HIDDEN MEANING

In the way the world used to be, there was "The Party Line," which was a reference to the authoritatively announced policies and practices of the Communist Party. Every communist, whoever and wherever he might be, was to toe the mark and parrot the party line. Woe be to he who didn't.

In 1951, the FBI arrested  Julius (a dedicated member of the Communist Party) and Ethel Rosenberg (a Communist Party activist) for relaying America's atomic secrets to the Russians. They had received classified notes and sketches from Ethel's brother, a soldier who had worked at the atomic bomb facility in Los Alamos, New Mexico. The headlines dubbed their crime, "The Crime of the Century."

THE PARTY LINE ON THE ROSENBERGS

The Party Line swung into high gear; the official word was that their arrest, trial, conviction, and eventual execution was the American government's persecution of two young and innocent idealists. During their trial and up until the time of their deaths, the Party Line had worked so well that uprisings in protest of their arrest, trial, conviction, and coming execution occurred around the world. Their trail had begun on March 29, 1951, and they went to the electric chair on June 19, 1953.

In December 1952, 1,000 people came to Ossining, N.Y., to bring messages of support to the Rosenbergs at Sing Sing. On the day of the execution, 5,000 protesters rallied at Union Square in New York City. Clergy, writers, and scientists from all over the world supported the Rosenbergs. Pope Pius XII, appealed for clemency. Albert Einstein and Jean Paul Sartre spoke out. In Milan, Paris, and London, people protested at U.S. consulates. In February 1953, a New York Times survey reported that the Rosenberg case was the "Top issue in France." Such was the power of the Party Line.

SUBTLE CHANGE

The very words, "Party Line" cause a negative reaction when we hear them. That's because we associate it with the Communist Party, communists, and Mother Russia. Therefore, unnoticed, our language has been changed so that, although we use different words, we still mean "The Party Line," it just doesn't grate on our ears.

From a political standpoint, the two parties don't use the term "party line," they use "talking points." When an issue arises, the Democrats and the Republicans distribute a memo of talking points to their members which tell them what to say. That's why when we hear them talking on TV about a current issue, they all sound the same; that's because they've all read the same memo. "Talking points" sounds much better than "Party line." The change was subtle.

 For example, in November 2013, the Democrat Party advised their talking points over the Thanksgiving dinner, talking points which included, among others,  raising the minimum wage, background checks for gun buyers, and ending tax loopholes for out sourcers. (What fun!) Under each of the talking points was a subset of what to say about each topic and how their position differed from the Republicans.

What's interesting about those talking points is that, at that time, the issue of nationalized health insurance was front and center, but that hot topic wasn't on the talking points memo, so we assume that talking points also tell us what not to talk about.

IT'S NOT JUST THE PARTIES

Being more specific, universities are putting out their party lines by publishing memos on what you can say and what you can't say. Princeton put out a 4-page memo in its Human Resources Dept. noting that "man" was unacceptable; "people," and "human being" are. "Man and wife" is a forbidden term, "spouses" or "partners" are OK. "Man-made" is forbidden; "artificial" is fine. "To man the fire hoses" is wrong, but you can "operate" them. A reference to our "forefathers" will be rejected, but "ancestors" won't. "America is the land of opportunity" is a no-no as is "America is a melting pot." To say that America is the land of opportunity is to imply that other lands aren't and therefore inferior to the USA. To say, "America is a melting pot" is to imply that other cultures are inferior and a person must adapt to ours.

We also see the party line in journalism when the newspapers report about those who are looting, burning, beating/murdering, blocking streets, hurling rocks and other missiles at police. They are "protestors," not "rioters" who are engaging in a "protest," not a "riot."What occurs on a violent weekend night of such mob action is called, "unrest."

Since Americans are conditioned by experience to react negatively to the idea of a party line, we came up with another term, one which means the same thing, but disguised. The party line is now, "political correctness." That sounds better to American ears. Who doesn't like to be correct in his thinking and his speech? We all want to be correct, but we don't want to be accused of mouthing the party line, yet, that's what political correctness is. It's saying the approved things, self-censoring the unapproved things; it is therefore, the Party Line. Let's call it what it is. As the saying goes, "It is what it is."

This may soon apply to the Christian message whose basic points aren't the approved party line: Jesus Christ is God in the flesh; Jesus is the only way to God; there is no human merit in salvation; all are dead in trespasses and sins and spiritual bankrupt; all religions are false. We can say those things in our churches, but woe be to he who says them in the public square. Yet, we must obey God rather than men.