I despise jargon and the way that it hides any real thinking with meaningless words and phrases.

We want to think “outside the box,” without defining the box. I am happy to have employees think inside the box; I am happy to have people think in any way. Most people would rather act than think and this is why so many bad ideas proliferate. Perhaps if we need to constantly “think outside the box,” we need to re-examine the box and see if it is suitable for our purpose. Besides I have five cats at home and I definitely want them to think “inside the box.”

During the high tech boom and bubble of the 90’s no business speaker could explain the phenomenon without referring to the “paradigm shift” we were facing. This was a way of saying basic values and common sense so longer applied to the business model. We should not be obsessed with the need to make a profit and actually sell a product or service that somebody needed.

I remember one speaker from an energy company getting into the steel business use this phrase to describe how no one on the traditional steel business understood this “shift” and this is why his company would soon dominate the industry. He was the chief financial officer for a company named Enron.

The jargon of today is “bipartisanship”. Like previous popular jargon it clouds any real thinking and understanding. Republicans should support the Democratic Stimulus package in the spirit of bipartisanship. Republicans should support the trillion dollars in infrastructure spending out of bipartisanship. Republicans should not listen to Rush Limbaugh because he is too partisan.

The Orwellian use of the word was come to mean that a partisan is anyone who disagrees with you. But a political partisan is someone who elevates the conflict above the purpose. Partisanship could be attributed to someone who actually agrees that the stimulus is a good thing but votes against it to make the other party look bad. To squelch all disagreement as a display of partisanship is to squelch dissent. It is the same tactic as attacking the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with the conduct of the Iraqi War.

An example of a true bipartisan effort would have been the uniting of Russia and the U.S. to defeat Nazi Germany. It is the subjugation of a fundamental disagreement in philosophy to accomplish a greater common goal desired by both parties.

Like other jargon it simply sucks the intelligence out of an issue. Gone is any meaningful dialogue of how the stimulus will function or how we will pay for it, how much the spending will be used for earmarks and special interests and how the spending will be managed and accounted for.

All of a sudden we have a huge infrastructure problem; apparently this just became known in the last month. It came as much as a surprise as the liquidity crisis in our global banking system. The solution to this infrastructure crisis is also a bipartisan effort. This means do not question the program, its amount or whether we can afford it or how we will pay for it.

It is certainly easier to attack the opposition for partisanship than to argue the merits of your case. In fact when you openly question the motivation of your opponents rather than their reason, the merit of your case is also called into question.

I am no fan of Rush Limbaugh. I find him boorish and irrelevant. Unlike Rush I truly Hope Obama succeeds in addressing the problems he faces. But I hope he does it without squelching dissent, whatever he calls it.

print