Political Voice: The Enemy of Simple Communication
The voice of political speech today takes on many forms and one of them is the use of needlessly complex vocabulary to describe even the simplest situation. Hiding behind these big words lurk ideas that we may not find palatable if they were simply written or spoken. Everywhere can be found words strung together that may sound impressive and are often not questioned due to their literary sex appeal. This lack of desire to question is mystifying yet seems common enough that it is used as a tool in the hands of those who wish to hold sway over others for their own reasons. Another overused tool of politicians is doublespeak expressed by the use of catchy slogans and euphemisms. The entire meaning of a statement can be changed to elicit positive and negative reactions in the listener.
George Orwell, noted political essayist of the 40’s, wrote in his essay "Politics and the English Language;" “It is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning.” Many people are guilty of using vague commentary to gloss over reality. Perhaps lacking mastery of a large working vocabulary serves to leave some impressed with the display of eloquence, never questioning the content. The common human weakness of pride serves to protect those who seek to fool the foolish. No one wants to appear stupid by asking for clarification of a comment that seemed on the surface to be brilliant. William Lutz in his book "Doubts about Doublespeak" would seem to agree with Mr. Orwell. Lutz, a professor at Rutgers University, says; “[I]nflated language [is] designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary, to make everyday things seem impressive.”Orwell also points out; “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” and This inability of the general public to decipher complex passages is very useful for politicians seeking support for programs or a vote in the upcoming election as they can use it to cover so many dull or unpopular ideas with exciting rhetoric.
Are the listeners foolish? Orwell would contend that this is due to decadence in the language itself and that it is a self perpetuating cycle. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” Well, which came first? A lack of interest in the general public for intellectual pursuits has declared an open season for the savvy politician to use these tools to get their point across in a way that waxes almost poetic. This apathy creates easy prey for wolves interested primarily in their political career over a true sense of altruism. This sort of political voice leaves the public is to wander aimlessly through forest of meaningless yet fanciful commentary. One might less willing to doubt, or speak against something that sounds so impressive when first considered.
Additionally the use of jargon, specific words peculiar to certain professions can sound so persuasive in a way so heady to the listener that they are ready to believe anything communicated to them in this fashion. The relaxed use of these words can make anyone appear to be more expert in matters across the board, when in reality they may only be expert in one area which is completely unrelated to the subject at hand. Sprinkle a few arcane words here and there and suddenly the assumption could be made that someone actually knows what they are talking about.
Slogans are an effective way to cover unpleasant realities with a patina of cheery respectability. In times of social upheaval politicians seek to evoke alternative sets of feelings which do not always match the reality of a given situation. This becomes a sort of political “pep talk” to their constituency. This effective method can divide the public, making them easier to convince either way. Professor Hugh Rank, a recipient of the prestigious Orwell Award for contributions for honesty and clarity in the public debate, remarked in an article theorizing; “The pep talk encourages polarized thinking, dichotomies, the “good guy/bad guy;” it encourages people who are narrow and rigid authoritarians to believe they are the good guys.” (“The Pep Talk: Patterns of Persuasion in Political Language"). This constant bickering, as well as encouraging everyone to pick sides, can lure the public sector into name calling and overwrought emotional response, effectively obliterating the basic points of the argument, making it easy to gain the upper hand in the debate.
The very best catchy slogans are hard to argue with and roll off the tongue or page with infectious emotions making them unpopular choices to argue against. With skills similar to a varsity cheerleader, a politician can effectively enlist the masses as a personal cheering section for their views. Terms such as “support our troops” or “the war on terror” sound so alluring, they are almost impossible to take a position against. Defy anyone to decry brave young men sent to fight for freedom, and walk off unscathed by negative responses. Who could argue with defending ourselves against terror? No one wants to do that. Terror is bad. Men that die for freedom are good. It’s an easy choice. It is easy to paint someone as unfeeling when they take such a position.
Orwell wrote; “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” Further more he asserts “Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, cattle are machine gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets, this is called pacification.” This observation of the euphemisms which were associated with World War II, remain as fresh today as they were sixty years ago. Would the opinion of the current war be affected adversely by reminding the masses that children may inadvertently become involved? Surely it would have to evoke a passionate response. On the opposing side, those who oppose the war, are guilty of equal amounts of derogatory accusations and commentary.
What is wrong with the truth? Nothing. Can we weigh the options sans emotional hand wringing and ad hominem attacks? Probably not. Emotions take over when the intellect fails to comprehend, in the same way as intellect takes over when we can no longer handle emotions. Maybe this is just the human condition.
If anyone should listen carefully any nightly news broadcast is littered with expressions meant to evoke a calculated response. Terms such as “revenue enhancement” sound a lot nicer than “tax increase.” Most people would prefer “ethnic cleansing” to “genocide” if asked. It sounds much nicer and definitely more hygienic. Conversely terms such as “death tax” sound like harassment of the dearly departed and if you use “estate tax” it conjures visions of martini drinking, trust fund babies getting an economic comeuppance. “Anti-abortion” sounds bad, and “Pro-life” both sound hard to disagree with. Somehow “Anti-life” and “Pro-abortion” lack the emotional pizzazz to excite millions of sheep into supporting these ideas.
Orwell wrote his essay in the year 1946 and things do not seem to have changed significantly today. In fact it has rapidly expanded throughout an all encompassing news media. Radio, television and newspapers generate millions of virtually incomprehensible statements daily. Editorials so eloquently stated are often mistaken for fact, just because they sound so good. This in turn forces more florid rebuttal creating an endless cycle back and forth and no one actually gets to the simple fact of the matter at hand. Orwell contended, “It will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel expressing his opinions and not a party line.” Banter of this type clouds the debate which should have been easily conveyed and understood to begin with. The real meat and bones of the issue remain untouched in a flurry of tasty prose or skillful verbal delivery.
The purpose here is not to express a personal opinion, but rather a reminder from me for everyone to look deeper into the blathering of those who seek to achieve mere political survival. Our language is perhaps our most powerful weapon for good and for evil. These uses will not always be for good in the skillful hands of those who seek to gain power over others. The next time someone sees a news report, what would happen if they looked up each word in a dictionary and tried to put them together to see if they really made any sense at all? Perhaps on the day that this happens, a higher standard will be established and only then will the term “public servant” will cease to be an oxymoron.
Yeah, right. :)
George Orwell, noted political essayist of the 40’s, wrote in his essay "Politics and the English Language;" “It is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning.” Many people are guilty of using vague commentary to gloss over reality. Perhaps lacking mastery of a large working vocabulary serves to leave some impressed with the display of eloquence, never questioning the content. The common human weakness of pride serves to protect those who seek to fool the foolish. No one wants to appear stupid by asking for clarification of a comment that seemed on the surface to be brilliant. William Lutz in his book "Doubts about Doublespeak" would seem to agree with Mr. Orwell. Lutz, a professor at Rutgers University, says; “[I]nflated language [is] designed to make the ordinary seem extraordinary, to make everyday things seem impressive.”Orwell also points out; “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” and This inability of the general public to decipher complex passages is very useful for politicians seeking support for programs or a vote in the upcoming election as they can use it to cover so many dull or unpopular ideas with exciting rhetoric.
Are the listeners foolish? Orwell would contend that this is due to decadence in the language itself and that it is a self perpetuating cycle. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” Well, which came first? A lack of interest in the general public for intellectual pursuits has declared an open season for the savvy politician to use these tools to get their point across in a way that waxes almost poetic. This apathy creates easy prey for wolves interested primarily in their political career over a true sense of altruism. This sort of political voice leaves the public is to wander aimlessly through forest of meaningless yet fanciful commentary. One might less willing to doubt, or speak against something that sounds so impressive when first considered.
Additionally the use of jargon, specific words peculiar to certain professions can sound so persuasive in a way so heady to the listener that they are ready to believe anything communicated to them in this fashion. The relaxed use of these words can make anyone appear to be more expert in matters across the board, when in reality they may only be expert in one area which is completely unrelated to the subject at hand. Sprinkle a few arcane words here and there and suddenly the assumption could be made that someone actually knows what they are talking about.
Slogans are an effective way to cover unpleasant realities with a patina of cheery respectability. In times of social upheaval politicians seek to evoke alternative sets of feelings which do not always match the reality of a given situation. This becomes a sort of political “pep talk” to their constituency. This effective method can divide the public, making them easier to convince either way. Professor Hugh Rank, a recipient of the prestigious Orwell Award for contributions for honesty and clarity in the public debate, remarked in an article theorizing; “The pep talk encourages polarized thinking, dichotomies, the “good guy/bad guy;” it encourages people who are narrow and rigid authoritarians to believe they are the good guys.” (“The Pep Talk: Patterns of Persuasion in Political Language"). This constant bickering, as well as encouraging everyone to pick sides, can lure the public sector into name calling and overwrought emotional response, effectively obliterating the basic points of the argument, making it easy to gain the upper hand in the debate.
The very best catchy slogans are hard to argue with and roll off the tongue or page with infectious emotions making them unpopular choices to argue against. With skills similar to a varsity cheerleader, a politician can effectively enlist the masses as a personal cheering section for their views. Terms such as “support our troops” or “the war on terror” sound so alluring, they are almost impossible to take a position against. Defy anyone to decry brave young men sent to fight for freedom, and walk off unscathed by negative responses. Who could argue with defending ourselves against terror? No one wants to do that. Terror is bad. Men that die for freedom are good. It’s an easy choice. It is easy to paint someone as unfeeling when they take such a position.
Orwell wrote; “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” Further more he asserts “Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, cattle are machine gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets, this is called pacification.” This observation of the euphemisms which were associated with World War II, remain as fresh today as they were sixty years ago. Would the opinion of the current war be affected adversely by reminding the masses that children may inadvertently become involved? Surely it would have to evoke a passionate response. On the opposing side, those who oppose the war, are guilty of equal amounts of derogatory accusations and commentary.
What is wrong with the truth? Nothing. Can we weigh the options sans emotional hand wringing and ad hominem attacks? Probably not. Emotions take over when the intellect fails to comprehend, in the same way as intellect takes over when we can no longer handle emotions. Maybe this is just the human condition.
If anyone should listen carefully any nightly news broadcast is littered with expressions meant to evoke a calculated response. Terms such as “revenue enhancement” sound a lot nicer than “tax increase.” Most people would prefer “ethnic cleansing” to “genocide” if asked. It sounds much nicer and definitely more hygienic. Conversely terms such as “death tax” sound like harassment of the dearly departed and if you use “estate tax” it conjures visions of martini drinking, trust fund babies getting an economic comeuppance. “Anti-abortion” sounds bad, and “Pro-life” both sound hard to disagree with. Somehow “Anti-life” and “Pro-abortion” lack the emotional pizzazz to excite millions of sheep into supporting these ideas.
Orwell wrote his essay in the year 1946 and things do not seem to have changed significantly today. In fact it has rapidly expanded throughout an all encompassing news media. Radio, television and newspapers generate millions of virtually incomprehensible statements daily. Editorials so eloquently stated are often mistaken for fact, just because they sound so good. This in turn forces more florid rebuttal creating an endless cycle back and forth and no one actually gets to the simple fact of the matter at hand. Orwell contended, “It will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel expressing his opinions and not a party line.” Banter of this type clouds the debate which should have been easily conveyed and understood to begin with. The real meat and bones of the issue remain untouched in a flurry of tasty prose or skillful verbal delivery.
The purpose here is not to express a personal opinion, but rather a reminder from me for everyone to look deeper into the blathering of those who seek to achieve mere political survival. Our language is perhaps our most powerful weapon for good and for evil. These uses will not always be for good in the skillful hands of those who seek to gain power over others. The next time someone sees a news report, what would happen if they looked up each word in a dictionary and tried to put them together to see if they really made any sense at all? Perhaps on the day that this happens, a higher standard will be established and only then will the term “public servant” will cease to be an oxymoron.
Yeah, right. :)
posted by Dawn at 10:48 AM
0 comments
