Along with a change in legislative direction, President Obama has ushered in a new era of political language.  In stark contrast to President Bush's use of moral language and dichotomies, Obama expresses inclusive nuance, even frequently including a mention of the sincerity of those who disagree with him.  While generally this is an improvement, there are important lessons Obama could learn from his Republican counterpart in framing an issue.

When the government wants to publicize its actions it uses descriptive language, when it wants to hide them it uses bureaucratic language.  Bush took this lesson to heart, mastering language as a political tool to the point of weaponization of language.  His legislation featured poetic descriptive titles like the bill to make federal education funds continent on standardized test scores dubbed "No Child Left Behind."  When he had an opportunity to create a new cabinet level department responsible for overseeing the domestic security agencies it became the "Department of Homeland Security" (Homeland Security is classic over-writing.  It should be renamed the civil or domestic security department because "homeland" sounds creepy and fascist).  To describe foreign threats Bush coined phrases like "weapons of mass destruction" and "War on Terror."  Framing policies as "wars" was an overarching approach, as Bush treated opponents as enemies and used the language of combat, strident absolutes against a known enemy.  Bush, however, used bureaucratic language to bury prisoner abuses.  Prisoners became "detainees," warrant-less extraditions became "redactions" and abuse became "enhanced interrogation techniques." Comparing the vagueness of "enhanced interrogation techniques" with the moral absoluteness of "axis of evil" demonstrates the difference between Bush's public black and white view point and his private foray into gray.  

Obama has explicitly rejected many Bush era linguistic formulations like "The War on Terror" and "The War on Drugs" - which actually dates back to President Nixon.  Framing policy directions as "wars" is a clumsy description for overarching strategies that include foreign aid, rehabilitation, immigration and border security, counter-insurgency, international policing and a host of exceptions like medical marijuana and the blind eye turned to Afghani opium production.  Terrorism is a security threat, but viewing it as a war led us to, you know, fight a couple of wars.  The drug problem is a public health issue, viewing it through a military lens led us to imprison millions of our citizens.  Yet, Obama's decision to change the language on these subjects sparked controversy, even though it was unaccompanied by substantive policy shifts.  Speaking to Americans as adults points out that for far too long we have been treated like children.

One area where Democrats have significantly lagged behind their Republican counterparts however, is in choosing names for significant pieces of legislation.  The USA PATRIOT Act, AKA the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," would have been a lot less popular if named "Domestic Spying and Expanded Information Gathering Act."  Yet, the Democrats have presented every major piece of legislation this year under bureaucratic titles that show a fear of owning an issue that defers to the media to frame the issue.  For example, the stimulus was called the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" and health care reform is the "Affordable Health Care for America Act."  Naturally, no one called those pieces of legislation their real names, instead referring to them as stimulus and Obamacare, respectively.  In some cases this can have real effects.  Calling emergency bank recapitalization the "Troubled Asset Relief Program" and the bill "The Emergency Economical Stabilization Act" left a void that was filled by "the bailout," a term that demonized Wall Street and made the legislation seem like very bitter medicine to a struggling American public.  Taking the reigns of that policy with a name like the "Strong American Finance" Act might have mitigated the public backlash that continues to this day.

In fact, after Health Care Reform, I'm sorry I meant: after the "Affordable Health Care for America," passes - assuming Martha Coakley doesn't lose - Obama will need popular legislation for this year's midterms and banking reforms seem to fit the bill.  I recommend calling that bill something descriptive in plain language like the Preventing Financial Risk Act, instead of "Economic Modernization and Banking Regulation Bill."  Otherwise, it might end up known as "the big payback."