The Yawning Gap Between Words and Meaning

By Henry J. Stern
December 7, 2004

The language of politics — at every level, from municipal to international — is fast becoming an instrument of fantasy. Twenty years after Orwell's 1984, we see words used in ways quite unrelated to their conventional meaning.
 
Public officials, elected and appointed, make statements which are simply untrue or misleading, announce plans or programs that will be impossible to implement, and make promises that cannot be fulfilled, even if the speaker intended or desired to perform his obligations.
 
As a result, the currency of political speech has become debased. The statements of public officials have little credibility, and consequently little impact. Commercial messages may be more persuasive, because some of them are fresh and amusing, with good-looking people and well-bred animals trying to persuade us to act. They are much more appealing visually than talking heads. We cite Rule 32-P: "Politics is Hollywood for Ugly People."
 
We rightly recoil from the mudslinging, the denunciation of opposing candidates and their families, the familiar grey tones in which the unshaven or smirking rival is depicted, and the distortion of legislative voting records. (He voted to raise taxes 256 times.) Yet the campaign consultants tell us that 'going negative' is effective. Voters are more likely to believe bad things about the other guy than good things about you. The challenge is to make charges strong enough to be remembered, and with just enough truth in them to avoid libel suits or counter-advertising showing the falsity of the attack ad.
 
Campaign advertising for centuries has been extreme and abusive. What the Founding Fathers said about each other was not always genteel. There were enormous personal rivalries then, as there are today. Lincoln was variously described as a buffoon and a baboon. Franklin Roosevelt was called a traitor. (We omit references to more recent presidents.) Sometimes the charges are literally true, but not necessarily relevant to fitness to hold office.

Our concern here, however, is not based on rhetorical flourishes or hyperbole in description. For example, we fault the announcement of plans for building subways where there is no capital funding on hand to construct them, nor a revenue stream to support their operation. We are troubled by a judicial order which may lead to the spending of tens of billions of dollars on education where there is already a six billion dollar state deficit. We resent politicians promising to introduce legislation to sweeten pensions that is unlikely to be enacted. It is even worse, however, when the politician keeps his promise and an irresponsible pension increase is enacted. In cases like this, it is the state that passes the bill, but it is the city that pays the bill. The code words: "unfunded mandates."
 
On the international front, we hear the projections of impending victory, or of a battle supposed to have already been won;  the warnings of weapons of mass destruction posing imminent danger;  the denial of the existence of global warning while Bangladesh washes away;  the falsification or suppression of scientific findings;  the cover-up of the torture of prisoners and the killing by friendly fire of our own soldiers. War is dangerous and unpleasant, as we know, but why are we so frequently subject to untrue or misleading reports? The misrepresentation comes from both sides — excessive optimism by officials, and total pessimism by some journalists who believe their mission is to show that our government is wrong in everything it undertakes.
 
On the national level, the largely ignored $800 million increase in the national debt ceiling and the adoption of a $536 million Medicare drug benefit plan, totally unfunded, are acts which lessen people's faith in government responsibility. There is a case for the drug benefit, even if we do not have a single-payer system, and there is a case against it — that we cannot afford it. The adoption of the plan without a way to pay for it is a typical instance where government ignores the future and promises a benefit that it will be unable to sustain without substantial additional borrowing. That will require higher interest payments and further destabilize the sinking dollar.
 
The State of New York has a growing reputation for fiscal irresponsibility. Once No. 1 in debt, we were only overtaken last year by California, where Governor Schwarzenegger's $27 billion bond issue was approved by the voters. But in New York, huge bond issues are no longer sent to the voters for approval, but done off-budget through agencies like the State Dormitory Authority. That skirts the state constitutional requirement for voter approval to incur public debt.
 
With regard to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, they combine extensive borrowing with profligacy, waste and denial of reality. The MTA has a five year capital program, with $27 billion in capital projects in varying stages of design, engineering and early construction. Some of the work is necessary, others are of minimal utility and a few are too elaborate and could be built at less expense. A substantial and steadily increasing portion of the MTA's operating budget is spent on debt service, because the agency borrows not only for new construction, but for maintenance of a state of good repair of existing facilities. Since their appeal to Albany for new taxes was just rejected, the MTA should try to come to terms with reality in what it plans to do. It would not cure their deficit, but it would be a showing of good faith for the MTA to reduce their administrative budget by ten percent.
 
By comparison, the City of New York is doing somewhat better. Its impending deficit for fiscal 2006, which begins July 1, 2005, is only $3 billion, a bagatelle in the world of shortfalls. Late in January (next month), the mayor must submit a preliminary budget and gap closing plan. We await the plan, just as young moviegoers generations ago waited for Saturday afternoon to watch the next episode of The Perils of Pauline. The new airport agreement with the Port Authority, extending their lease of LaGuardia and Kennedy airports to 2050, is intended to help plug the gap with a one-time payment of about $800 million. A one-shot is not a remedy for a structural deficit, especially when so-called mandatory costs like pensions, interest and Medicaid are rising sharply.
 
The statements made by public officials with regard to the Court of Appeals decision in 2003 requiring substantial additional expenditures for education simply do not comport with reality. They may make people believe that something is being done, and that the speakers are showing support for education, but there is little hope for the early implementation of the multi-billion dollar plan about which hopes and fears (over new taxes) have been raised. As to the argument over whether city or state taxes should pay the new costs, who do you think it is that pays the major portion of state taxes? It is the residents and businesses in the five counties of New York City, vassals of the Empire State.
 
A resurgence of truth-telling will not solve our financial or structural problems, but it will at least make it easier for us to consider them without having to slog through the linguistic camouflage in which they are currently cleverly concealed.