Setting the Record Straight

Why the language we use is important (and how we can do a better job)

One of the most important lessons learned by American progressives in recent years is that language matters. While there is no substitute for substance and commitment and being right, the way we communicate our positions is also vitally important. Political observer and linguist George Lakoff made this point repeatedly during his recent visit to North Carolina.

Would the United States, Lakoff asked, be stuck in the same fix it is today if for the last five years we had been referring to the "occupation of Iraq" rather than the "war in Iraq"? Clearly, the term "occupation" is a more accurate description of the role our troops have been playing. Might its repeated use by politicians, pundits and reporters have altered the basics of public attitudes? Lakoff thinks so and it seems likely.

As noted previously in this space, when it comes to domestic policy, the far right has gone so far as to repeatedly use language to disguise policies. Whether it's masking anti-environmental policies with names like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests," or cloaking the effort to undermine public education by agreeing to and then underfunding a program called "No Child Left Behind," the far right has taken the use (and abuse) of language to a whole new level.

For progressives, of course, there is no need to sink to such depths. Nor is there a reason to fall prey to the temptation to allow our policy positions to be guided by pollsters and political spinmeisters. Sometimes progressive positions like helping the poor, defending immigrants and fighting the nation's obsession with guns are simply and morally right - even if they're not overwhelmingly popular in the moment.

In many instances, however, progressives can and should do a better job of describing the truth they are attempting to espouse. Similarly, neutral participants in the debate - most notably the news media - should refrain from reflexively relying upon tired, inaccurate terminology when there are better and more accurate words at their disposal.

Distorting the message

An excellent example of this kind of inaccurate and problematic use of language occurred earlier this week on the editorial pages of Raleigh's News & Observer. In a column authored by fiscal policy expert Meg Gray Wiehe of the N.C. Budget and Tax Center, Wiehe described the substance of her recent special report, "Who pays taxes in North Carolina? (Hint - It's not who you thing)." Wiehe's central point was that the wealthiest North Carolinians are getting a tremendous break on state and local taxes because they pay a much lower percentage of their incomes than do people of middle and lower incomes. When submitted to the N&O, the piece was entitled, logically enough, "Who really pays taxes in North Carolina?"

Unfortunately, when the piece showed up on the N&O's editorial page (on April 15 - "Tax Day"), the title had been changed to "North Carolina needs to even out the burden." Moreover, the piece was physically subsumed in an op-ed authored by a staffer at the extreme right wing Heritage Foundation with the ominous title (in all caps) "The Tax Tally." (In the on-line version the Heritage op-ed is entitled: "Brian Riedl: How Washington will spend your taxes in 2008."

While changes are to be expected (newspaper editors almost always change the titles of submitted opinion pieces in order to fit the available space and their own estimates of what the pieces are really trying to convey), in this case the change was problematic and symptomatic of a broader failure on the part of the public and the media to think and converse rationally about taxes.  

Setting the record straight

The point of Wiehe's op-ed was not to bash or bemoan taxes or tax "burdens." In it she affirms the importance of taxes and the relative bargain that they provide for our people:

"State and local taxes pay for many of the things that keep North Carolinians safe and enhance their quality of life. These include physical structures such as roads, jails and school buildings, and services such as health care, education and restaurant inspections.

Because these investments benefit everyone, each North Carolinian should contribute an appropriate share of his or her income to pay for them. It should be a common goal that all North Carolinians pay similar shares of their incomes in state and local taxes. A good case can also be made that wealthier taxpayers should contribute a greater share of their incomes."

Unfortunately, Wiehe's approach to taxes appears not have comported with the general tenor that the N&O editorial page editors wanted to convey on "Tax Day." Rather than attempting to lift up or illuminate the discussion of taxes (or Wiehe's central point), the editors fell back (probably out of habit) on the tired and inaccurate message implicit in the word "burden."

When combined with the Heritage Foundation article, the effect was to promote a distinctly negative and narrow view of taxes - one that meshes nicely with the drumbeat that has been emanating from market fundamentalists for the past 30 years that "all taxes are bad," "all government is a necessary evil," etc…  

A few moments' honest reflection about the true nature of taxes in modern American society, however, reveals a very different picture - namely that of taxes as a key to freedom and prosperity.  

Think about it for a minute. Try to imagine the incredible prosperity, comfort and freedom that most North Carolinians enjoy without the public structures and institutions that all of our taxes support. As Wiehe put it in another piece she wrote for NC Policy Watch earlier this year:

"Taxes are the collective investments we make to create a quality of life that we all enjoy and have come to expect. These investments are essential to educating our current and future workforce, building and maintaining transportation systems, protecting our communities, and providing a sound public health structure.  Everyone benefits from strong, well maintained public structures. Today's North Carolina is the product of generations of investments made to serve the common good. Taxes have fueled North Carolina's growth, given us a wonderful quality of life, and helped make the Tar Heel State a player in the global economy."

A better approach

It's easy to fall back on lazy and inaccurate language when talking about public policy - especially when it comes to complex and seemingly opaque issues like taxes. Moreover, Americans have a longstanding tradition of skepticism on taxes that dates back to the Revolution. In many ways, it's ingrained in us to grump about them.

Ultimately, however, these are handicaps that all of us - progressives in particular - are going to have to overcome or, at least, control. Tax policy is complicated, but the basic facts are readily accessible. Similarly, a little annoyance or dark humor at paying one's taxes is understandable - as it is with a trip to the dentist - but this isn't 1776. There's a big difference between subjects paying tribute to a distant, tyrannical monarch and citizens of a democratic republic coming together collectively and intentionally to share in the upkeep and future growth of their own society.

Sure, some taxes are inefficient or unfair or obsolete. Government remains, like every human endeavor, an imperfect institution. At its core, however, American democratic government remains the best hope of humankind for what FDR called the "four essential human freedoms":  Freedom of speech and expression; Freedom of worship; Freedom from want; and Freedom from fear.

As such, neither it nor the taxes that make it possible should be treated as the object of casual derision or dismissed as a "burden." To the contrary, for all of their flaws, taxes remain the bulwark of our freedom and prosperity. It's time for all who care about protecting and expanding freedom and prosperity to update their language.  

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 19th, 2008 at 6:02 am and is filed under Setting the Record Straight. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.