Thursday, May 19th | 19 Iyyar 5782

May 28, 2013 2:38 pm

Washington’s New Language

avatar by Michael Widlanski


Eric Holder of the Department of Justice.

Watching  the news from  Washington lately is like going on a  trip to other places at another time.

Top officials from the Internal Revenue Service, The Secretary of  State, The Attorney General and even the President all sound strangely like  people  during the Soviet regime of Joseph Stalin or even under Nazi Germany.

During Stalin’s time, anyone who asked a Russian about an event found that Russians did not want to say anything. Russians were  never sure what was the safe thing to say.  So, the safest thing was to say “I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING.”

Better to be thought an ignorant idiot than politically responsible or mischievous.

Related coverage

May 19, 2022 1:32 pm

A Message from the Front: We Must Aid Ukrainian Refugees Now

I have just spent the week in Poland with 25 rabbinic colleagues, traversing the country, and visiting various Jewish community...

“Ya niznayoo, ee-ni-khatchu znatye” was the Russian response: I DON’T KNOW, AND I DON’T WANT TO KNOW.”

There was a similar tendency under Nazi Germany.  The popular sit-com series “Hogan’s Heroes” made a  farcical character out of Sergeant Shultz, a kind of bumbling character with a very serious sub-text message.

The bumbling sergeant was meant   to be the German “every-man”—a  man  who tried hard NOT to see repressions,  kidnappings and  mass murder committed next door.

“I know n-o-t-h-i-n-g. I see n-o-t-h-i-n-g.”

Of course official  misdeeds and cover-ups in Washington are not like Soviet or Nazi crimes against humanity, but it is a sad day when senior US officials from the IRS, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder and especially President Barack Obama sound like bumbling Sergeant Shultz.

After all, these officials work for us. They get a salary and take an oath to serve us. They should  answer to us. We have a right to know. That is what the social contract means. That is what the Constitution means. But how things have changed!

Being a top level US official today means you can offer a Soviet-style response that is seasoned with some good old fashioned chutzpah and indignation.

Just imagine if a US citizen tried to answer an official government inquiry—from a policeman or tax collector—with such an approach. Let’s go to an imagined Q and A.

Picture going out for a drive after taking a drink or two. You crash into your neighbor’s garage door. As the burglar alarm blares, your local police walks over, pulls you free  from the air bag,  asks you a few questions:

Q:  “Miss, have you been drinking?”

A:  “What difference at this point does it make?” [Author: Hillary Clinton]

Picture a slightly different scene:  You’ve had quite a few drinks, get sloshed, drive your car into your neighbor’s yard. You stumble out of the car, but the police appear  just as you offer  life-giving liquid to your neighbor’s cherry tree.

Q:  “Sir, what have you been drinking?”

A: “I cannot tell a lie. I did not  chop down  my neighbor’s cherry tree.”

Q: “Sir, that’s not what I asked you. My question was what have you been drinking?”

A: “I may have been drinking at some point over the last few months, but I don’t know what went into the formulation. I don’t know the facts.” [Author: A variation on the response Eric Holder gave about how he authorized grabbing  the phone records of hundreds of AP reporters.]

Q: “By the way, what are you doing to your neighbor’s tree?”

A:  “This was a very serious — a very serious leak, a very, very serious leak. …I have to say that this is among — if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen.” [Author: Attorney General Eric Holder justifying the Associated Press Scandal.]

In normal times, there are serious consequences to talking like this to the police.

Now, let’s raise the stakes.  Imagine filling out tax forms and then trying to offer weak excuses to an Internal Revenue Service auditor.

Q: “Mr. Smith, how did you come up with  deductions for seven kids when you only have two children, and they are both married?”

A:  “There are a variety of statutes within the IRS code that I’m not familiar with or have the ability to, you know,  give you the numbers to…” (Author: Eric Holder at congressional hearings May 15)

Q: “Are you kidding me?”

A: “I did not do anything wrong, but my lawyer tells me I do not have to answer any more of your questions.” (Inspired by the testimony/non-testimony of  Lois Lerner,  director of exempt organizations for the Internal Revenue Service.)

Q: “Do you or do you not  know how many children you have and how old they are?”

A: “I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this.” [President Obama, May 13, 2013, press conference ]

So, maybe we should all try talking back to the officials the way they have been talking to us. Maybe then, they will get the message that we are really annoyed.

When the executive branch of the US government collectively and individually pleads ignorance, ineptitude or the right not to incriminate itself, it may be time to consider impeaching some members of the executive branch.

Dr. Michael Widlanski served as Strategic Affairs Advisor in Israel’s Ministry of Public Security, and wrote Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat published by  Threshold/Simon and Schuster. He teaches at Bar Ilan University and is Schusterman Visiting Professor at the University of California at Irvine, 2013-2014.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.