DHARMA - Patriot Language

Ted Olson, former solicitor general of the United States who famously argued (and won) the Bush v. Gore case before the Supreme Court, is taking on a different kind of case. Mr. Olson is currently representing two same-sex couples in California, bringing a constitutional challenge to that state's prohibition on gay marriage.

In a recent NYT editorial, Mr. Olson commented to Maureen Dowd that "there's something the matter with you" if you don't care about the harm caused by prohibiting equal access to the right to marry for gays and lesbians, saying, "We're not treating them like Americans. We're not treating them like citizens."

If this were a bait and switch, this would be the "switch." See, this blog entry has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with semantics.

I believe words are important. They have the power to make us laugh, move us to tears, divide us, unite us, and to exclude those who live among us. Words can shape perception in a palpable way. For example: "My client has 3 convictions." versus "My client has 3 convictions, but they all occurred before his 18th birthday."

Of all the kinds of language usage that get under my skin, it's not foreign language (hablo espanol), not poorly used language (I totes apprech your sitch), not even misogynistic language (Akon's just trying to find to words without being disrespectful). What really bothers me is "Patriot Language." Phrases such as "These colors don't run," or "Love it or leave it." Phrases that oversimplify a relatively complex set of emotions and suggest there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to feel.

This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, as both parties are guilty of this. That being said, George Bush was particularly good at using Patriot Language. "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people." "You can't put democracy and freedom back into a box." This led to people saying things like "Hell, yeah! We don't need a permission slip to defend ourselves!!" Of course we don't. Who would sign this permission slip? Where would we turn it in in order to receive our Market Day pickup? Phrases like this obscure questions that should be addressed, such as "What responsibilities do we have when engaging in the act of war?" or "What is the scope of our engagement?" Using phrases like "These colors don't run" is a way for a people to unburden itself of a sense of responsibility.

A more subtle form of Patriot Language exists when we say things like, "we're not treating them like Americans. We're not treating them like citizens." I've thought a lot about what is being implied with this language. Is this phrase implying that withholding certain rights and privileges from those who are not citizens is ok? If someone is not American, is it ok to deny them basic constitutional freedoms? (The irony is that Mr. Olson was trying to invoke outrage at the way a marginalized group has been treated, by using language that contributes to the marginalization of a different group).

I don't think there are easy answers here. There ARE reasons for withholding certain rights and privileges from those who are not citizens. But it does make me think about the millions of people living in this country who fall into that category. And I wonder about the subtlety of that language and whether it aids in drawing a tiny line between people or opens up a small area where division is allowed to creep in. I really don't know. It just makes me think.

Full credit is due to Mia Wilson for the Akon line. You're my gurrl for life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17dowd.html