The POW to End All POW's

"It's the ones you think are great that let you down."
-The Monk

To my enthralled audience, I present the December 17 POW.

* * *

The shades of meaning in language can allow an author to render his ideas in a manner that complements his message or implies an entirely new meaning. Some might call the use of these shades an effective enhancement of language for the amplification of meaning. Other could say that such a method subversively manipulates through style rather than substance. Either could be applied to most language, depending on one’s perspective and the circumstances of the piece. Regardless of the ethics, connotative use of language can be used to great efficacy, as in Charles Krauthammer’s latest piece, “The Real Obama.” Krauthammer can dish out virulent cutthroat attacks, to the point that they can become ineffective by virtue of their unwarranted over-aggression. This column abandons most of the outrageous premises that undermined Krauthammer, choosing to rely on statements that attack through suggestive language.

Though perhaps he could have used a better word choice towards his end, Krauthammer is attempting to caste Obama as a “transformer,” which in context we may define as “one who creates transformations.” Though transformation may carry a positive connotation, Krauthammer argues that Obama can and will provide the profound change that defines a transformation—but it is change that would be radical and radically wrong. Furthermore, some of this imminent transformation has been deliberately obscured from the public in the space before the election and even now during the transitory period; hence, the piece is entitled “The Real Obama.”

In describing Obama’s ideology, Krauthammer states that Obama’s ideology is, at present, “largely opaque.” To the same denotation, Krauthammer could have said “Obama’s beliefs remain largely unknown,” but that would have certainly given a different, and less effective, connation to the phrase. Opaque, according to Oxford University Press, can describe something that is “hard to make out,” “not clear,” or “obscure.” Unknown implies that something exists, but we do not know where (as in where to find a fact). Opaque, on the other hand, seems to indicate that something exists and is accessible, but still eludes our understanding of it. It follow that if a person or their views cannot be understood (especially that of a United States Senator), then there is good chance that those views are deliberately obscured. From that, one could very well suspect that if some deliberately obscures, there must be something to hide—leaving us to speculate on what hides underneath the black veil.

Now, having set the stage for some dark insinuations, Krauthammer looks caste Obama as a politician engrossed in domestic policy almost to the exclusion of the pressing foreign, military, and domestic policies. Not only might the reader take alarm in that Obama, so Krauthammer alleges, has little to no “aspirations” in foreign policy or “commitment” to “economic” policy (both of which have positive connotations), he might be fearful that such transformational energy would be invested in domestic policies. Such policies could theoretically intervene, and possibly interfere, in the daily lives of American citizens. Then, Krauthammer states: “Their [the cabinet member’s] job is to keep credit flowing and the world at bay so that Obama can address his real ambition” (emphasis added).

Oxford would seem to define ambition as “An aspiration to be, to do.” That’s all well and good—how can an innocent aspiration be held against you— but then one should look at one of the older senses of the word: “An ardent (orig. inordinate) desire for distinction.” While this may not be primary sense of the word in this context, one must consider the effect that this other sense might have for the connotation of ambition. It might imply a more foolish or ruthless pursuit, than, perhaps, goal or aspiration.

Krauthammer makes his case that Obama wants to create a transformation. Then he argues that Obama has the “power” and money to make such a move. That is, since even the conservatives have thrown in their hat in the “intervention” (a controversial buzzword), and “experimentation” in the economy, since Obama was elected by an impressive mandate, and since Obama will work with a strongly Democratic Congress, he should not face significant partisan challenges to his plans (i.e., his power). As for money, Krauthammer points out, correctly, that the imaginable sums of money allocated to be spent have already leap over the prior fiscal bounds—does another trillion really matter? Krauthammer argues that the public demands for action will lead to expenditures of now-trivial sums of money by the Obama administration, unopposed, in a transformation. Yet, by specific instances of diction as well as the general tone of the piece, Krauthammer clearly opposes the nature and magnitude of the proposed actions.

I don’t doubt that Krauthammer’s clever use of diction was effective, or that his arguments were unsound, or his insinuations were not clearly conveyed. He constructs the piece very well, so that he gives a good account of what the other side is shaping up to be (but not actually defending them), and yet he fails to present his argument, his opposing viewpoint, in detail enough to be compelling. He gives no direct reasons as to what he thinks, what he purposes, and why he is right; unfortunately, with nothing better than vague insinuations about the president-elect, Krauthammer has not written an effectual piece.