I cribbed this from Mark Steyn's 9/11 column as it is fitting into my Orwellian themed frame of mind these days:
Four years ago, I thought the "war on terror" was a viable concept. To those on the right who scoffed that you can't declare war on a technique, I pointed out that Britain's Royal Navy fought wars against slavery and piracy and were largely successful. Of course, since then we've had the shabby habit of presidents declaring a "war on drugs" and a "war on poverty" and, with hindsight, that corruption of language has allowed Americans to slip the war on terror into the same category -- not a war in the sense that a war on Fiji or Belgium is a war, but just one of those vaguely ineffectual aspirational things that don't really impinge on you that much except for the odd pointless gesture -- like the shoe-removing ritual before you board a flight at Poughkeepsie. The "war on terror" label has outlived whatever usefulness it had.
Words can be loaded. As Steyn has put forth in the above quote, they can also be unloaded. Which is what Orwell was talking about. We do it all the time. There was a time in recent politics where Republicans had Democrats running away from the word 'liberal' as they had managed to load the word with negative meaning. Loading and unloading the meanings in words to suit an agenda. We must be ever vigilant as from day to day the decon-recon-structionists weave a world where words become chameleons, changing and not able to be focused on.
Words can tear your heart out. The left points to its success during the Vietnam era to 'stop' the war. As Ho pointed out then, the war was fought here, and with words. It was won on the streets of America. John Kerry was one of the heroes then, his words are on record. He was brought back to fight the war again, with more words. Some of those that bore those heart-rending words from the seventies the hardest, came to fight back. Kerry lost the battle but the war goes on.
Listen to the sounds of war—not the booms and the rat-a-tat-tat of bombs and small arms, but the rat-a-tat-tat of the internet and the newspapers, and the booms of talk radio and talking head TV.
More people at home are starting to lose faith. Is it time for some good old propaganda? A weekly computer-side chat perhaps, blatantly pandering to our sense of home and hearth, reminding us of our good luck that we haven't been struck again.
If George Bush can be held responsible for a hurricane, can he not be held responsible for four years of peace at home? Maybe we could visit the troops on the front lines. Profile one or two a week, or maybe one or two on the front lines at home. The FBI, the CIA, the men and women that guard our borders. Put a face on these people and show that it's not because al Qaeda is bored, or that we've just been lucky (though I think it is part of it).
How much would it improve the atmosphere at the airport, and the interaction between those bic-lighter-taking guardians and the rest of us, were they to be on the tube talking about their jobs and what it meant to them? Karen Hughes could set it up and keep George on it. We sent Condi abroad, let's keep Karen at home.
More on words, let's take just one: moderate. By definition it resides between extremes. It could be a diplomatic word, a reconciliation if you will. Some may say it's neither hot nor cold, others may say it's just right. Now conjure a picture in your mind of a political moderate. Maybe Bill Clinton would fit your bill of a political moderate. His personal peccadilloes may chafe some, but politically he backed welfare reform and NAFTA, as well as more liberal policies.
Steyn looks at a current definition of the word:
For example, according to a recent poll, over 60 percent of British Muslims want to live under sharia in the United Kingdom. That's a "moderate" Westernized Muslim: He wants stoning for adultery to be introduced in Liverpool, but he's a "moderate" because it's not such a priority that he's prepared to fly a plane into a skyscraper.
A snark remark? After four years of pissing in the wind Steyn has a right to be snarky. How do you get to 60% of a large subpopulation in Briton rejecting outright the idea of Western Civilization right in its cradle? And here I thought France had problems. Toto, I don't think we're in a world of moderation anymore, but I think we all had better get used to it.
