal for a second, the term makes sense from their point of view. They have an image of an ideal society in their minds. Any people who fight for progress toward their Utopia are “progressive,” and anyone who resists it is “backwards.” Makes sense. The problem is that I consider myself progressive too, although I don’t agree with so-called “progressives” on much of anything. I guess I just have a very different idea of what constitutes progress. Perhaps that’s what really angers me the most about the word – it seems to suggest that my idea of progress is invalid, and that I really ought to just shut up and get with the program. Don’t hold your breath, I have no intention of getting with the program any time soon. If that qualifies me as a Neanderthal, so be it. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
It’s “progressive” to support Roe v. Wade. I’m sorry, but I don’t think that the murder of 35 million unborn children is progress. To me, progress would be a constitutional amendment that recognizes the humanity and civil rights of the unborn child. Even more progressive than that would be a sense of responsibility for the actions we take. Yet more progressive would be a healthy respect for sex, the very process that creates human life.
It’s “progressive” to perpetuate a system of affirmative action that was supposed to be temporary. America bought into racial preferences during the 1970s under the understanding that they would be gone in 20 years. Well it’s been more than twenty years and it’s still here. Its supporters point out that affirmative action is necessary because racism still exists today. True. But if we’re waiting for the last trace of racism to be abolished from the world before we put the system of reverse discrimination to rest, then we must accept that affirmative action is not temporary at all. It’s an impossible standard to achieve, and that’s exactly why affirmative action supporters like it so much. Me, I think we ought to get more progressive. I’d like to move forward to the promised result of 20 years of affirmative action – a system that judges people solely on their merits. That’s what I’d call progress.
As you can see, “progressives” are just as backwards in my mind as I am in theirs. People who refer to themselves as “progressives” really ought to take a step back and analyze what the label means. Is there really anyone out there who would call himself an anti-progressive? No, I don’t think so. Liberals sometimes need to be reminded that their concept of progress is neither universal nor objective.
Ben Duffy is a UMass student.
