A Day of Rest and Recovery: Hence a Late Day Blog

Like Chesterton, Orwell notes that political language is “largely the defense of the indefensible,” employed to whitewash ugly realities; it is “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”  (Emphasis added.)

Ben J. Reinhard, in “Clinton, Trump, and the Politics of English Language”

+ + +

And so we see this so clearly represented in the words of Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in her debate with President Donald Trump in the last election.

You recall how Ms. Clinton spoke of abortion as a defense of “women’s rights to make their own healthcare decisions” – not the killing of a baby, an unborn child, even a fetus or the termination of a viable pregnancy.  And how she referred to her defense of late-term abortions as simply “heartbreaking, painful decisions” not the death of an unborn child.

And how her opponent Mr. Trump responded by saying plainly: “If you go by what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother.”

As you think about the contrast, Ms. Clinton’s language defends “the indefensible” – her’s is speech designed to make killing respectable.

In contrast, Mr. Trump’s language is concrete, clear, direct, descriptive, not illusive.  He speaks plainly while his opponent and her Party and its special interests prefer to hide their conduct behind digestible, deceptive phrases.  As such, death of a viable child is a healthcare decision.  This is, frankly, the clash in American culture today.  Truth vs. what is not truth.

The Left obfuscates and obscures, while Mr. Trump does not.  The former poisons a culture and its politics, the latter does not – it gives life.