[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE DANGERS OF NEWTSPEAK

                                 ______


                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 12, 1996

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there is an increasing 
agreement in America that we suffer from the excessively violent and 
negative tone of political rhetoric. As is often the case when people 
find something they dislike, there is a good deal of discussion as to 
how this unfortunate situation came about. In an excellent article in 
the Wednesday column of the March 6 issue of The Hill, reporter David 
Grann analyzes this issue and makes the point, persuasively and 
accurately, that Speaker Gingrich bears a great deal of the 
responsibility for this situation, because of his creative efforts to 
encourage his fellow Republicans to escalate the vehemence of their 
rhetorical attacks on the Democrats. As Mr. Grann notes in the article, 
``In 1990, Gingrich's now-famous political action committee, GOPAC, 
sent out a leaflet to Republican candidates nationwide * * * (which) 
recommended 60 of the Speaker's favorite words to demonize Democrats 
and the establishment,''.
  Speaker Gingrich in his pre-Speaker days proved very effective in 
using extremely negative, demeaning language about his opposition, and 
unfortunately, in politics as in other ventures, success often breeds 
imitation.
  We cannot effectively diminish the unfortunate excessive reliance on 
rhetoric of this sort without understanding what causes proliferation, 
and I therefore ask that David Grann's very thoughtful analysis be 
printed here.

                        The Dangers of Newtspeak

       In 1989, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) declared that ``nobody 
     would notice if you decapitated the top 12,000 bureaucrats 
     and started over.'' In 1994, sensing a GOP victory, the 
     leader of the Republican revolution denounced the Democratic 
     Congress as ``the enemy of ordinary Americans.''
       Today, Pat Buchanan beckons his brigade of ``peasants with 
     pitchforks'' to storm the corrupt establishment and ``lock 
     and load'' their weapons.
       But this time the insurgents' guns are pointing at Speaker 
     Newt Gingrich. If ideas have consequences, then Buchanan's 
     peasant rebellion is the logical culmination of Gingrich's 
     relentless rhetorical warfare against Washington. And if 
     lawmakers need to censor TV violence with a V-chip, then 
     Americans may soon need a V-chip for politicians.
       In 1990, Gingrich's now-famous political action committee, 
     GOPAC, sent out a leaflet to Republican candidates nationwide 
     titled: ``Language, a Key Mechanism of Control.'' Saying many 
     people ``wish [they] could speak like Newt,'' it recommended 
     60 of the Speaker's favorite words to demonize Democrats and 
     the establishment, including such poll-tested treats as 
     ``destroy,'' ``traitors,'' ``devour,'' ``lie,'' ``cheat'' and 
     ``threaten.''
       ``This list is prepared so that you might have a directory 
     of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing 
     speeches, and in producing electronic medium,'' the leaflet 
     reads. ``The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. 
     [Emphasis added.] Memorize as many as possible. And remember 
     that, like any tool, these words will not help if they are 
     not used.''
       Republicans, like kids discovering matches, used them again 
     and again. Gingrich, who lit the biggest torch, derided the 
     House as a ``corrupt institution.'' ``There are two realities 
     to the current system,'' he railed. ``One is the government 
     is trying to cheat you; and the second is the government is 
     lying to you about what it's doing.''
       Other GOP candidates mixed and matched the words, finding 
     rich new combinations: the ``liberal'' ``welfare state'' 
     ``devours'' ordinary Americans with its ``traitorous lies.'' 
     These verbal assaults fueled Americans' distrust of, and 
     disgust for, Democrats and paved the way for the Gingrich 
     revolution. Who, after all, could trust ``a trio of muggers'' 
     like former Speakers Jim Wright (D-Texas), Tip O'Neill (D-
     Mass.) and Tom Foley (D-Wash.) ?
       The problem is that talking ``like Newt'' has de-
     legitimized American democracy to the point that no one--not 
     even Gingrich--can redeem it. Even as the GOP tries to reform 
     the Washington culture and balance the budget, Buchanan 
     decries the current establishment--to a standing ovation--as 
     ``hollow to the core.''
       In such an anti-Washington climate, protest candidates like 
     Steve Forbes and Buchanan rise because they have never held 
     public office, while the GOP freshmen, the insurgents of 
     1994, are suddenly derided as part of the problem.
       Which begs the question: How can a country be governed if 
     anyone who governs it is unworthy of governing?
       Gingrich, realizing the consequences of his own words, has 
     sheathed his rhetorical sword and tried to muzzle the same 
     freshmen who memorized his list. He understands, more than 
     anyone, that burning down the establishment in 1996, as some 
     of the upstart Republicans have suggested, ``threatens'' to 
     ``devour'' a Republican Congress, not a Democratic one.
       None of this seems to bother the bombastic Buchanan, who 
     has his eye on the White House. The commentator of 
     ``Crossfire'' has his own personal political dictionary. 
     (Remember ``pusillanimous pussyfooters?'') But Gingrich, 
     however ruefully, has given him something more important than 
     works: a receptive audience.
       The irony is that Gingrich's revolution, despite the 
     rhetoric, is relatively mainstream; a balance budget 
     amendment, a line item veto and tort reform are not exactly 
     radical. Yet, as Gingrich has long noted, words have power. 
     And political cries for revolution, however figurative or 
     fashionable, eventually corrode even the healthiest 
     democracy.
       What can be done? To begin with, Republicans can turn to 
     another list of words included in Gingrich's 1990 mailing. 
     These ``optimistic positive governing words,'' the leaflet 
     says, ``help define your campaign and your vision of public 
     service. In addition, these words help develop the positive 
     side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, 
     giving your community something to vote for!''
       Some gentle words for Buchananites: ``share,'' ``humane,'' 
     ``listen,'' ``dream,'' ``peace'' and ``common sense.'' But if 
     Republicans keep barking from the other script, Gingrich may 
     soon look out the Capitol window and see an army of peasants 
     with pitchforks rising over the Potomac.

                          ____________________