"Lawyerization", as defined by Burt Brody's article in the Desert Sun newspaper in Palm Springs, is when "Well-trained, experienced lawyers define, redefine, qualify, limit, expand, extinguish and conceptualize reality to establish any proposition, defend any position or justify any action." Mr. Brody's article includes a list of examples articulated by the Democratic party in the years 2000 to 2008, that point out, rather clearly, what the word "lawyerization" means and the absolute hypocrisy some people will go to in an attempt to hide behind political semantics in what has become known as the "spin." The idea behind the statements speaks for itself, as their intent is unmistakeable.
Mr. Brody cites these examples:
- We supported the troops, but not their mission.
- We were for the war, but not how it was run.
- We were not for troop withdrawal, just redeployment to neighboring countries.
- We were not for tax increases, we just wanted to repeal tax cuts.
- We are not for rights for terrorists, we just want to give them their due process.
He adds these altered characterizations of meanings:
- Illegal immigrants became "undocumented workers."
-Abortion became "freedom of choice", and an unborn child became "fetal tissue."
-The president didn't want to grant amnesty, he just wants to share the American Dream.
-He didn't veto the Keystone Pipeline, he just delayed it.
-He didn't bow to the Saudi King, he just showed respect.
-There is no terrorism, just "human-caused cataclysmic events."
Considering that one former president has miraculously become the "elder statesman" of his political party, and whose 'lawyerization" that "It all depends on what the meaning of is is" has become the standard for judging the quality of a "spin", does it surprise anyone that other politicians or their spokespersons, lawyers or not, have follower suit?