Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

niyad

(113,088 posts)
Thu May 17, 2018, 01:28 PM May 2018

Dismantling Democracy, One Word at a Time Down the memory hole.

(a lengthy, disturbing, and important read)

Dismantling Democracy, One Word at a Time

Down the memory hole.


?itok=8MC9ycAm
"In a set of parallel moves of betrayal, the dismemberment of agencies created to honor and protect peacefulness and basic civil liberties at home or abroad is ongoing." (Photo: beppesabatini/Flickr/cc)

Consider us officially in an Orwellian world, though we only half realize it. While we were barely looking, significant parts of an American language long familiar to us quite literally, and in a remarkably coherent way, went down the equivalent of George Orwell’s infamous Memory Hole.
This hit me in a personal way recently. I was asked to give a talk at an annual national security conference held in downtown Manhattan and aimed largely at an audience of college students. The organizer, who had pulled together a remarkable array of speakers, encountered problems in one particular area: his efforts to include representatives of the Trump administration in the gathering. Initially, administration officials he dealt with wouldn’t even divulge the names of possible participants, only their titles, leaving who was coming a mystery until days before the conference opened.

In addition, before agreeing to send speakers, his contacts at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known by the acronym ICE, had not just requested but insisted that the word “refugee” be removed from the conference program. It was to appear in a description of a panel entitled “Refugee Programs, Immigration, Customs and Border Protection.” The reason given: the desire to get through the administration approval process in Washington without undue delay. It’s not hard to believe that the administration that wanted to slow to a standstill refugees coming to the U.S. didn't have an allied urge to do away with the very word itself. In order to ensure that ICE representatives would be there, the organizer reluctantly conceded and so the word “refugee” was dutifully removed from the program.

Meanwhile, the actual names of Department of Homeland Security officials coming to speak were withheld until three days before the event. Finally, administration representatives in touch with the conference organizers insisted that the remarks of any government representatives could not be taped, which meant, ultimately, that none of the proceedings could be taped. As a result, this conference was not recorded for posterity. For me — and I’ve been observing the national security landscape for years now -- this was something of a new low when it came to surrounding a previously open event in a penumbra of secrecy. It made me wonder how many other organizers across the country had been strong-armed in a similar fashion, how many words had been removed from various programs, and how much of what an American citizen should know now went unrecorded. After all, the current president had barely entered the Oval Office when the first reports began to emerge about instances in which language at various government websites was being altered, words and concepts being changed or simply obliterated.

To some extent, I understood the organizer’s plight, having myself negotiated requests from government officials for 15 years’ worth of national security get-togethers of every sort. As director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law and before that of a similar center at New York University School of Law, I had been asked by more than one current or former Bush or Obama administration official to not record his or her remarks. Indeed, one or two had even asked to be kept away from the audience until those remarks were delivered.

. . . . .


https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/05/17/dismantling-democracy-one-word-time

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dismantling Democracy, One Word at a Time Down the memory hole. (Original Post) niyad May 2018 OP
What a great sign! Orange is crossed out. CrispyQ May 2018 #1
Staggering the amount of damage being done in such a short time. CrispyQ May 2018 #2
The larger issue with government Orwellianism pertains. However.... rlegro May 2018 #3
or, "DAMN, did not realize my recorder was on, ooops." niyad May 2018 #4

CrispyQ

(36,424 posts)
2. Staggering the amount of damage being done in such a short time.
Thu May 17, 2018, 01:52 PM
May 2018
Alongside a diminished regard for the very thought of inclusiveness and for helping impoverished nations improve their conditions through aid, the idea of protecting civil liberties has taken a nosedive. President Trump’s first appointee to head the Guantánamo Bay Detention Center, Rear Admiral Edward Cashman, for example, took the words “legal” and “transparent” out of the prison facility’s mission statement. In a similar fashion, the Department of Justice has excised the portion of its website devoted to “the need for free press and public trial.


We don't seem to have a way to stop this destructive asshole.

rlegro

(338 posts)
3. The larger issue with government Orwellianism pertains. However....
Thu May 17, 2018, 09:30 PM
May 2018

If I were organizing an event such as this, and really wanted to get the Trump administration's perspective (and there's at least some educational value in that, however negative it might be), I'd honor those requests but invite news reporters, who would not necessarily be under the same restriction. Even if the organizers were compelled to tell those in the audience that no recordings could be made, reporters are always free to take copious notes and generally are pretty adept at grabbing accurate quotes rapid-fire. I used to be a journalist, and I went out of my way to learn shorthand, for that very reason.

Now, let's say the administration insisted on no reporters being present, which fact-averse politicians and bureaucracies of all kinds too often prefer. Well, that's a deal-killer right there, if you're trying to be an informative vehicle for the public. But here's something else: Take the administration's list of limitations literally. No audio recordings? Well, then, hire a court reporter and take a typed transcript that would hold up in any legal proceeding as not only accurate but permissible.

But (lordy, lordy!) we don't even need to be that legalistic. Any informal report on what a government official said at such an event could be attested to by others in attendance from memory. Remember Ray Bradbury's solution in his novel, Fahrenheit 451. Your authoritarian government tries to hide truth and fact by burning books? Well, then, train succeeding generations of citizens to memorize what they hear, then let them listen to others reciting the text of important books and documents, passing that information on orally, one small group at a time. Sure, authoritarians might try to claim their representative didn't say X or at least precisely X, but audience members would remember it differently and it would be their collective word against one government representative's self-serving view. You can't hide in plain sight, at least not for very long.

For me the bigger threat here isn't Newspeak itself but this president's clear desire to limit the independence and access of the press and news media in general. When government is the only "news" source, there is no news.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Dismantling Democracy, On...