Spin

Orwellian Politics of Spin

In our nation’s capital, the expression “what’s in a name” does not just have an answer, it has entire infrastructures of pollsters, researchers, PR experts, and “name mavens” behind it, why? Simple, because in Washington you are only as good as your last bill is, and your last bill is only as good as people (your constituents) think it is. In order for your constituents to think this policy is good, the trick is to make sure they do not think at all.
This is the objective of my thesis; bills good or bad never really are never prone to objection. Most of the time there names back you into a corner to think any opposition to it is incomprehensible. A lot of the times these names can have great laws inside of them, a lot of the them can have laws that have nothing to do with them, and a lot of the time they can have very laws many people wouldn’t be favor if they knew about them. However most don’t know any of this, what they do know is if they oppose this extremely positive named policy they will look like a very bad person, not only that but even contemplation seems to be a negative given the fact this name is so positive any contemplation over it one can assume you favor the negative. The main point I am trying to make is this, one feeling towards a policy usually is not made based on its substance rather its name, and this is what I will try to prove in my paper.
It is a given that we are in a democracy and one of the wonderful things about a democracy is that although the every citizen is not in office, those who are in office must cater to what the citizens want, if they do not accord with the citizens desires than the citizens of that country will not re-elect them. This is a firm belief in our American democracy, and why shouldn’t it be? We live in a democracy.
However, this is a very common and naive belief of the majority opinion in America. This belief is naive because these politicians like anyone else in America need money to get and stay where they are, if they stray away from their big backers than they do not get any campaigning money for the next re-election. Sometimes it is just selfish, a politician may be very much in favor of a policy and needs a way to make everyone else in favor of this policy, either way in both positions these two categories must find a way to please two different peoples with the same thing.
How do they do this? Can politicians survive without catering towards the public? Moreover, even if they do, how do they make sure their constituents like their legislative activities? What if the citizens do not want what his backers or what he wants? How do our politicians choose whom to displease?
Fortunately, for our politicians they have figured out a way to get both. Politicians have realized that if they think of a name that will please the eyes than they can put whatever they want in the policy itself. Using this crafted talk and coercive bill naming, politicians do not need do be controlled by anyone but themselves and there backers. They just need a happy name that will immediately make the common person think of it in terms of good and bad, once this limited thought processes is induced it is very uncommon one will choose the bad.
In his classic book “1984” by George Orwell, he refers/coins a new term called “Doublethink”. “Doublethink” is onomatopoetic linguistics at its finest. “Doublethink” is when one believes two contradictory beliefs for the sake of practicality or sanity. The next famous term he coins is called “Newspeak”, which in short was a new English language that would trim down every word and its synonyms, verbs, nouns, to make it in its simplest form.
In Orwell’s essay, “politics and the English language” he referenced several critiques on politician’s speeches and writings that lead to an ultimate misunderstanding. In the famous critique he said that modern day writers are too lazy to put in the work to provide sufficient understanding, therefore they use metaphors and big words leaving the reader with a distorted simplistic understanding/interpretation of the text.
I have always felt that the term “Doublespeak” stemmed from these ideas mentioned by Orwell, “doublespeak” is the art of making a phrase to hide or misrepresent its real meaning. It is a tool commonly used by governments, militaries, business, even people in normal conversation.
Being the fact that my father worked in advertising I grew up with “Doublespeak”, my father would always be thinking of names and/or a product message that would give it a deceiving edge. After he would come up with the winning name, he would laugh when he heard his friends boasting that they got the “EB Model TV” which only meant extra brightness.
I understood how this kind of system works rather well given my background, but applying it anywhere else was unthinkable. This conviction as many are in life was very off base, through out time there have been many bills passed by politicians that have very unobjectionable policy names that disguise it’s real meaning, the government knows that a good name for a bill means the average citizen will assume the bill is good and emulates its title. Because of this naivety of the American citizens, politicians have special groups to name bills, and have actually gotten very creative with word acronyms too, the result of this are bills such us the “Partial Birth Abortion Act”, “The Patriot Act”, “The No Children Left Behind Act”, “The Clear Skies Initiative” and much more.
In my opinion the greatest strength of these positive policy names is not the way it disguises the policies true meaning, rather it is in limited amount of emotions it evokes, The name of the bill must able to evoke an emotion that is a hundred percent positive or negative. If a policy name fails to do this, than no matter how irrelevant its name is to its content it has failed its purpose.
To reiterate what I said earlier more in depth, the reason why limited emotions towards a policy name are so crucial, is because to have a successful deception of perception, the name must trigger the common citizen to have a simplistic but logical, harsh response to any opposition to the policy. Whether he/she thinks it , is convinced by friend , or merely overhears it in a conversation from far, the immediate thought a constituent must have when hears opposition must be that they are bad and this is good, no middle ground, positive or negative.
Here are some policy names that are great examples of the desired reaction to policies and their oppositions to them, by those who name them.
The first policy example I will give is the ever so famous (another proof to Orwell’s 1984 prophecy: Big Brother!) . “The Patriot Act”, If one opposed this bill which was passed a little over a month after 9/11, they were sure victim to a response along these lines of this, “How could you oppose this bill, Are you not a patriot? If your not a patriot then you must be a terrorist! Another example is the “Clear Skies Act”. If one opposed this policy, a response such as this would be his inevitable destiny, “Do you not want clear skies, this policy is cleaning the pollution in the sky, and how could you oppose this! Another example is the “No Children Left behind Act”, Do you want to leave behind the children, what kind of person are you?
(It very much disturbs me to be able to give the lead in that will end this paragraph of examples, but it’s the best way to do it) There are many other examples I could give (that was the disturbing part) that show this, but the point was proven after the first policy example, the rest were just for emphatic purposes , but just in case I will reiterate this point more simply(if that’s possible). The most important part to this name is emotion it gives off to the common person, the bill is more contingent on the person feeling positive towards the goal of the policy and/or have a negative feeling to what this bill is trying to stop. A “gut-check” reaction is what they want because it lacks any serious thought and has a quick decision.
With names like these, it makes it very easy to get favorable public opinion on any policy because the public does not know enough to realize that the name might not mean the bill. In this paper, I intend to prove this theory, and the reason why its so damaging to our already not so strong democracy.
Not only is it a threat but it salts an already very bad wound in our country; political participation. It is widely known that many Americans know very little or nothing about politics, this is bad because less people participate in a system that is contingent on participation. Nevertheless, it is not so terrible because they don’t know anything and don’t bother anyone, they don’t vote or protest , they know nothing and couldn’t care less, partly because of apathy and partly because it is a major pain to keep up with politics.
However in nowadays with all the technology out there, one can say we live in a heuristic crazed society, everyone ones to know “what’s what” as fast as possible. Now this “uninformed majority” are slowly changing into a misinformed majority, simply because they realize in a society filled with shortcuts how easy it is to “know what’s going on”. This is very scary in my opinion, because it was once that they did not care and were non-factors to politicians. Now politicians take advantage of this heuristic crazed society, and unobjectionable bill names are more common than ever, even for bills that are good. They have make a these name so that citizens can formulate a political opinion with in a matter of seconds, all they have to see the name of the policy and without really even thinking about it they make a strong conviction whether it is good or bad.
Aside for the quick decision policy opinion American’s have grown accustomed to being a major problem, these names are very troublesome to me for another reason. This other reason is an effect of the my first problem but is still a major problem in its own right, when one makes such a quick decision based on a positive or negative name officially its their decision but essentially it is not at all their opinion. Their decision is like a reflex, similar to when the doctor hits you on the knee and your leg pops up. You see the name and given its strong negative/positive rhetoric, that is the one most will align with.
I am not so sure what it means for our democracies future, but I do know that if people do not start actually knowing what they are in favor of one day the repercussions will be significant. In this paper, I will show this problem my giving direct examples from the policy names themselves.
The way I will prove this naming issue is by giving three different policy names , all have obviously have different laws in them, but all three have a common way achieving their goal of favorable public opinion. The first step I will take with each policy is by giving a clear systematic analysis, in this analysis, I will first describe the purpose of the bill, and then I will give its negatives and positives (if there are any). To make it all come together I will end the thorough analysis by explaining how the particular name gives a “knee jerk reaction” to a certain negative or positive emotion and how it hides the negatives that would destroy the policies public perception if widely publicized. After each policy’s analysis, I will present an interview I had with either friends or family. The purpose of this interview is to prove my analysis of the policy I just gave correct, by showing how it affects the common American.
In this interview, I gave them the name of he policy that was previously analyzed and ask them to tell me what is the purpose of this bill and whether or not they approve. After they tell me their perception, I tell them the real meaning of the bill, and the reason for its deceiving name. The results I have to admit were quit funny at first but the humor quickly diminished when I once again realized the eventual consequence of these coercive names that scare me so much, Americans are slowly losing any real say they had in public policy, and don’t even know it.
The first bill I will analyze is “The Partial Birth Abortion Ban”. Before I explain this bill, I feel it is necessary to give a quick overview to the abortion issue in America. Ever since it was put on the table in the early seventies , Abortion has been a hot button issue that has waylaid many a political career.
If this were ever turned into a Broadway musical, the stars would be “Pro-Life” and (actually “versus” is a better description”) “Pro Choice”. “Pro Choice” is called that because that’s precisely what they are about—a woman’s right to chose what happens to her body. Choice is at the very core of our democracy. This country was founded on an electoral process that gives people the right to choose their “rulers”. Given the strong “American” message associated with “Pro Choice”, the immediate question becomes; “What will the right do to counter (spin opinion their way) a message as strong as that? Clearly they can’t call themselves “Anti Choice” or “No Choice”.
Fortunately thanks to their “spin-meisters” working overtime (they actually do have them and it comes out of your tax dollars) they didn’t have to. Anti Choice became “Pro-Life”— the term usually associated with religious extremists or as their also known members of the Republican Party.
As this group feels a baby is its own person, aborting it is prohibited based on the biblical ban on murder. They also leverage this by combining it with their legendary staunch position against contraception. Why? To prohibit pre-marital relations.
“Pro Choice” counter’s this altruistic “Pro life” position by pointing out a baby isn’t until it leaves the womb—especially during the first 2 trimesters when its not even fully formed, In short, “Pro Life’s” baby is “Pro Choice’s” “Fetus”. As this fetus happens to reside in the woman, it should be her choice to determine its “future” as its part of her body. Case in point, if the fetus did somehow detach from the umbilical cord, it would die.
Thanks to the groundbreaking case known as Roe Vs Wade, “Pro Choice” was leading this debate for quite a while, but this was no longer the case with he enactment of this new policy. As a good Christian, Mr. Bush was never a fan of the “Pro-Choice” mindset—as to him its killing and killing is wrong.
With a name like “Partial Birth” it brings to mind images of unborn babies—not developing, often unidentifiable fetuses, but actual babies, and while we American’s may be dubious with regards to killing suspected terrorists and their neighbors, we’re very protective when it comes to our babies.
Now the Republican Religious Conservative right will be quick to point out that the PBAB only takes effect after the second trimester, which begins in the eighteenth week of a pregnancy. If a doctor performs an abortion any time after this point he will be given a jail sentence because it seems that the woman has reached the point of no return with her body. They will also point out that this “protects” the majority of abortions as they take place in the first trimester.
Though they will conveniently neglect to mention that it abandons woman who for whatever reason (economic, psychological, un-educated) missed the first trimester cutoff. Because of this new ban, these women lose the ability to choose to have an abortion.
What would be the public opinion if this bill were called “the second trimester abortion ban” or “The abortion ban of all fetuses’ in their 18th week and on”, would it be as favorable, would the decision be so quick, I seriously doubt. When the “knee jerk reaction” is taken out of the name, it does not necessarily change ones opinion but it defiantly adds a thought process to it deeper then the policy being good or bad.
To prove this I interviewed a friend of mine who happens to be pro-choice, his name is Aaron Konstam. I asked Aaron if he was in favor of this ban, than I asked him what he actually thinks this (partial birth) bill means. Aaron said he was in favor of this bill because the baby is clearly almost alive, he told me partial birth is “like in the last month, what kind of sick person would abort a baby in the ninth month!, I know your liberal but have some limits man!!”.
As Aaron is a very “analytical” type, I pegged him as someone capable of seeing through this “smokescreen”, and while he did not, he did see my point once I explained the reality of the situation to him
First, he apologized for calling me a sick liberal, and then he said, “If I had known that partial birth meant a fetus, of course I would be against it. Why would they call it “partial birth”? When it’s such a loose yet harsh term, nobody would think it means a fetus!” Who is going to think that’s actually a fetus?”
Once I clarified things for Aaron, and he had a better understanding, he was pleased to be enlightened about the specific policy naming, but he told me that he was rather dissatisfied that he cannot just look at bill names anymore and get the same immediate simple understanding. Now if he wants to get a clear understanding of the policy he might have to actually research.
The next bill that I will present is the “No Child Left Behind Act”, what this policy does is stress accountability. The children will be tested in their English and Math skills once every year, these tests will be given to every child in every school. If a school is deemed a failing school certain revisions will be made, if a child is failing in one of these “failing schools “ for two years, then this child’s parents will have the option to send their child to a higher level school in another district, all transportation and tutors will be taken care of by the government. Another addition to this accountability idea is by making reforms on the teachers, this makes the teachers take certain state tests in order to qualify for the job, they also all must have certain masters and BA’s in any topic they teach.
Aside for the fact that very little money has been given to this reform, in my opinion the whole problem started from the name. This Bill was made as a responsive deterrence to the age-old education problem in America, Bush said that it was his greatest priority during his first presidential campaign and was a big plus in his public perception.
I have to honestly say that all in all the whole idea of setting a standard academic level for all states to maintain isn’t the worst idea I have ever heard in my life, but at least give it a name that somewhat resembles the policy. The name “The No Child Left Behind Act” make any incumbent look like a hero for make such a legislation, furthermore can you imagine saying “I don’t support the no child left behind act” its social suicide, people would think you hate children, or don’t care about the underprivileged America ect… Maybe if they looked at the policy and your reasoning based on this policies reforms one would not be subject to such harsh response when opposing such a name, for example if the policy was called the “ Student accountability act”, I don’t think such a quick opinion can formed.
This is best shown in this next interview; I made a call to my Uncle Menachem Ash who is corporate lawyer for a company called IDT. I asked him very simply do you have any idea what this Policy means and are you in favor of it? He said to me “how stupid do you think I am? This bill simply means that the government will give more money to schools so that teachers put an emphasis in children going to college and funding tutors for children who cannot afford them. They will take kids off the streets and put them in classrooms, by making more after school programs and getting involved in the children’s lives who do not have it so easy at home. You thought I didn’t know what this meant, its one of the major reasons why I voted for Bush”. I really could not gloat here because I was fooled the same way as he was maybe worse. When I told him what it does he asked me; “What is so good about that bill, I wouldn’t want it, they should be spending money to create better academic options for underprivileged children who do not excel in school, not give them tests to show that they are failing, I already know this.”
Clearly my uncles feeling towards the bill changed dramatically and maybe it would have effected his voted for, who knows. But I do know that this bill gives off a much better impression of what it is able to do than what it actually does, and that it only gives off one impression, which makes the public think that anything against it is not different but bad.
This next policy I will present is called the “Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005”, it was not passed, but its name is great example for the purposes of this paper. This Bill has so many subsections of law that a paper itself can be written on them, given the fact that this paper is not for a purpose of such I will Highlight a couple of the laws I felt were quit interesting.
The first provision is that if a person is in the observer of drug use and does not report he will be subject to a two-year term in jail. If someone gives drugs to a previous offender even if he is un-aware that this person is a previous offender, he can be subject to a five-year jail sentence. In addition to these laws, the bill lengthens sentences of previous drug restrictions significantly.
On the other hand, it has many obvious positive laws against drug dealers, and even harsher punishments for those who deal in drug free school zones. It also gives elongated sentences to those who deal drugs to minors, or employ them to deal drugs.
Though with a name like this it has a certain defense to its opposition that is so strong that most cannot even thing to utter a word against it, for example; Do you not want to defend Americas most vulnerable? A name like this makes it almost impossible to oppose, therefore only leaving one option, which is to align with the policy, because this is not the kind of name one wants to say he/she opposes.
Now although this policy has many laws that come down very strict on those who deal drugs, it also puts many Americans in a position they would choose not be. I know I would not want to be responsible for reporting a drug user to the authorities, maybe if it was a dealer but even that, it is not my job to catch the bad guys and I not should be penalized for not doing so, however this requirement would be put on many and most with out even knowing.
A better example would be this, lets say a parent catches his child shooting up heroin, I have a very strong conviction this parent would much rather send his child to rehab then to jail, but if he doesn’t he goes to jail, maybe they can go together. I am not saying that these extra requirements would one hundred percent change ones opinion on whether or not they are in favor of this bill, but giving this information certainly gives one more options relative to their previous choice which was; do you want to protect the children from drugs? The answer to this question was either yes or no, and nobody wants to be the “drug dealer” who says no, would all these people say they are in favor of this bill as fast if they actually knew something about the policy other than it protecting children from drugs?
To prove my point I asked someone who cares very much about protecting her children from drugs, my mother. I asked her very simply if she knows the definition of this bill, and if she is in favor of it? She answered “The name is a little unspecific, but I think it means more drug free school zones, and metal detectors in schools, and I certainly want to keep you guys far away from drugs”.
When I told my mother the definition of the bill, and the fact that if she sees someone doing drugs and doesn’t tell she would get arrested, she said “ O wow, a bonus, I should have told on this person, it’s a good thing they add in these kind of things into the bills”, my father quickly interjected “What! I am not going to jail if you smoke! I didn’t do anything!”
As I said before not everybody would change his or her minds, but some definitely would, and that really makes you think. What kind of policies would be made if the majority of the public would actually look beyond the name? What kind of name would they have, what would happen to incumbents who bank on these bill names to make everyone happy?


From these three policies that I have presented, and analysis of the issue, it shows a very clear and scary norm for policy making, which is that the less the public knows and thinks about the policy, the more they likely they are to be in favor of the policy. It is never easy for a politician to list all of his/her incentives in a policy to the public, because they might not approve of it, and not approving of the policy leads to the ultimate consequence of public not approving of them come re-election time, thus resulting in these strong names.
The language of these bills has erased the original norm of democracy, which once meant politicians making policies that are in accordance to that of the public. Now they make policies that accord with them that have names that accord with the public and I don’t want to sound pessimistic, but I don’t believe there is any real solution to this. Other than the public becoming citizens that are more informed, which is unlikely in our heuristic crazed society, Americans have no defense against this. This sheds light onto the tragedy I mentioned in the beginning, which sounds more clear and sensible now. With this recent increase of policy names that give no room for opposition, the only choice is left is to support this bill, and it is just so easy the former uninformed citizen has evolved into a misinformed citizen. The problem with this is that, when the same people are misinforming you, they are essentially controlling you.







Bibliography

While many of these sources were not directly used in a reference way, they all helped me formulate my thesis, my analysis, and my view regarding political spin/rhetoric/propaganda (what is the difference anymore?) as a whole, doing this paper would have been impossible without the way of approaching political spin/rhetoric/propaganda these books gave me, I referred back to many ideas and basics of political spin/rhetoric/propaganda and just rhetoric in general, among other things, so although I may not have directly quoted or referenced these books, they all helped me take the approach I did.
Works Cited
Goodrum, Charles, and Helen Dalrymple. Advertising in America; the First 200 Years:. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: Harry N Abrams Inc, 1990. 1-288.
Govtrack. government. 16 Apr. 2007 .
Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. 3RD ed. Vol. 1. New York: Free P, 1965. 1-222.
Martin, : David N. Romancing the Brand. 1st ed. Vol. 1. New York: American Management Association, 1989. 1-215.
Orwell, George. 1984. Large Print Edition ed. Vol. 1. New York: Ulverscroft Large Print, 1985. 1-428.
Orwell, George. "George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946." Mtholyoke. 14 Apr. 2007 .
O’shaughnessy, Nicholas J. Politics and Propaganda:. The University of Michigan Press Edition ed. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan P, 2004. 1-264.
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Lawrence R. Jacobs. Politicians Dont Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratoc Responsiveness. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago P, 2000. 1-425.
Yankelovich, Daniel. "Pols and Polls." Editorial. The American Prospect 1 Sept. 2000: 1-4.
Young, Frank H. Technique of Advertising Layout. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. New York: Crown, 1947. 1-185.