Driving into work this morning, I heard an NPR (National Public Radio) report on General Michael Hayden’s confirmation hearing. What struck me this morning was less about the details of his answers and more about the nature of his perspective.
He bragged about how carefully he altered his language in describing a surveillance operation, changing from the word “communications” to the word “conversations.” He was so proud of the fact that his words were very carefully chosen.
At that moment, the details of the surveillance operation seemed less significant to me than the fact that I was listening to a man who was proud of his ability to ’spin’ his statements to say precisely what he wanted to convey—no more and no less. Wordplay can be fun and entertaining but in this case, it can be misleading or, worse, completely untrue. Are you asking yourself, “What’s wrong with a little spin; almost everyone’s doing it?” Here’s what I think:
Precision in communication is a laudable skill. I think everyone has a responsibility to effectvely say what they mean. Like any skill, it can be employed honestly or dishonestly. After listening to the rest of the NPR report, I felt uncomfortable trusting General Hayden. In fact, I think the use of such wordplay by officials is among the greatest danger to the American people today.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) seems similarly focused on the importance of truthfulness. He observed that Hayden told Congress only international calls were being intercepted by the surveillance program. This now appears to be untrue, highlighting Hayden’s lack of integrity.
How can a man who is so proud of his ability to communicate so precisely turn around and blatantly lie to the Congress? He can do it because it is in his character to do so. Is this a man Congress ought to trust? And if Congress trusts Hayden, is this a Congress that the American people ought to trust?
“With all due respect, general, I can’t tell now if you’ve simply said one thing and done another, or whether you have just parsed your words like a lawyer to intentionally mislead the public,” Wyden remarked. General Hayden replied, “Well, senator, you’re going to have to make a judgment on my character. I was as full and open as I possibly could be.”
My judgement on Hayden’s character seems a simple matter: he has, and will, deceive whenever it suits him in his job as CIA head.
With Hayden’s blatant dishonesty in mind, here’s what I find disturbing: NPR said Hayden’s confirmation was almost assured before the hearing took place. What, then, is the point of the hearing? If we’re going to confirm a man to a position regardless of his answers (excepting, of course, such gross anomalies as child-molestation or puppy-torturing)?
Hayden said that, if confirmed, he would run the CIA by listening to his lawyers and his conscience, just as he did when he ran the NSA (National Security Agency). I’m somewhat suspicious whenever I encounter the ideas of ‘law’ and ‘conscience’ in the same sentence (no offense intended to anyone working as a legal professional; this is a bias of my own personal experience rather than a generalization of legal professionals overall); particularly so when it relates to General Hayden’s credibility.
It seems Hayden subscribes to Machiavelli’s notion that “the end justifies the means.” The general seems comfortable doing ‘whatever it takes’ to achieve his outcome, even if it means violating Americans’ Constitutional rights. I disagree with that mentality and I distrust Hayden.
I only wish Congress would feel the same.
4 responses so far ↓
1 chow-stl // May 29, 2006 at 9:11 pm
I do take great pains to choose my words to reflect exactly what i mean. This requires several considerations when doing so. First the vocabulary level of the person whom I am speaking to. For instance, in international corrispondance with people whose first language is not english, i try to choose words more or less in line with a 6th grade reading level. Not because the recipients are stupid, but because english is not their first language. This approach has sometimes gotten me into trouble. For instance there was a recent peice of correspondance with a person whose first language it purtugese and when she read my letter, she felt that i was being condenscening. as i later got to know her, i learned her english was better then mine. But at the time i felt in neccesary to use such verbage until i understood otherwise. And the second approach where i take great care to choose my words is when i post in comments sections or other buliten based forums. Only because with imprecise verbage comes misunderstandings. And it is much easier for me to spend a little extra time choosing my words carefully the going back over my words at a later time to clarify my meanings.
As for the choosing of words for deception, this is not a very good practice. Orwelinaism as been with us since the even of public speaking. and it is a very detrimental practice when employed in areas of the public discourese by public officials. While i think the choice of the words ‘communications’ versus ‘conversations’ is somewhat like choosing between pepsi and coke. I can see what the user intended. Communication implies something which is more personal and private where conversations are somewhat less formal and less private. Such commnets cause me to wonder what other sort of orwellian double-speek was atributed to Hayden which we are not aware of.
Best Regards
2 Richard // May 30, 2006 at 12:14 am
Like you, I try to choose my words carefully, and for the same beneficial reasons you cite. Knowing your audience is indeed important if the goal is to effectively communicate the idea in your head into the head of another with utmost accuracy.
Unfortunately, some people’s goals are not so honorable and they speak with an eye to manipulate. Because it is difficult for the average person to distinguish between such manipulative language patterns and geniune sincerity, the danger to the average person is magnified.
My dad used to tell me many things (as all parents do, I suspect), among them, “Rick, you need to look up and down, left and right, front and back; then, look for the man you can’t see.” His point, if I understand him correctly, is that the most dangerous enemy is the one we’re not aware of.
Those in powerful positions who come across as our friends may be sincere but until we have some measure of confidence, I think a healthy skepticism is the order of the day.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
3 chow-stl // May 30, 2006 at 5:15 am
Healthy skeptisism is always required. And we should question authority at all times until the authority has shown itslef to be trustworthy. Even then keep a close eye. To whit, the president is a case in point. While I am not of the school which thinks that the president is trying to usher in a tyranny, and curb civil liberties and i feel, on the whole, that he has past muster (in my eyes, anyway) as a person who is acting with integrity, I will not allow myself to become less viligent with regards to anything he proposes. I do have my beef with our president on a few issues. But for my money, he has performed admirably on matters of national security. But that good performance never detracts from my, and everybody elses, need to remain viligent. People can, and often do, change given a different set of cicumstances so we must not ever regail ourselves to a cult of personality. this is how most bona-fide tyranies get their start.
Best Regards.
4 Richard // May 31, 2006 at 8:09 am
My concern with the President’s efforts to protect national security stem less from any insight into his motivation, chow, and more from the precedents that his actions are setting. Please see my post The Danger of Precedent for my concerns in this matter.
I appreciate your viewpoint as I believe you appreciate mine. I can only hope that you are more correct in your assessment of his character and intent than I have been because if you’re right, I’m overly concerned — which would be a good thing!
However, if I’m evaluating him correctly… heaven help us all.
Leave a Comment