A Few Words About Political Language

Re “The Lexicon of Political Clout,” Commentary, March 18: Frank Luntz would have us believe his motives are pure: to use words that people understand, words that are clear and common sense. This sounds neutral and harmless. What Luntz is too timid to say is that his real role is to supply Republican politicians and CEOs with a vocabulary that supports their agenda. This makes his pretense of neutrality a myth. Bottom line: He can’t get through his first paragraph without trying to mislead us. Lincoln once gave advice about not being able to fool all the people all the time. At least there was one Republican politician who didn’t need to hire a wordsmith to get a clear message out.

Steve Wood

Ventura

*

Luntz condemns all environmentalists as extremists, but there is nothing extreme about wanting clean air and water for our children. That is the “hidden agenda” of all environmentalists I know.

Luntz is a snake-oil salesman who seduces us with carnival barking and linguistic gymnastics intended to disguise the Republicans’ radical agenda. Policies masked by clever words that would never be supported by the American people -- on either side of the political spectrum -- if they knew the truth.

How ironic that Luntz never mentions one of his greatest linguistic distortions, dubbing George W. Bush’s pro-pollution bill the “Clear Skies” plan. Orwell would have been proud. Thanks to the diligence of environmentalists -- uh, I mean extremists -- the legislation has been revealed as what it truly is: a threat to our children’s health, and a gift to the president’s pals in the power plant industry. Luntz calls his language trickery “honest political rhetoric to achieve a worthy goal.” But there’s nothing honest or worthy about it. He’s a skilled propagandist with a gift for twisting words.

Laurie David

Pacific Palisades

*

Luntz implies that to solve our nation’s problems all we need is to use the right language to describe them. He knows better than most that those who control language control thought. Corporate marketers have long struggled to control the language about their products. Politicians, too, have come to regard the public not as citizens engaged in real discourse but as consumers who must be sold the right language.

Describing “drilling for oil” as “the responsible exploration for energy” may seem innocent enough. With enough repetition, however, such slogans become obligatory. Once they become the accepted way of talking about complex issues, they are difficult to escape.

Anyone who tries to escape risks a sharp response with the implicit charge of treachery: “So, you are against ‘Freedom and Democracy’? We would like to have a word with you.” Worse, the constrained use of words deprives them of their meaning. Language loses its power of expression. We are all diminished for that.

William H. DuBay

Costa Mesa

*

Here’s a thought: Switch Bruce Tinsley’s “Mallard Fillmore” strip from the Comics section to the Commentary section, and then move Luntz’s piece to the Comics section. Tinsley’s strip isn’t funny; it’s cheap, offensive and mean-spirited. On the other hand, Luntz’s March 18 column was so tongue-in-cheek hilarious that I’m still chuckling!

Mark R. Schub

Woodland Hills