An unrelenting effort has been underway to rewrite — even erase — the history of that day.
— President Joe Biden, op-ed, The Washington Post
Thus demonstrated is the wicked power of the passive voice; it spares accuracy, reality, and frequently a malicious perpetrator. (President Nixon on Watergate: "Mistakes were made.")
A moment of restoration: "Donald Trump mounted an unrelenting effort to rewrite — even erase — the history of that day" — this day, four years ago.
Yes, I know, the honored rule of presidential tactfulness and all that; another deployment of Those Who Shall Not Be Named. Yet every rule has an exception, and this one positively screamed for it.
The "unrelenting effort" came not from some mysterious Floridian wind. One man called it to life and unleashed a hellish four years of a nation needlessly, viciously divided.
Topping off Biden's peculiarity of language is its host, The Washington Post. About his op-ed, the paper reports that "President Biden warned Americans not to forget the violent attack ... and he accused President-elect Donald J. Trump and his supporters of trying 'to rewrite'" history.
The reporter, Michael Shear, at least has the decency to use the active voice. Yet he matches and even surpasses Biden's peculiarity by writing that he "accused President-elect Donald J. Trump." True, the therein-named party is known by all, we get it. But Michael, where in God's name did President Biden accuse Trump? The name is nowhere in the op-ed.
Back to our theme, which I write sans passive anything. Continues Shear: "In 2022, a year after the Capitol assault, Mr. Biden stood in the building’s Statuary Hall to condemn the marauding mob."
I sought the transcript of his remarks. Again to the rescue arrived the passive: "One year ago today, in this sacred place, democracy was attacked — simply attacked," said Biden. Simply, however, was pin-pointingly accurate. The attack was so bloody simple, it was the first of its kind to erupt absent any human agency.
Such a silly and minor thing, some would say — fussing about the robbed-of-responsibility passive voice. To them I answer, use it all you like, go crazy with it, never again dare to actively make note of ... whatever. But among eminent politicians, there is no whatever; they trade in profundities, life and death, perhaps democracy's death.
And to them I answer, I'm not the first to make such a fuss, and neither was Orwell when he penned the essay "Politics and the English Language." The twosome are just awful. Of our subject the author wrote: "Characteristic phrases are: render inoperative, militate against, prove unacceptable...," and now, an effort that "has been underway."
So keen on this higher-realm violation of direct, straightforward language, in the essay's closing Orwell listed a handful (six in all) of the urgently advised: "iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active."
Prepare — comes the Big Picture, as in, now. When compared to the paramount thesis of Orwell's manuscript, to the aforementioned "some" I concede only that which he conceded. The passive voice is but one villain engaged in battling what is most vital: "To think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration."
The passage lies in Orwell's opening, where he also assessed a popular opinion which, I am sure, remains popular: "Any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism."
Let us update that sentiment, or rather, its reverse effect. Had President Biden responded not in-kind but in number and name to Trump's assaults on history's truth, would we suffer this day? And throughout another 1,459 of 'em?
Think on it, Joe.
Posted by: |