What's in a word? Political rhetoric changes definitions

By JACK DeVINE

Guest columnist

Words are important. They are the foundation and framework of ideas, opinions, judgments, decisions and actions. There may be nothing new about politicians twisting words to make a point, but in this day of blitz communications, it seems to be becoming a fine art, one executed to great effect.

In George Orwell's nightmarish novel "1984," the government used language, called "Newspeak," with words and labels selected to evoke emotions and to prompt desired public reactions. Maybe I'm paranoid, but that seems to be exactly what's going on today.

Here's an example: Fair. During the campaign, candidate Obama patiently explained again and again that it wasn't redistribution of wealth he had in mind, but simply a matter of giving everyone his or her fair share. It's hard to argue with fair. We all like fair - fair play, fair ball, fair weather. Fair is the opposite of foul, or worse unfair, which only evil people want to be.

Many of us wondered at the time how far this could or should go. In tax space, for example, it is simple fact that 5 percent of the people (the wealthy, another touchy new word) already pay 60 percent of the nation's income taxes - and that's after President Bush's detestable "tax cuts for the rich" - while 40 percent of our citizens pay nothing at all. I'm not sure where the foul line is, and I fully support our progressive tax code that calls for people to pay in accord with their ability, but I'm hard pressed to accept the premise that the current split is unfair to the folks whose way is already being paid by others, or that fairness alone dictates that even more be taken from those who already carry most of the load.

As an entirely separate point, it is well established economic principle (and common sense) that an increase in taxes changes the spending and investment behavior of those taxed - and at some point decreases rather than increases tax revenue, which presumably was the whole idea behind raising taxes in the first place. Or maybe it was just to punish the wealthy for being unfair?

The political success of this semantic twist is catching on. Congress is now considering the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," legislation that would have the practical effect - and is intended solely for the purpose of - silencing conservative talk radio because it's just not fair. (Aside from the absurd label, I'm having a tough time sorting out how that squares with the free speech constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.)

An even more incendiary word that we now hear every day is Greed. Greed is a very ugly word. Since kindergarten we've learned to despise greedy people, the ones who take all the candy, who won't share, who hoard, who grab more than their fair share. We are told now that our economic problems are the direct consequence of greedy people, primarily Wall Street types, and that we are now emerging from an Era of Greed and are striving to move to an Era of Responsibility.

I have no doubt that there are greedy characters around who have amassed fortunes at others' expense, and I'm all for applying sensible regulation and enforcement to attack that problem, just as we do with all other brands of criminal or harmful behavior. A problem to be fixed? Certainly. An indictment of our entire economic system? Of capitalism? Of course not.

To be fair, the president's prepared speeches generally include the appropriate qualifiers, as in his inaugural address reference to the "greed and irresponsibility of some." But that constant refrain, hammered again and again by the president and his spokespersons and cheerfully amplified by the media, cements the overall impression that greed and irresponsibility have been the central characteristics, the hallmarks, of our society and that our decades of prosperity have been undeserved and unhealthy. Perhaps President Obama feels it necessary to create that impression in order to tee up the sweeping social and economic changes he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

On the contrary, I believe we are a uniquely responsible and principled nation, fair and extraordinarily generous to our citizens and to the world. That should be our starting point in choosing what to change, what to fix and what to keep.

The writer is a businessman and resident of Aiken.