Vulture politics

If you say something no one could disagree with, you are wasting carbon dioxide, according to a July 27 article in The Economist. Such is the point of George Orwell's fine essay "Politics and the English Language."\nI hadn't thought of it for a while but pulled it down from the shelf when I witnessed both political parties refusing to honestly defend their positions lately.\nThe key passage is this: "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. ... (These positions) can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties."\nIn other words, whatever the position (even if it is a brutal one), one should muster the power to face it and to speak about it in honest terms.\nAnd verbal honesty is precisely what the Iraq debate lacks.\nThe Democrats are urging a symbolic, nonbinding vote against the escalation (all credit for true and staunch courage). They do this to escape the responsibility for taking their own counsel (i.e., the death squads that would arise in the wake of American defeat to execute prominent "collaborators," along with women and children). That reality would be too grievous on security grounds, and too unpardonable on moral ones -- which is why flippancy and light-mindedness are injected in the place of seriousness.\nIt is out of no desire on my part to be "objective" to call out Republicans who speak of a "surge" instead of an escalation. This counsel is equally worthless, for a surge involves a temporary troop increase, which is not what anyone is talking about. Yet some have deceived themselves into defending the surge as the beginning of a drawdown, which is an almost absolute contradiction in terms. The White House has called for reinforcements for the duration -- until victory is achieved or defeat inflicted. Whenever supporters of the war refuse to follow in that tone, they are attempting to leave the false impression that this is one last push, after which we can just get the hell out. \nSo there it is: Republicans are of the "declare victory and get out" school, while Democrats pay homage to the "declare defeat and stay in" camp.\nSuch squeamishness is to invite and deserve our contempt, and it is the reason I think any debate about a "Third Party" might best be postponed.\nFirst there must be two. \nPolitics and the English language have remained so degraded since Orwell that whenever you see "partisan" printed in the New York Times or spoken on Fox News, it is invariably used as a pejorative. And little surprise, "bipartisan" is nearly always employed as a compliment. So if two parties working like one is ideal, why not come right out in favor of a one-party system? \nI hope and believe the ubiquitous, threadbare cliches about the value of consensus are headed for the garbage heap where they came from and where they belong.