A8 Editorial The Boston Globe FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2019
Wrongfulconduct by a public official—
how difficult can that be to define?
Then alongcamethe Boston Callingcase,
sending Boston city councilors and a host of
activists into a tizzy, insisting the conviction of
two City Hall officialson extortion charges would put garden-
variety “advocacy” at risk.
That a majority of the Boston City Council can’t tell the
difference between extortion — which involved in this case
putting a businessin fear — and advocating for constituents
is appalling and perhaps tells us morethan we may wantto
know about how they conduct business. Is therea difference
between holding up a concert promoter to hire unneeded
union workers and, say, requiring a developerto pay linkage
money or throw in a nice publicpark as a cost of doingbusi-
ness? The fact that the formerwas clearly being donebehind
the scenes rather than in numerous public filings required of
developers seemed not to matter to the councilors.
But a jury of eight women and four men clearly saw
through the legal haze when they convicted Boston director
of tourismKenneth Brissette of extortion and conspiracy and
Timothy Sullivan, chief of intergovernmentalaffairs, of con-
spiracy to commit extortion earlier this monthin federal
court. The jury did so after a relatively brief six hours of delib-
eration.
Only one of those jurorsis a Boston resident, according to
the list releasedlast week by the court. And there are, no
doubt, somewho will make much of the “suburban sensibili-
ties” of folks fromNewton or Marblehead or Acton — as if the
definitionof extortion varies fromtownto town.They knew
it when they saw it as it played out in courtroomtestimony
over the courseof two weeks.
This weeklawyers for Brissette and Sullivan filed briefs in
support of their motion to acquit the two.They argued, “By
intentionally blurringthe lines between legitimate conduct
and Hobbs Act extortion in this case, the governmenthas left
all interactions between public officials and their constitu-
ents opento second guessing by the federal government on
pain of criminal sanction.”
The press conference by City Council members was no
doubt timedto coincide with the filing of that brief. And,by
the way, good for Councilor Matt O’Malley for not succumb-
ing to the mob mindset that overtook his colleagues. He told
the Globe,“It’s our responsibility to be an effective advocate
for socialinclusionand economic dignity, but we cannotstop
living up to the letter and spirit of the law.”
And US Attorney Andrew Lelling got it right when he said,
“If the Boston City Council thinks it is appropriate — or legal
— to threaten private citizens with economic catastrophe if
they don’t do somethingthey’re not legally required to do,
well, that strikes me as something the people of Boston might
want to know.”
The position taken by city councilors was similar to argu-
ments advanced in an amicus brief filed with the US Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit at an earlier juncture when the
US attorney’s office fought to keep the case alive. That brief,
filed on behalf of the Boston area congressional delegation —
US Representatives KatherineClark, Joe Kennedy, Stephen
Lynch, and now former member Mike Capuano— argued the
prosecution was “an unacceptable interference with the func-
tioning of representative government.”
The appeals court reinstated the case, adding, however,“we express no view as to whether... the defendants’ con-
duct was ‘wrongful,’ as it must be underthe statute.”
Ah, but how to define “wrongful”and how will that legal
definition square with common sense and the public’s right
to expect ethicalconduct fromtheirpublicofficials.
As US District Court Judge Leo Sorokin astonishingly put
it in his charge to the jury, “Threatening economic harm or
usingthe fear of economicharmin order to induce another
person to part with property is not necessarily‘wrongful.’...
Suchfear also may be a necessary consequence of many legit-
imate exercises of authority by publicofficials.”
What a horrifying notion. Happily the jury saw it differ-
ently.
So does Lelling, who said at the time of the conviction,
“Private companiesthat want to do businessin Boston have
the right to hire anyone they want — union or not — without
fear of being threatenedwith economicdisaster by govern-
ment officials.That is the law.” And,yes, Sorokin and Lelling
do live on the same planet — sort of.
This isn’t someabstract legal argument— althoughit may
ultimately be decidedby an appeals court. It really is about
the kind of government we want and what we expect of our
public officials. Strong-armingshouldn’t have a place at City
Hall or anywhere else in the publicrealm. If we want to be a
moderncity, businesses— and ordinary residents,for that
matter — have a right to expect permitsand othergovern-
ment decisions to be fair and transparent, not governed by
winks, nods,favors,and unspoken rules.
And if the law isn’t clearenough on that, then it’s the law
that must change, not the public’s notion of right and wrong.The dumbing down of ‘wrongful’ conductOpinionBOSTONGLOBE.COM/OPINIONEditorialWhoever
controls the
language gets a
big headstart in
the battle for
public opinion.
Choosing words
carefully is fundamentally important to
effective communication. Being able to
control language can make a real
difference in public opinion. In this
contest, the Republicans and big
businesses win handsdown. The
Democrats mouththe wordsof their
adversaries. Considersomeexamples:
Gouginghealth insurance,drug, and
hospital chains are called “providers”
instead of “sellers” or “vendors.”
“Providers” has a charitable
connotation. The camouflaged rip-off
called “Medicare advantage” should be
called “Medicare disadvantage.” As
health consultant Dr. Fred Hyde told
me: “It’s not what you pay, it’s what you
get.”
In 2012, Republican wordsmith
Frank Lutz dreamed up the phrase
“climate change,” whichhe said sounded
a lot more benign than “global
warming.” Democrats picked it up as
naturally as cats lappingup milk.
Instead they should be using “climate
disruption,” “climate crisis,” or “global
warming,” to describe intensifying
raging floods, droughts,hurricanes,
tornados, wildfires, and rising sea levels.
As 16-year-old Greta Thunberg advised:
Banish the words “climate change.” The
Guardian newspaper has decided to do
just that.
Business bosses prefer the words
“white-collar crime” instead of the
dreaded “corporate crime.” Democrats
supinely use the former term, even
when mediaheadlines are screaming
out about crimesrelated to banks, credit
cards, drugs, insurance, energy, auto
industry crimes, and chemical
companies. Leave “white-collar crime”
to describe a teller cheating his bank.
“Tort reform” wouldusuallyconnote
expanding the rights of the wrongfully
injured instead of gravely restricting
them.A moreproperterm is “tort
deform.” Yet Democrats and,
astonishingly enough, plaintiff lawyers,
still use the language of their
insurance-industry opponents.
The Mueller Report was
“redacted” instead of “censored.”
The former sounds so mechanically
benign. Why won’t the Democrats
call it what it is?
The Pentagon takes the linguistic
cake. They shouldput out a
dictionary of Pentogonese. It started
with changing the nameof the War
Departmentto the Defense
Departmentafter World War II. This, of
course, led the “munitions” companies
to call themselves the “defenseindustry.”
Sounds so high and mighty — doesn’t it?
— for the most aggressive imperial war
machine in the world.
Other Pentagonese, with the help of
the munitions and “security”
companies, include “detainees” (after 15
yearsin Guantanamo,whendo they
become prisoners?) and “troops” instead
of the morepersonal “soldiers.”
Companies sold chemicals to the
Pentagon for use in Vietnam.Their
purpose was called “defoliation” instead
of “chemicalwarfare,” designed, in part,How the
Democrats
have conceded
the language
wars
ByRalphNader
for “village pacification” instead of
“village destruction.” Republicans
gravitate to thesemore calmingwords.
Yet many Democrats use themalso.
George W. Bush and the malicious
Dick Cheney didn’t like the word
“torture,” so they spoke about
“enhancedinterrogation.” That phrase
masks the screamsof victims — many
innocent — of these crimes. Yet when
Democrats are in the White House, they
don’t jettison such euphemisms.
Then there are the daily usages of the
words “leftist,” “moderate,” or “centrist.”
It seems that if people like Democratic
presidential candidates Bernie Sanders
and Elizabeth Warren propose reforms,
supported by a majority of the people,
they’re called “leftists” or “extremists.”
Their proposals include a living wage,
taxes on wealth, universal health care,
and a crackdown on corporate crime.
Meanwhile, thosepoliticians standing
for agendasmore acceptable to the
corporate world and a minority of the
public are called “centrists” or
“moderates.”
Now we’re grappling with the age-old
words“socialism” and “capitalism.”
Onceagainthe Republicans, charging
Democrats as “socialists,” are ahead in
the labeling game. In-house Pentagon
socialism looms as a large sub-economy
of social safety nets for Pentagon
employees. In our country, big corporate
capitalism can’t fail because socialism is
always being invoked by Washington to
bail it out in so many ways. Note the
giant Wall Street collapse in 2008 and
the government’s varied multi-trillion-
dollar bailouts.
Corporate capitalism dominates
and controls the wealth, while
socialism is left with funding long-
established public services and
returning some of the peoples’
taxes back in such programs as
Social Security and Medicare.
Former Alaskansenator Mike
Gravel urged that the 2020
presidential campaign include
specific discoursesbetween
“Democratic socialism” and
“Republican socialism.” Obviously, these
historic terms — socialism and
capitalism — needto be updated to
become more specific to today’s
discourse.
Confuciussaid, “The beginningof
wisdomis to call things by their proper
name.” The Chinesesage gave us over
2,000years lead time to get our language
straight. It is abouttime we do.Ralph Nader is authorof “Unstoppable:
TheEmergingLeft-Right Allianceto
Dismantlethe CorporateState’’ and is
a four-timepresidential candidate.
ILLUSTRATION BY LESLEY BECKER/GLOBESTAFF;ADOBE