Kathleen Parker January 7, 2014

In politics, it’s all in how you say things.

George Orwell knew what he was talking about when he described political language as “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Today, we’ve become so accustomed to the distortions of political speak thatwe hardly notice. But as the midterm elections near, we might benefitfrom a booster shot of skepticism.

Both parties are guilty ofverbal distortion and manipulation, but I dare say the left is moreclever. Republicans tend to rely on dog whistles, loaded terms thatprompt negative messages in the collective subconscious mind, whileDemocrats paste smiley faces on unpleasant messages, cloaking meaning in Orwellian frocks of emotional distraction.

A dog whistle might be the mention of, say, the “food stamp president,” as Newt Gingrich called President Obama during the last presidentialelection. Protests that this is not racist are noted and dismissed. Theterm calls up a certain image and everyone gets it.

Sometimesthose on both sides of an issue select language that essentially cancels out one another. This is because both are equally attractive to theear, even if their meanings are quite different. Exhibit A: pro-life and pro-choice. Who is against life? Why, no one! But, who is againstchoice? Again, no one. Of course, one chooses to protect unborn life and the other selects termination. Enough said.

Moving along to today’s headlines and “income inequality.”

This may be one of the most brilliant turns of phrase yet. Not one singleAmerican, gun to head (figuratively speaking), would say, “I’m forinequality” or “inequality is good.” But is inequality what we’re really talking about?

When you step back and examine the conceptclosely, what becomes clear is that roughly 99.9 percent of Americans —perhaps even North Korea’s favorite son Dennis Rodman — actually like income inequality. This is because we value merit,talent and hard work, and all people aspire to be commensuratelyrewarded. What, after all, is the opposite of income inequality? Incomeequality.

That said, let us stipulate that we do have a growingpoverty problem in this country, the contributing factors of which aremany and complex. But the poor are not poor because Warren Buffett andBill Gates are rich. No one thinks that Oprah has caused people inAppalachia to be destitute.

Solving our problems is far moredifficult than raising public consensus (a.k.a. rabble-rousing) that the rich should be less rich so that the poor can be less poor, a feat that can only be accomplished through redistribution of wealth.

Someof the factors contributing to the income gap are, indeed, tough totackle, and Obama is not, in fact, a god, as he now seems comfortableconceding. These factors include the loss of jobs for low-skilledworkers and the apparent inability of this population, for whateverreasons, to become more skilled. (Perhaps legalizing marijuana will help. If it doesn’t provide enough jobs, at least more people will care less.)

Other factors include: a growing retired population, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population; a dearth of entry-level jobs for college grads saddled with $1 trillion in loan debt (which the government guarantees); the appalling rate of children bornout of wedlock, a now-systemic condition that condemns a new generationto another cycle of poverty, as Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out five decades ago and Obama has reiterated.

Add to these the grinding down of low-skill wages thanks to a globaleconomy that rewards the professional class — lawyers, doctors,engineers and, yes, television talk-show hosts. And, voilà, a growingincome gap.

But is it inequality?

What is missing from thetrumpeting of income inequality is the hundreds of billions in annualgovernment redistribution that already takes place. How much will beenough to satisfy the inequality camp? When incomes are equal?

In the end, fairness isn’t the issue. The issue is justifying policies —government intervention, higher taxes, spending and redistribution —that can’t otherwise be easily sold. How about this for a midtermcatchphrase, reflective of true circumstances — the need for ahigher-skilled labor force that pits no American against another andqualifies people for jobs that are actually available: “Learning forearning.”

It’s not as emotionally evocative as inequality, but it just might do some good. Other suggestions welcome.

Read more from Kathleen Parker’s archive, follow her on Twitter or find her on Facebook.