Linguistic Misdirection Skews Policy Discourse
Real estate builders used to amuse this writer no end when they named their treeless subdivisions things like "Dogwood Acres."
Apparently, they hoped such names would make up for the lack of . . . actual trees.
But this kind of linguistic misdirection isn't so funny when political leaders engage in it.
Political leaders consistently try to manipulate voters, but they don't all do this with the same talent. Donald Trump, it turns out, is a grand master of the art.
Mr. Trump shares former president William McKinley's enthusiasm for tariffs.
But tariffs on imported goods are an indirect sales tax.
Like sales taxes, they increase the prices that consumers of those goods must pay and the extra money goes to our government.
And of course, taxes are always unpopular.
Here's where Mr. Trump's talents for linguistic misdirection have proved invaluable.
Beginning with his second inaugural address, Mr. Trump has used language that diverts attention from the fact that tariffs are taxes paid by American consumers.
He called for the creation of an "External Revenue Service" to collect tariffs.
"External" suggests that the government's revenues produced by the tariffs would come from outside the United States, in other words from other countries.
Technically, this was not exactly a lie, since it was only a proposal, not a statement claiming anything.
But what about the argument that tariffs would not cost Americans anything?
Since Inauguration Day, Mr. Trump has consistently spoken about tariffs with words like "we are going to make Japan pay," "we are going to make China pay," and the like.
But of course, Japan will not be paying us anything, and neither will China.
Foreign governments don't dislike our tariffs because they have to pay us anything , but because the increased prices Americans will pay for imports will decrease American demand for them.
The foreign countries will be losing sales.
A second major example of Mr. Trump's linguistic virtuosity has been his depiction of his budget, which Congress has now enacted, as a "big, beautiful bill," although in many ways this bill is extremely ugly.
The "beautiful" bill will greatly increase the national debt.
Although many Republican legislators contend that this not true, they authorized increasing the national debt by $5 trillion, which indicates they know better.
The "beautiful" bill also cuts vital services for less well off Americans, services like Medicaid and food stamps.
Prudently, to minimize political fallout , these cuts mostly don't kick in until after the next elections.
The "beautiful" bill increases the military budget, already the world's biggest both in dollar figures and in percentage of GDP.
This is $150 billion extra dollars to be spent by the Pentagon, which has never been successfully audited. (Where’s DOGE when we really need it?!)
Meanwhile, the "beautiful" bill guts our most urgent defense spending, which was aimed at protecting the future climate by encouraging the rapid substitution of solar and wind energy for coal, oil, and gas.
Some Republican leaders have criticized the "beautiful" bill for increasing the national debt. Others have criticized it for leaving millions of Americans without medical insurance.
They're both right!
The increase in the national debt means that just paying interest on the total debt costs around a trillion dollars a year, tax money that is not available for any governmental programs.
Reductions in medical care will gravely injure millions of Americans and an industry that accounts for one sixth of our gross domestic product (GDP).
Many rural hospitals may have to close, and injuring such a major industry might even cause a recession — or worse.
Taxes now are much lower than they were during prosperous times under Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.
There's an obvious way to satisfy both of sets of critics: Increase taxes enough to balance the budget while continuing to supply medical insurance and other critical federal services.
Although we are the richest country in the world, Congress will not do this. "Profiles in courage" its members are not.
Taxes are not popular. Dissident Republicans fear being "primaried" by Mr. Trump.
Few members, be they Republicans or Democrats, are willing, like Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., to vote their conscience even though it means losing their current job.
Ultimately, though, the problem is due to citizens who fail to educate themselves to see through the hot air and linguistic misdirection emanating from their political leaders and would-be leaders.
Paul F. deLespinasse is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Computer Science at Adrian College. Read Professor Paul F. deLespinasse's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.