Many terms in political discourse are used in a technical sense that's very much divorced from their actual meaning, sometimes even the opposite of it.
Take the "national interest." The term is commonly used as if it's something good for all of us. If a political leader says, "I'm doing this in the national interest," you're supposed to feel good because that's for you.
But if you look closely, it turns out that the national interest is not defined as the interest of the entire population. It's really the interests of small, dominant elites who command the resources that enable them to control the state--basically corporate-based elites. Correspondingly, the "special interests," of whom we're all supposed to be suspicious, really refer to the general population.
This became very clear during the last few presidential campaigns. President Reagan is largely a figment of the public relations industry, and the public relations industry, and the public relations aspects of it, including control over language, are very striking. Every choice of terms by the Reagan public relations machine was carefully crafted.
In both the 1980 and the 1984 elections, Reagan and his handlers identified the Democrats as the "party of special interests." That's bad, because we're all against the special interests. But if you asked who the special interests were, they listed women, poor people, workers, young people, old people, ethnic minorities,--in fact, the vast majority of the population.
One group was not listed among the special interests--the corporations. In the campaign rhetoric, that was never a SPECIAL interest, and in their [view] that's right--because that's the NATIONAL interest.
--Noam Chomsky
[From: "Propaganda Systems: Orwell's and Ours" by Noam Chomsky, Premier Issues of _Propaganda Review_. For more information about _PR_, email ppaull@igc.org] More info: hbar@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
"We lie to you by not telling you things.
We don't lie by telling you things that aren't true."
--- US official to Wash. Post 1/11/91