talk talk

Via Ozpolitics and Personal Political, this article on the Bush administration's systematic demolition of the language in pursuit of partisan ends over Iraq should be an eye-opener. Regrettably it's not, mainly because we become so habituated to words losing their meaning. Read any of Don Watson's books or articles and you get a feeling for how widespread it is.

All governments do it. For a satirical insight into the achievements of the Blair regime in the UK, read Phillip Challinor's Curmudgeon, as he does regular piss-takes.

But it's serious too. As people lose confidence in the ability of governments to (a) do what is expected of them or (b) live up to people's ideals and/or satisfy all their wants, people will disengage from the political process (that is, of course, those who were involved. Many are not). So to the extent that governments increasingly 'communicate' in prepackaged phrases and slogans, there is so much emphasis on staying 'on message' and, finally, the truth gets obscured under multiple layers of euphemism, people just turn right off.

I'm at a loss to know how this might be turned around. It's very pervasive. There are situations where even I have to remind myself to stay 'on message': when you don't, it's catatrophic. Well no, but it is certainly embarrassing because, face to face, people see right through you. That doesn't happen on TV, which is where most people get their 'news'.

What kind of a broad based movement would turn back such a tide? Or is this one for individual action?