'90S `DOUBLESPEAK' USERS STAND ENGLISH ON ITS HEAD : LIBERALS USE `DOUBLESPEAK' THEY SCORNED IN 1960S, '70S.

Byline: Joe Gelman

DURING the 1960s and early '70s, many liberals revered the literary works of George Orwell. His warnings of the hazards of ``doublespeak'' and other forms of linguistic abuse were repeatedly referred to by many on the left, who protested at the time against what they viewed as our government's cynical, misleading and even dangerous manipulation of the English language as an instrument of oppressive social and political control.

Big business was accused of manipulation, using our language as a harmful form of commercial propaganda, amounting to nothing short of mass brainwashing. But most of the criticism of that time revolved around the doublespeak used by the U.S. military in its execution of the unpopular Vietnam war. Cynicism grew as civilian deaths were described as ``collateral damage,'' bombings were called ``protective reaction strikes,'' and first-strike attacks were labeled ``preemptive counterattacks.''

Then came Watergate with its oceans of doublespeak. The left had a field day. ``I didn't lie, Senator; I merely put forth an inoperative statement,'' one witness told the congressional investigative panel. Enough said. Indeed, in the 1960s and early '70s, it seemed as though the warnings of Orwell belonged to the political left, lock stock and barrel. They owned Orwell outright.

But then a funny thing happened. It is fairly difficult to pinpoint the exact timing of what, in hindsight, amounted to a dramatic transformation, but by the mid- to late 1970s, many liberals (not all) began to move away from seeking clarity, directness and honesty in the use of language to the exact opposite.

The world almost seemed to be turned on its head as the works of George Orwell were suddenly viewed with suspicion by the apostles of the ``new left'' and, conversely, embraced by embattled conservatives, particularly neoconservatives, who gleefully began to point the finger at increasing liberal linguistic excesses.

Somewhere around that time, the term ``political correctness'' emerged - a term that would ultimately become a mainstay in the American cultural lexicon, to the point where a popular TV show would be given the title ``Politically Incorrect.''

In this strange new reality, many calling themselves liberals began aggressively practicing what they had so righteously preached against, by using language not as a precise neutral medium to express their ideas, but as an aggressive propaganda tool to reflect, advance and implement a leftist political agenda, with little or even no regard for honesty and candor.

They had come full circle, as the ends had come to justify the deceptive means.

And so it is that, over time, trashy street talk became ``genetically based'' language, called ``Ebonics,'' ethnic separatism became ``multiculturalism,'' ghettos and slums were suddenly the ``inner city,'' Indians were transformed into ``native Americans,'' blatant racial and gender preferences were termed ``affirmative action,'' a 5-year-old's harmless flirtation became ``sexual harassment,'' the poor are ``economically nonaffluent'' or ``disadvantaged,'' individuals not of European extraction are labeled ``people of color.'' Environmental activists got into the act, and the next thing you know, jungles miraculously became ``rain forests,'' and swamps somehow turned into ``wetlands.''

Government spending became ``investing in our future for the sake of our children,'' taxes without warning turned into ``revenue enhancing vehicles,'' lies were now called ``misspeak,'' the blind were ``visually impaired,'' the disabled became ``physically challenged,'' and politically inspired murder, according to the State Department, was the ``arbitrary deprivation of life.'' The term ``arbitrary deprivation of life'' has been officially used by the Clinton State Department to avoid offending friendly countries who have engaged in human-rights violations, like China.

It didn't take long for the new language to spread like cancer beyond the world of politics. Reality was no longer what was real; it was whatever we decided to call it. Elevator operators became ``members of the vertical transportation corps,'' doorkeepers are ``access controllers,'' used cars are ``pre-owned'' or even ``experienced'' vehicles, bus drivers are ``urban transportation specialists,'' and garbage collectors are ``sanitation engineers.'' It's not a TV rerun but an ``encore.'' It's not cheap vinyl but ``genuine imitation leather.'' It's not a fake diamond but a ``real counterfeit diamond.''

Many of these terms seem innocent enough - harmless and even silly exaggerations that are worthy of a laugh. But many of these terms are genuinely calculated to deceive and control the unwitting: politically motivated propaganda plain and simple.

Although the practice of Orwellian doublespeak is by no means exclusive to political liberalism, clearly the professional liberal activists or members of the ``new left'' have, over the last two decades, elevated the use of such language to a destructive fine art.

And the conservatives have reveled in making fun of what is in many cases a deeply disturbing phenomenon.

But in truth, far from making fun of the practice, all of us, whether we are liberal or conservative, should be extremely concerned when language is used to promote an agenda in a manner that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing or self-contradictory - especially when it has pernicious social or political consequences, and especially when it is directed at unsuspecting children in the guise of ``education.''

Orwellian doublespeak, particularly of the political kind, is language that pretends to communicate but really doesn't. It is language designed in advance to indoctrinate, to mislead the intended audience and exaggerate, or to hijack the normal high ground with fancy-sounding euphemisms.

It is the product of clear, calculated thought, intended from the oIutset to control, pervert reality, corrupt the mind and distort the thought process.

It is language which makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, and the unpleasant appear attractive.

It is language which avoids or shifts responsibility and undermines honest public debate. It is an oppressive form of communication that ultimately confines our thought, suffocates our desire to express ourselves freely, and encourages dangerous ``group think.''

It breeds suspicion, distrust, cynicism and ultimately hostility.

In his famous essay, ``Politics and the English Language,'' George Orwell wrote: ``The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to the long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. . . . In our time . . . political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemisms, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. . . . Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.''

There is no question that, if we train ourselves to recognize Orwellian doublespeak when we see it, and to confront it at every opportunity, it will be an extremely bad day for modern American ``liberalism'' that has largely come to exist within the confines of such language.

Deceptive euphemisms like ``diversity,'' ``social justice,'' ``affirmative action,'' and ``multiculturalism'' are bedrock terms of ``new-left'' ideology, but also Orwellian code words for ethnic separatism, mandated race and gender quotas, and assault on basic standards and on the idea of a common American culture.

If there is a threat to the survival of American culture and civilization, that threat can be found in the struggle for control over our day-to-day language. The words we chose to incorporate into our vocabulary, anId the context in which we use them, will have a profound impact on the direction we move in as a society. I urge my readers to think for yourselves, proceed with linguistic caution, and avoid the traps that George Orwell so eloquently warned us of years ago.