Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Tyranny of Language
The efforts to slur, silence and punish people who refuse to kowtow to the Leftist agenda are increasing. With the talk of socialism, the Left continues to try to control our thinking, stop our discussions and attack any ideas that differ from their own. Recently I noticed a use of language that surprised and alarmed me. I’d like to briefly summarize their actions to date, and then share the most recent attacks on what we say and do.
One of the earliest efforts to control the language, and in particular to castigate people who disagreed with them, appeared as political correctness:
Professor Frank Ellis at the University of Sheffield noted the term ‘political correctness’ was first used in the late 19th to the early 20th century when Vladimir Lenin began his rise to power. Ellis said that Marxist-Leninists and Maoists placed a heavy preeminence on being ideologically correct, both politically and theoretically. Essentially, a ‘forum for discussion,’ as Ellis described it, would impede the revolutionary spirit needed to upend the social order.
Consider 20th century Europe, where the Frankfurt School was born in Germany. As pointed out by author William Lind, it was the intellectuals, such as Georg Lukacs, who believed culture needed to be rooted out before it could be replaced by a Marxist one. To do so, ‘critical theory’ came to fruition with the goal of destroying what it perceived to be old ways of thinking.
Today’s attempts to silence conservative speakers on college campuses are ubiquitous. A database for “disinviting” speakers who might offend college students is online. The universities have convinced students that they are threatened by conservative ideas, need safe spaces with cookies and milk and stuffed animals; effectively the students who buy into these ideas are being crippled in their abilities to be self-sufficient and critical thinkers. Attacks on social media toward those who disagree with the Leftist agenda are well-known.
A second area of propaganda and ostracism are personal attacks. Words like racist, white supremacist and phobic such as islamophobia and homophobia are used to marginalize people who take exception to Leftist ideas. These slurs actually have no specific meaning, nor does the Left care about being precise: it only cares about denigrating those who disagree with them. To show the absurdity of these slurs, Ben Shapiro has been called a white supremacist of late. One description of white supremacy is a hatred of minorities, particularly blacks and Jews. Ben Shapiro is an Orthodox Jew.
But the most recent move to control our language is just as insidious. The Left is now resorting to transforming terms that they once despised into laurels of pride. Recently Nancy Pelosi embraced the word “patriotism” in a speech:
‘The Republicans are in denial about the facts,’ she said. ‘If the Republicans do not want to honor their oath of office, then I don’t think we should be characterized as partisan in that way because we are patriotic.’
Rep. John Sarbanes from Maryland used the term patriotic as well:
In the Washington Post, Pelosi and Sarbanes wrote, ‘We will confront discrimination with the Equality Act, pass the Dream Act to protect the patriotic young undocumented immigrants who came here as children, and take the first step toward comprehensive immigration reform.’
I wonder why he assumes these illegal aliens are patriotic, since they have broken our laws to enter this country?
One last example from Speaker Pelosi made me cringe:
‘Our first responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,’ said the speaker.
Seriously?
Given the amount of lying, manipulation, disdain for procedures and fairness that the Left/Democrats have shown recently, I find this comment lacks credibility.
So the Left is now taking language that they hated and resented, and turning these words and phrases around to meet their political agenda. These steps are intended to further their goals to control the thinking of American citizens. As paranoid as this proposition may sound, it is just one more move toward socialism and government control.
The following description on the tactical use of language is frightening and disheartening:
Percy Shelley wrote in Prometheus Unbound that God ‘gave man speech, and speech created thought,/ Which is the measure of the universe.’ Shelley’s remarks demonstrate how powerful language is in how humans think. Since a human’s stream of consciousness is essentially just words, an individual’s vocabulary greatly influences the thoughts he or she can have. While no one can know every word representing every idea, let any restriction on the words that one knows imposed by an outside body represent a curtailment of thought. While any mutations of language may seem insignificant, totalitarian leaders truly believed that ‘by controlling language, … [they] could control their subjects.’ Since their intention was not to merely use brute force to subject citizens to their will, the best way to make people follow them was to alter language and deeply convince the populace that their rule is legitimate.
What is your reaction to this distortion of language?
Published in Politics
As FST points out, it has been going on forever. It is not so much a wave as it is an eternally rising tide.
Personally, I think we should roll it back.
To wit: The Department of War — Because sometimes you need to reach out and touch someone … hard.
http://ricochet.com/424965/archives/quote-of-the-day-series-quotes-from-wolves/
This is a story I did awhile ago on Saul Alinsky – familiarize yourself with his 10 Rules for Radicals, because both Obama and Hilary Clinton were students of his methods – in fact, Hilary did a paper on him while at Wellesley College. It starts with words, in a book – Alinsky’s legacy – language – has turned into action. The things we are witnessing are the result of the last administration putting his rules into action.
Agree with all you’ve said–especially this statement. But we need to be aware of it.
Yes, and we need to pay close attention to at least call it out loudly, rather than try to ignore it! Thanks FSC!
@susanquinn, you can never be too cynical. 🙂
Susan, good post.
I’m not sure that I object to the tactics of labeling and ostracism, however. I think that these tactics are wrongfully employed by the Left, but this may be the result of the underlying wickedness of Leftist ideals. I think that labeling and ostracism may be legitimate tactics, if employed in a good cause.
I have some discomfort with this idea, so I raise it as a point of discussion.
If someone holds truly reprehensible views, why is it not appropriate to apply an unpleasant label to them, and to ostracize them? We could start with extreme cases, such as cannibals, pedophiles, Nazis, and Communists. I happen to believe that many other views are quite reprehensible, too, and perhaps worthy of social opprobrium as a tactical matter. In my estimation, such reprehensible views range from the pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality positions, to the anti-family positions of second-wave feminism, to the overt racism of the quota advocates (usually hiding in the guise of “diversity” and “inclusion”), to Islam.
Breakdown of the stigma attached to such views seems, to me, to have led to a major political shift. The “Overton window” concept seems to apply here.
I agree with you about the evils of political correctness. I’m just concerned that focus on the tactics, rather than the immorality of the positions advocated by the Left, is the wrong approach.
I think that the Bush administration made a similar error in adopting its “war on terror” terminology, as if the problem was the tactics of the Jihadis, and not their underlying ideology. This creates a problem, because “terror” is a tactic, and is difficult to separate from the general horror and unpleasantness of war itself, even if the war is just.
It is appropriate to personally decline to deal with someone who is behaving the a reprehensible way and to express one’s views of their reprehensibleness. What is (IMO) inappropriate is to create an environment where people are coerced into shunning lest they be shunned themselves. That seems to be the tactic of the left (and other cults).
I refer @arizonapatriot to respond to his comment, @rodin. Is “reprehensibleness” a word? If it wasn’t, it is now!
Well, what about pedophiles? I know that it is an extreme case, but I think that it makes the point that the tactic of stigma and ostracism is sometimes appropriate.
Jerry, there’s a difference between views and behaviors. I think pedophilia is unacceptable, but the thoughts that they have or others have is not relevant. The behavior is. And pedophilia isn’t acceptable.
Susan, I agree that there is a difference between views and behaviors, but I do not agree that ostracism is an acceptable tactic only in response to behaviors, and never in response to views.
To continue the extreme example, I think that ostracism of a pedophile is appropriate, and I think that ostracism of a proponent of pedophilia is also appropriate. I think that ostracism of actual Nazis is appropriate, and actual Communists.
I’m not sure if you agree or disagree. It’s perfectly OK if you disagree with me about this, and think that we should only impose stigma and ostracism on the basis of behavior, not advocacy of ideas, however horrid.
@jerrygiordano, reading you comments here and on another thread today all I can say is “Someone ate their Wheaties this morning.” You are on fire.
Your pedophilia example is interesting. Someone who is convicted sex offender even once they are no longer incarcerated cannot be relied upon to not re-offend as their behavior may be a compulsion over which they do not exercise reliable control. A person who is not a convicted sex offender but verbalizes support for pedophilia certainly self-identifies as a potential danger that a prudent person would steer clear of with their children, if not themselves. Spontaneous and reasonable responses to persons with pedophilic tendencies is unobjectionable. And even as the prairies dogs alert the colony to the presence of a hawk, people can reasonably pass the word along within their communities to a perceived danger.
I guess we could argue the meaning of ostracism as well. I dated an anti-semite, for example, but he didn’t act like one, so I tolerated his behavior (although our dating was brief). I would only ostracize (whatever that means in this context) if she or he was spreading the doctrine–that is ideas as well as behavior. If a person is a Communist but doesn’t try to spread it, I don’t know if that is my business. The person could be known as a Communist but doesn’t discuss it with others, but instead brings cupcakes to raise funds at the bake sale.