Dear Editor:
George Orwell, gave us the term
”
doublespeak.
”
It was his euphemism for jargon or obscure language that is
intended to give a vague understanding of a given subject with the
intention of arousing the emotions of the audience.
Dear Editor:
George Orwell, gave us the term “doublespeak.” It was his euphemism for jargon or obscure language that is intended to give a vague understanding of a given subject with the intention of arousing the emotions of the audience.
If the speaker is successful, then the emotional reaction will hinder most of the audiences ability to reasonably analyze the information. This results in facts being assumed where no facts exist. This allows the speaker to tell a limited truth, thereby counseling facts that if known, would expose the intended deceit.
In the American political arena, liberal is doublespeak for Democrat. The same is assumed about conservatives, that they are always Republicans.
But this is America, unlike Europe, where conservatives and liberals are true political labels. In America the terms are more a matter of attitude, an idea or simply a state of mind.
Mr. Orwell also coined the term “doublethink;” the capacity of a person to simultaneously hold opposing beliefs without being tripped up by the contradiction.
This paradox results from various forms of indoctrination, resulting in the person’s inability to reason beyond what they have been told to think. This can be seen when pat responses are given when asked a question regarding issues in the news.
There were two letters that were written in the week that followed Mr. Meier’s Jan. 3 column. Mr. Allen’s and Mr. Zappa’s letters were examples of doublespeak and doublethink. The writers intended to rebut the column, but they failed in part because of their doublespeak style and partly their ability to doublethink.
From Mr. Zappa’s letter, I can only assume that he took Mr. Meier’s analogy of the “… Republican party leadership is dominated by bitter white men …” as a personal attack on his character, I assume this by taking into account Mr. Zappa’s relationship to the Republican central committee. In my opinion if he is going to focus on that one point then he should have not written in his usual bad format. With a little more self-control, Mr. Zappa could have avoided that embarrassing display that has him once again coming across as a “bitter white man.”
Mr. Allen’s contained his usual misdirected arguments. He exposes his doublethink, by his fear of federal tyranny, but not state tyranny. By defending a state’s sovereign right to impose a poll tax, to prevent poor blacks and young whites from voting, to impose Jim Crow laws on blacks in order to maintain the racial status quo, of separate and unequal. Then there was Mr. Allen’s point of “…federal infringement of state’s rights. This particular issue was a federal anti-lynching law…” and what was his point? A state has the sovereign right to allow lynch law within its borders? That it is federal tyranny if the government should happen to make federal laws under the right granted by the United State Constitution? That abolishes state tyranny?
For the federal government to step in and hold up the Constitution is the duty of the government. To abolish laws that denies the right to vote, the right to justice under legal system, the right to equal protection under the law, and equal rights in jobs funded by the federal government. It is a Constitutional right. It is a human right.
There is no such thing under the United States Constitution as a sovereign state. States have only a semi-sovereign roll, as such, all states are accountable to the federal government.
Article 1 section 10. Article 6 clause 2, states “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States … shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding.”
This means that if a valid federal law and a state law are in conflict, the federal law must be obeyed. The constitution is the people’s protection from state tyranny disguised as a state’s so-called rights.
Mr. Allen’s last words in his letter were “I hope I’m wrong.” Well alas sir, you are.
Harold Williams, Morgan Hill
Submitted Monday, Jan. 27
