Luntz denies Orwellian language in LAT op-ed, "Lexicon of Political Clout"

The Lexicon of Political Clout
By Frank I. Luntz, Frank I. Luntz's clients have included Fortune 100 CEOs, leaders of countries and politicians such as Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg.

.... I wrote a "A New American Lexicon" for my business and political clients. But it soon made its way to the Internet, where it raised a storm among Democrats in Washington and in the blogosphere, who accused me of the worst kind of spin. They say I'm manipulating the debate in an attempt to obscure the true effect of the policies I advocate. Yet this lexicon genuinely seeks to establish a common language for a pro-business, pro-freedom agenda....my suggestions are meant to help reach that critical, nonaligned swing voter, just as product advertising is designed to appeal to nonaligned consumers....

***

Let me be specific. "The death tax," "energy exploration," "opportunity scholarships" and "personalizing" Social Security — I didn't coin those phrases, but they are now in the public lexicon and I can rightfully be "blamed" for popularizing them. They are not, as some say, Orwellian. I seek clarity in our nation's great debates, and all too often the words we have used until now hinder real discourse.

For example, why not use the term "death tax" for the taxes paid on an estate? What is the event that triggers it?....I would assert that "responsible exploration for energy," which includes the search for incredibly clean natural gas, is a far different activity than plunking down a well haphazardly and just "drilling for oil."

To me, calling for a "cleaner, safer, healthier environment" and supporting helicopter rides over the Grand Canyon and, yes, snowmobiling in Yellowstone Park is not a contradiction. I don't believe our nation's natural beauty should be locked up. The environment and commerce can and should coexist. That's why I am a "conservationist" rather than an "environmentalist." The difference? Conservationists are mainstream and environmentalists are extreme....I'm for calling the money paid to help parents choose their kids' school a "scholarship" because "voucher" trivializes the powerful opportunity the transaction confers on poor families. I'd argue that it's more accurate to call "school choice" "parental choice in education." Considering how such a program equalizes education for rich and poor, the most accurate phrase would be "equal opportunity in education." Is that Orwellian? Is that calling war "peace" or freedom "slavery"?...


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-luntz18mar18,0,5045513.story

and yes, it is Orwellian..........

Dear God, the lying hypocrisy.

O'Brien himself (likely Luntz's secret hero) couldn't have dissembled better.

And 2 + 2 = 4 Luntz, you Totalitarian Piece of Shit!

I'll just address the issue of calling a voucher a scholarship because 'scholarship' sounds better than 'voucher' even though it actually is a voucher and not a scholarship.

Is that Orwellian? Yes.

To me, Luntz came across, as unapologetic and thin-skinned. Like most hypocrites.

In it, he says his goal is "to make honest political rhetoric that achieves worthy goals, to level the linguistic playing field, and to inform Americans of the true nature of our policy debates."

IANAL, (I am not a linguist), however it seems to me that this strategy works best with the uninformed, who will take your word for it when you apply your labels and frames to the matters at hand.

It appears to me that to the uneducated, whoever reaches them first (even with lies), wins.

I've got a lot of reading to do; I'm just getting started.

EDITED for spelling.

Luntz' denial of using Orwellian language is itself Orwellian.

I've been a pollster and wordsmith for senators and CEOs for more than a decade, and I have a particular interest in language . . . .

That's why I wrote a "A New American Lexicon" for my business and political clients. But it soon made its way to the Internet, where it raised a storm among Democrats in Washington and in the blogosphere, who accused me of the worst kind of spin. They say I'm manipulating the debate in an attempt to obscure the true effect of the policies I advocate. Yet this lexicon genuinely seeks to establish a common language for a pro-business, pro-freedom agenda.

--Frank Luntz

'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'

--George Orwell, 1984

He said as a way of kicking a thread he feels deserves more discussion.