La Guerra de la Palabra

Honesty in Language: Is This the Way to Achieve Power?
John H. Bushman (University of Kansas)

     It was some thirty years ago (November 1970) thatI asked a similar question in an English Journal article, “The Power of Language: Can the Student Survive without It?” That was my first venture into professional writing, and now, after these thirty years, I wonder if we have come any closer to the answer to this question.
     It would seem that we haven’t. Public figures are determined to define terms in ways that suit their agendas. I’m reminded of Humpty Dumpty’s proclamation, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less” (Carroll 229). Former President William Jefferson Clinton, along with other politicians, seems to concur. After being fined $90,000 by US District Judge Susan Webber Wright for what she called his “false, evasive, and misleading answers,” Clinton, in his eighty-page filing with the Lawyer Disciplinary Committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court, argues that his testimony was not “false” as he defines that term (“Clinton Insists He Didn’t Lie” 10A).
     Since the Lewinsky matter, the spinmasters on both sides of the issue have bombarded the public with language abuse and misuse. On that point, John McCollister, writing for USA Today, suggests a new word for our dictionaries: “Clintonize.” Mc-Collister goes on to say, “To ‘Clintonize’ is to answer a question with legal hairsplitting, cloudy language and a maze of words in order to obfuscate the issue” (13A). One of the most intriguing examples occurred in Clinton’s grand jury testimony, when he offered the following: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is . . . If ‘is’ means is and never has been . . . that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement” (CNN Web site). He also skirts the issue of “lying.” In his address to the nation, Clinton stated that he knew his public comments and silence about the Lewinsky matter gave a false impression. And, of course, we know that he didn’t have “sex” with Lewinsky, but had “an inappropriate relationship.”
     Throughout the political arena, we are bombarded with language that clouds the issues and obfuscates meaning. This occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. George W. Bush speaks of “compassionate conservatism,” although his treatment of John McCain in the South Carolina primary would leave us wondering about his definition of “compassionate.” Al Gore calls himself a “new democrat,” although many of his pronouncements would seem to indicate the leftist view that he has had most of his political career. Gore also would seem to believe that there was “no controlling legal authority” against holding a fundraiser at a Buddhist Temple; he did nothing wrong. The National Rifle Association (NRA), winner of the 1999 Doublespeak Award, tends to overuse loaded words that elicit patriotism, love of country, and guaranteed freedom in its presentations. And, of course, we often hear the well-known phrase, “We’ve moved on.” Translated, that phrase seems to say, “Please, don’t bring that up again; we don’t want to talk about it.”
     In the Fall of 1971, the National Council of Teachers of English passed two resolutions on the dishonest and inhumane use of language and the relationship of language to public policy. As a result of these resolutions, the organization created the Committee on Public Doublespeak. Now, for the first time, an organized assault on language obfuscation was underway. The Committee serves as a collector and disseminator of language used by Madison Avenue, the military, government, education, business, politicians, and other units that may have as their intent to mislead and deceive the public. The Committee gives two important awards: The George Orwell Award to that person or group who has used the language most effectively, and the Doublespeak Award to that person or group who has misused and/or abused the language. The twenty-seven winners of the Doublespeak Award follow:

2000 American Tobacco Industry
1999 National Rifle Association
1998 Justice Clarence Thomas
1997 President Bill Clinton, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich
1996 Joe Klein
1995 Newt Gingrich
1994 Rush Limbaugh
1993 US Department of Defense
1992 President George Bush
1991 US Department of Defense
1990 President George Bush
1989 The Exxon Corporation
1988 Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, Admiral William Crowe, Rear Admiral William Fogary
1987 Lt. Colonel Oliver North and Rear Admiral John Poindexter
1986 Officials of NASA, Morton Thiokol, and Rockwell International
1985 The Central Intelligence Agency
1984 US State Department
1983 President Ronald Reagan
1982 Republican National Committee
1981 Secretary of State Alexander Haig
1980 President-elect Ronald Reagan
1979 The nuclear power industry
1978 Earl Clinton Bolton
1977 The Pentagon and the Energy Research and Development Administration
1976 The State Department
1975 PLO Leader Yasir Arafat
1974 Colonel David H. E. Opfer, USAF Press Officer in Cambodia

I share this list because it seems to be not readily available to the general public. We hear each November the latest award winner and the citations that go along with the award, but seldom do we see the list in its entirety. I think it is good to view the list, especially in terms of the theme of this issue. Honesty in language, it seems to me, is twofold: it is of utmost importance as we hold our politicians and other leaders accountable for what they speak and write; but, just as important, we as a profession must be honest in the process that highlights this misuse of language. At first glance this list looks rather impressive. Most award winners are from some aspect of government or politics. It would seem to the casual reader that all is well with the Doublespeak Committee’s intent to pay an ironic tribute to public figures who have used language that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing, or selfcontradictory (Press Release, NCTE, November, 1999). A more careful reader of the list, however, may challenge the implied premise that all public figures are in the pool to receive this award. Such a reader may wonder if people who are affiliated in any way with any Democratic administration ever use doublespeak! Though Clinton shared the Award with Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich in 1997, with all the misuse and abuse of language that occurred in the Clinton administration during 1998 and 1999, one might imagine the President or one of his subordinates winning the Award during those years. Not only did he not win, he didn’t even place or show. The 1998 winner was Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The 1999 winner, as was mentioned earlier, was the NRA; second place went to Kenneth Starr and third place to candidate George W. Bush.
     I share this concern only to suggest that we may be hypocritical if we argue that we as a profession should “. . . study the relations of language to public policy, to keep track of, publicize, and combat semantic distortion by public officials . . .” (NCTE Resolution, 1971) only to have a biased notion of the public figures who are misusing the language.
     If teachers are to combat this language distortion by creating lessons for students, they should have examples of public doublespeak from all sources. A publication that strives to share with its readers examples of doublespeak is the Quarterly Review of Doublespeak, published by NCTE. Each issue contains examples of doublespeak in a variety of areas: diplomacy, real estate, advertising, politics, law, and many more. There is evidence that the editor attempts to offer a more balanced view of doublespeak, unlike the apparent imbalance in the Doublespeak Award. It is imperative that the sources of criticism be well known for their fair treatment of any public individual. If that treatment is biased, the source should be well known for that bias. For example, doublespeak cited in The American Standard may be quite different from that cited in The Nation, and readers should know that as they search the source.
     A professional educational organization like NCTE should reflect no bias. Its committees, commissions, and assemblies must present an honest view in all of their public pronouncements; therefore, when the Doublespeak Committee makes its announcement each November, the members of the Council should feel that all public individuals who misused and abused language were considered. While one award winner would not show this bias, the history of the award winners will.
     Some who readily use language in the public arena don’t seem to be concerned about honesty. More importantly, the general public doesn’t seem to be concerned, either. Have we in education failed? Is anyone taking this problem seriously? The general public? The public schools? The Doublespeak Committee of NCTE? The language users cited in this article were students in our schools some thirty years ago. Did we not teach them about language obfuscation? Are we doing enough today so that our leaders thirty years hence will have a better sense of effective language use? I hope that we as a profession will continue to point out, without bias, people who misuse and abuse our language. Clear, concise use of the English language will lead us to clear and concise thinking, and that, it seems to me, is in the best interest of our culture.

Works Cited

Bushman, John H. “The Power of Language: Can the Student Survive without It?” English Journal 59.8 (Nov. 1970): 1091–95.

Carroll, Lewis. Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1975.

“Clinton Insists He Didn’t Lie, Group Says” USA Today 9 May 2000:10A

Grand Jury Testimony of President William Jefferson Clinton. Document from Independent Counsel Ken Starr. 17 Aug. 1998. cnn.com/icreport/report/volume3/volume3130.gif.

McCollister, John. “Clintonizing Words.” USA Today 13 Jan. 1999:13A

 (E n g l i s h J o u r n a l, National Council of Teachers of English, 2001)

Back to top