In the essay you have just read, George Orwell says that the “slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts” and admonishes us not to practice the kind of writing that “consists in gumming together long strips of words that have already been set in order by someone else.” On the other hand, some language is very carefully crafted to achieve a political end, for instance Frank Luntz’s well-honed phrases: “climate change” and “death tax.” Share a link to a text that you think exemplifies either linguistic “slovenliness” or an adroitly-crafted phrase in the style of Luntz, then discuss whether or not the example you cite promotes deliberation.
32 thoughts on “Deliberation and Political Writing”
Comments are closed.
Below is a link of President Obama discussing the interrogation tactics that were used by the Untied States after 9/11. You will see that Obama’s words were carefully crafted to avoid the reality of the interrogation tactics utilized after 9/11. He makes it seem like torture is not a big deal. He goes on to support the soldiers by mentioning that they were under “enormous pressure and are real patriots”. This example promotes deliberation because of how Obama delivers this to his audience. He doesn’t directly justify the war but he doesn’t shy away from supporting the soldiers. I would question the “some folks” part because he could of said we tortured people during interrogation. He said “some folks” which makes it seem like torture is a light topic. It doesn’t matter if one person or hundred people were tortured. The question is whether torture is justified. One uses political language in order to gain public support. Topics like war and torture are spoken and written about in a certain way and political actors are well aware of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIiyDiyUZ2w
“In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did things that were contrary to our values…” -President Obama
I’m not sure whether I agree that Pres. Obama is undermining the gravity of the situation. Throughout the Bush administration torture was actually not even called that — instead, it was “enhanced interrogation techniques” which makes it sound like you’d be asked some tough questions really loudly (or something ridiculous like that).
I have to give Obama a lot of credit for actually using the word “torture” and for essentially saying that regardless of the hard work and “patriotism” of the individuals involved in these practices, it was wrong.
For this assignment, I chose to examine President George Bush’s speech to the public shortly after the start of the Persian Gulf War. The 1991 invasion was the United State’s first major combative engagement after the end of the highly criticized and unpopular war, so I knew Bush would have a lot of convincing do to. I had a feeling that the deliverance would contain many elements of speech that Orwell would loath I was right. While some would see this as a very influential and an important speech, George Orwell would have a field day breaking down the rhetoric and would clear label it as a perfect example of linguistic slovenliness.
The speech contains the four main elements that Orwell attributes to poor political rhetoric: dying metaphors, unnecessary verb use, pretentious diction and meaningless words. For example, Bush uses dying metaphors like “overture of peace” and “shoulder to shoulder” (one of Orwell’s ABSOLUTE favorites). He adds unnecessary verbiage in phrases like “systematically raped and pillaged.” Orwell would have also questioned Bush’s references to the “liberation” of the people of Kuwait in the same way he questioned the use of democracy and socialism. What exactly does liberation mean to Bush? What does liberation mean to anyone? Throughout my analysis of the speech, I actually discovered that Bush actually also uses some “groupthink” rhetoric such as the phrase “weapons of mass destruction.” Rather than just saying nuclear weapons, politicians have coined the term weapons of mass destruction in order to justify military action. Bush actually blends a little bit of both “groupthink” and linguistic slovenliness, which is probably Orwell’s nightmare.
Bush’s 1991 speech leaves little room for deliberation. Rather, it serves as propaganda for an invasion that the public may have not truly supported. Simply through poor English rhetoric, Bush delivers a message of “we are invading now, there’s really nothing you can do about it, but you should totally support our decision.” This absolutely does not call for effective deliberation in any way. Simply there is no discussion and the people are almost forced to think in a way that supports the war effort.
Here is a link to the speech: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm.
Hillary Clinton Says Half of Donald Trump’s Supporters Are in “Basket of Deplorables”
Zeke J Miller, Time Magazine
http://time.com/4486437/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/
At an LGBT for Hillary fundraising gala last Friday, Hillary Clinton stated “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.” Audience members laughed in response, as the comment was a well-crafted insult. While I am certainly not a Trump support myself, I find that Hillary Clinton’s comment did not promote effective or tasteful deliberation. As Miller states, controversial remarks are commonly “injected into the political bloodstream.” Trump’s responses on Twitter demonstrate that such comments spur backlash.
I think slander often takes away and distracts from a political candidate’s campaign message. Individuals may focus on Hillary’s comments rather than the message or political standpoints she is trying to put forth during her campaign and future presidency. As Miller also states, Hillary’s comment is “an example of divisive political rhetoric” in which the “would-be president cases out a large swath of the country she hopes to lead.” The reality is that 43% of likely voters, approximately 50 million Americans, support Trump at this time.
If Hillary Clinton hopes to earn the support of the remaining 43% of the voters, she should focus more on tasteful deliberation. Hillary Clinton should work hard to further promote her campaign and her viewpoints on important domestic and foreign policy issues. She should emphasize how she will best serve the public in her speeches and comments rather than slamming her opponent.
So so so agree with you.
As I see it, people’s worldviews are shaped by public discourse, which, in large part, is facilitated by politicians. Referring to Trump supporters as “deplorables” seems like an implicit claim that their racist, bigoted beliefs are both innate and intransigent. Clinton’s comments likely only fueled Trump supporters’ anti-Hillary vitriol, which deepens the moral divide between political camps. This obviously is counterproductive to effective deliberation.
Great post, Fran!
Hey Fran,
I completely agree with you about focusing on the message rather than trying to outdo the madness that is Trump.
I cannot help but wonder, however, how to compete against an individual like Trump, who is constantly spewing lies and bigotry and yet he still garners support. Someone on a radio program said it well – basically, Hillary is playing baseball and trying to stick to the rules of the game, but then Trump catches the ball, throws it away and picks up a fruit and throws it in some random place. In other words, Trump exists in some alternate environment and this competition is basically bizarre and entirely unequal in so many ways.
For my assignment, I remembered the speech given by Ivanka Trump as she introduced her father. Though not a politician herself, she is very much a crucial part of the Trump campaign. She is another version of Donald Trump, presenting the same message it another package. She is female, pretty, successful, blonde, rich, young, a wife and a mother. For these reasons she is able to draw an audience that may envy one or more of those features. Like her father, she relies on the same catchy, aggressive but empty language that has drown people to his campaign. She describes her father as “a man outside the system” who will “make america great again” and has demonstrated “generosity for the suffering”.
Someone can argue that Donald has shown himself to be the opposite of these character traits on many occasions long before his presidential run. But in a media landscape full of sound bites, we are shuffled on to the next item without a chance to argue. The Trump campaign has honed the modern media landscape. No longer limited to the evening news, a political campaign is free to say whatever sounds good, to a public that no longer cares to think for too long on anything.
Speech below:
http://time.com/4417579/republican-convention-ivanka-trump-transcript/
House Speaker Paul Ryan Weekly Debriefing
Link (video and text): https://www.c-span.org/video/?411655-1/house-speaker-paul-ryan-responds-democrats-sitin
In House Speaker Paul Ryan’s weekly debriefing on June 23, 2016, he addressed the Democrats’ sit-in protest against gun legislation. Paul Ryan’s language throughout the debriefing is certainly “carefully crafted” in order to achieve something. The political end he strives to achieve is depicting the protesting Democrats in an extremely negative light. I will highlight some of the “carefully crafted” phrases and deliberately chosen words that Ryan utilizes.
First of all, he calls the protest a “stunt” rather than a “sit-in” or “protest”, similar to Luntz using the phrase “death tax” rather than “estate tax.” The word “protest” implies a context of political activism, generally an action seen as heroic. On the other hand, the word “stunt,” especially in a political context, implies that something overly dramatic was done in order to simply get attention.
Then, he says that the stunt prevents Congress from “carrying out the people’s business.” Rather than saying the stunt prevents Congress from “doing their jobs” or “moving on to more important things,” he clearly states that the Democrats are preventing Congress from working for the American people. In other words, the protestors are not wasting the time of Congressmen, rather they are minimizing work that could be done for the public.
Later on in the debrief he characterizes the stunt as a “distraction” which suggests that it was not meaningful at all, rather something that was simply a waste of everyone’s time. He couples this characterization by saying that the House passed a “responsible” bill to fight the Zika virus. The comparison of the Democrats causing a “distraction” while the House majority (the Republicans) passing a “responsible” bill in one sentence after the other immediately depicts the Democrats as irresponsible time wasters and the Republicans as responsibly efficient.
Former Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, in a 2015 speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit was once again fodder for the late night talk show hosts. Her speech contained all of the abuses of the language that George Orwell was so critical of in his collection of essays, “Politics and the English Language”.
Examples include, “Now, the press asks [holding up TIME magazine] the press asks can anyone stop Hillary? This is to forego a conclusion right?” Perhaps she meant to say it’s a foregone conclusion, but she perverts the original phrase, which Orwell warns against. Her speech is filled with buzz-words, double-negatives (“ain’t no”) and pretentious phrases like “au naturel” and “Orwellian”.
She goes on to say “So we paint the contrast with bold colors, and we don’t underestimate the wisdom of the people when we on offense give them the truth and the true state of the union, especially showing young people what’s actually going on”. I am not really sure what she is trying to say and I doubt she knows either. Throughout the speech, she commits the main faults Orwell cites; whether she has a meaning or not she fails to express it, inadvertently says something else and she seems indifferent as to whether her words mean or convey anything.
She breaks all six rules Orwell identifies in his essays, but her speech was so much gibberish that it most defied the sixth catch-all rule which says that “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous”. This speech, if anything, promotes puzzled looks and snickers, rather than deliberation. It lacks focus and meaning, and in a failed attempt at being relatable, is a clear example of what Orwell calls “vagueness and sheer incompetence”.
See the video here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?323834-14/sarah-palin-iowa-freedom-summit
An example of language crafted toward a political end is the term “targeted action”. In President Obama’s 2013 speech on the country’s drone policy, he referred to the use of drones in armed conflicts using this phrase. Orwell states, “Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them”. His administration has received much criticism for his drone policy abroad, mostly due to the collateral damage, and in attempt to pacify the public, he uses terms like targeted action and statements like “but despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed”.
There is room for deliberation in this speech. He states his case as to why the actions of his administration, while flawed, are necessary in our fight against terrorism, and leaves me with the impression that this policy is a work in progress. He has considered and still welcomes the opinion of the American public, but concedes at this juncture that drones are a part of modern-day warfare.
See the video and transcript here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html
Honestly I am impressed with Frank Luntz’s work. Although I am not fond with what he does with his talents, his ability to recognize “what people want to hear” and use that information to strategically manipulate his audience is incredible or at the very least entertaining to watch. Why do I mention Luntz? It is because one person that instantly came to mind while watching the clip was Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan is an interesting character in that he has been able to consistently attain overwhelming public support during his presidency. Many people (mostly Republicans) regard him even as one of the greatest presidents in American history. I am not one of those people, however that is beside the point. I have always been confused as to why Americans favored him so much in comparison to other presidents, but I now believe it is because he embodies the idea of well-crafted political language.
One video I found that helps illustrate my conclusion is his speech on the “War on Drugs.” Below is the link to the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYWS7udm0yg
Notice how he doesn’t go straight into the topic. He eases his way by talking about children and back-to-school in an effort to “relate” to the audience and reach them on a sentimental level. This is actually smart because people are generally more inclined to listen when they are able to relate. Likewise as Luntz mentions in the clip, people think 80% of the time with emotion, and this is something Reagan also took into consideration. He even staged his speech with his wife at the comfort of his home. Already before he starts to discuss the issue, he has gained support. As for his speech, he uses certain words to demonize drugs and make the problem appear more imminent and dangerous than it is. If you didn’t notice, he even uses an active voice to describe drugs. He says that drugs are killing our children rather than children are dying from drug use. Reagan ultimately uses language to sway the audience to support his policy.
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=197bbb69-8ecc-4c28-bbf8-577fa26c2ae1
There are many forms of speech. Speech can be precise and eloquent but can also be slovenly and redundant. One indication of linguistic slovenliness is using cliche sentences and ideas. This is often found in the media. Politicians tend to use cliche ideas in order to gain followers and convince the public of his/her thoughts. This may be effective in gaining followers and spreading political messages however this form of speech is not precise and not always accurate.
However, In the attached speech that I heard, Marco Rubio, the US senator for Florida, manages to deliver a precise and convincing speech that is carefully crafted to accomplish a goal. In this speech, Rubio speaks to his colleagues and expresses his opinion on netanyahus upcoming Speach to congress. He is convincing yet all his facts are accurate. In addition, his word choice is precise.
In the following lines, Rubio precisely expresses his deep concern on the reaction of the ally’s of the United States when they see that congress does not attend their ally’s speech “if a significant number of members of the senate and the house boycott that speech, that message will be heard to Israel’s enemies but also by our allies”.
He delivers a powerful message that America must show respect for Israel especially due to the terrible suffering that Israel is going through. Rubio balances his factual precise Speach with some flowery words as well which releases some of the tension of the speech. I am very impressed with this speech and i believe it is a good example of what a carefully crafted speech should look like.
Below is a link to a speech given by Sarah Palin, the Former Republican Vice Presidential Candidate at the National Rifle Association conference in Indianapolis on April 28, 2014. In the speech she supported the use of a torturous technique known as Waterboarding, as a means of extracting information from would be terrorist.
Waterboarding is a carefully crafted term that obscures references to torture. Sarah Palin, during the speech before the National Rifle Association (April 28, 2014) said the following, “ If I was in charge, they would know, this is how we baptize terrorist.” Such statement garnered support from a large swath of the population because of events such as the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 9, 2001. But an equally large percentage of the population believes that Waterboarding (Torture) in whatever form simply went against American values. This argument is equally supported by the fact that the government of United States of America is a signatory to the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which stipulates the following:
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. (Part II. Article 13)
Waterboarding and the merits of such practice continue to be a topic of deliberation within the public domain. The argument for and against cuts across party lines. One universal truth is that humans have the tendency to go to any length to preserve that which we value and believe in.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/28/palin-waterboarding-is-how-we-baptize-terrorists/
In a speech given by former president George W. Bush to the U.S. department of housing and urban development in 2002, he stated, “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace. We want there to be peace. We want people to live in peace all around the world. I mean, our vision for peace extends beyond America. We believe in peace in South Asia. We believe in peace in the Middle East. We’re going to be steadfast toward a vision that rejects terror and killing, and honors peace and hope.”
Particularly, the first line, “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.” This quote is one that is contradicting and covering up that fact that war will obtain peace. This is something that George Orwell would classify as a speech of “vagueness and sheer incompetence”. It is “carefully crafted” to achieve the vision of peace through war and is a prime example of “linguistic slovenliness”.
In this particular speech Bush addressed the department of housing and urban development in reference to homeland security post the September 11 attack on our nation. To give more context, Bush was stating that there are groups of individuals that resent American freedoms. He stated that these people “take out their resentment by destroying innocent lives.” Bush is discussing his plan to secure American freedom and protect the homeland by stating that the, “best way to secure the homeland is to hunt them down one by one. And I mean hunt them down and bring them to justice.” In this context Bush is leveraging patriotism in the American people post 9/11 to get back at the individuals who are responsible for harming the homeland by saying we need to bring individuals through justice, through means of war.
The quote that I began my response with talks about obtaining peace through war by stating that although yes there is a war in the Middle East, the war is really a war for peace. Bush contradicts himself and uses wording like “I mean” and “we’re really talking about” to move away from the topic of war and give people the idea of peace. There is a lot of vagueness in his speech by making it seem that peace is the outcome of war.
Orwell would have to question Bush’s definition of peace since Bush states it several times. Does peace mean a time without war if that is so, how can there be peace at a time when Bush’s objective is to “hunt them down one by one” through acts of war? Overall, Bush breaks several of Orwells’s rules. The speech in essence does not do a good job at promoting deliberation; it is mainly aimed at unity through patriotism given the period post 9/11 in the nation to make people feel that war is okay and that it is going to lead to America’s vision of peace for everyone.
Article: http://archives.hud.gov/remarks/martinez/speeches/presremarks.cfm
The first thing that came to mind as I was reading through Orwell, was Obama’s tagline “let me be clear.” Let me be clear that as I am giving you the jargon you long for, I am giving you carefully prepared language. This language is loaded with and without emotion. You will understand something, but maybe not everything you need to know.
This year I found myself captivated with the opportunity of electing Bernie Sanders. His chosen language was of “revolution,” “struggle together,” and his targeted slander of Donald Trump. I was involved in my undergrad years in the occupy movement, so as he spoke of wealth inequality, I was more drawn in. As he continued to use his statistics of the wealth of the 1%, I felt emotion to act. And as he interpreted the recession of the Bush II’s presidential run, I thought that the right person had finally presented themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rtXaPV5SYM
Looking back at this speech you can clearly see how the format of his language, was filled with Luntz’s ideas. For example he uses the term “starvation wage” as apposed to “minimum wage” to speak on the issue. The broad juxtapositions of our government and an oligarchy relates to Garkinkle’s ideas about how a writer is to poses thoughts and ideas. In the 1960’s when Nixon ran against Kennedy it was covered that polls on people who listened via radio thought Nixon won the debate while those watched on TV thought Kennedy won. So as we listen to language and vote on in November, we’ll see which language proves to be the strongest.
When looking for political speech that conveyed the dangers in intentionally confusing writing, I thought back to the past decade and what has changed on the landscape of gay rights. In my research, I found countless clips, debates and speeches from the early 2000’s where politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both publicly declare that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. I decided to focus on the words of Hillary Clinton from 2004 and a much different and very effective/moving use of language from Clinton 2011.
In this 2004 speech on gay marriage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I, Hillary Clinton speaks to the sanctity of the marriage. The phrase “marriage is between a man and a woman” which was repeated often in the 2000-2008 political scene, in itself seems like a phrase that could have been coined by Frank Luntz. It evokes imagery of tradition and sacred bonds. It doesn’t really mean anything, it might as well be “Gay people shouldn’t get married because I said so”. In fact in this clip doesn’t say much at all. She refers to marriage as a “founding foundational institutions”. The language is also meant to confuse those who are anti-gay marriage. At the end of the 90 seconds, Hillary has made confusing statements that are most likely meant to confuse both sides of the issue and never takes a stand that would label her anti or pro gay rights. Instead she chooses to meander about the history of marriage as a way to bury her real statement that the Constitution should not me changed.
I will close with Hillary Clinton’s “Gay Rights are Human Rights” speech from 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIqynW5EbIQ. The language is clear and active and Ms. Clinton makes no grey area of her stance on gay rights. She also continues through out the speech to emphasize that there is no difference between the rights of a gay persona and any other person, making her slogan “gay rights are human rights” all the more effective. She does however slip into very passive language when talking about the US’s own struggles with Gay Rights by referring to the US as “still needing some work”.
See below link on Obama’s speech after Osama Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgAL09DrdwQ
I believe Obama’s speech is an excellent example of how political adroitness together with calculated timing can shape public minds and perception. Obama starts by providing the background of the war against Al Qaeda, seeking to justify the war previously labeled as “invasive policy” and “unnecessary bloodshed” abroad. He, effortlessly, is able to paint the dim, somber picture of what Americans lived on 9/11 by describing in chronological order WITH detail how planes “cut through the cloudless September morning”, “smoke clouds rose from the Pentagon”, and how wreckage was laid out in the lands of Pennsylvania. He then strategically appeals to emotion on a more personal level by talking of the 3000 lives lost, including mothers, fathers, children that will never return home after that day. His structure then describes the “how” of the plan – the how to “disrupt, destroy, and defeat” Al-Qaeda. I couldn’t help it link how political strategists (the Luntz-like consultants) poll for how these words, thoughtfully crafted words play in the mind of the average American and the impact they have on public perception. He is able to unite the nationalist sentiment while reminding that the war against terrorism is not over. There is no evidence showing that Obama hesitated to “execute” the decision and he enforced the concept that the public has of him as a leader. This speech was excellently well-thought and strategic for Obama’s legacy and ultimately also key for his re-election.
Hello, Daniel
I agree, Obama painted grim picture, regarding war on terrorism. He shows us how devastated we were after 9/11, how many life’s were lost. Now however, that he killed the leader, who was responsible for all that, we should be happy. The deaths were avenged. But wait, all the life lost are not coming back. We still are mourning over 3000 people who died at the WTC. Children have no father, no mothers, mothers lost their sons and daughters. Are we really proud of killing this man. That what I understand from the speech. Yes, maybe he will not lead others, and it will prevent some other killings. In my opinion, Obama should turn to families, who have lost family member, talk to them, support them, provide help, support. I am sure some of them were happy that Osama Bin Laden is death, but some of them probably ask: How does that help me, will it bring my loved one back?
George Orwell critiques the use of political language as a means to conceal the truth. He states, “Political language- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. In an interview with PBS, Bill Harlow, former CIA official, is questioned by journalist Gwen Ifill who asks him if torture works. He responds, “Well, to start with, I would disagree with the term torture. But the enhanced interrogation program (EIP) that we utilized on a handful of top terrorists absolutely, beyond any doubt, produced vital intelligence that helped keep America safe”. Bill Harlow’s euphemism for torture (EIP), Orwell would agree, was intended to obfuscate the truth. This euphemism diminishes the negativity associated with the word torture and can misinform the public into believing that torture is necessary to obtain information. I believe referring to torture as an EIP would confuse people rather than promote deliberation. If I was only exposed to news networks that referred to torture as EIP, I would perceive it in a positive light until I educated myself on what it truly meant. An enhanced interrogation program is certainty a phrase that Luntz would use to change the negative public opinion on torture.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/torture-effective-gathering-intelligence/
Like Jonathan had stated above, I’m pretty much baffled by the means Frank Luntz utilizes rhetoric as a tool for molding public perception of certain policies put forth by politicians and corporations alike. Luntz recognized that word choice renders political ideas more palatable for the public at large and subsequently has an impact on the political landscape that policy addresses.
This notion is reinforced through policies advocated for and passed throughout the 1980s and ’90s regarding the “scourge” of crime in America, especially as it proliferated in minority or low-income communities. Throughout Bill Clinton’s incumbency as President, the rare phenomenon of broad bipartisan support for various legislation occurred in multiple facets of public affairs. In addition to crime, widespread advocacy for legislation included bills targeting the “welfare state” and childcare. The rhetoric that accompanied the political discourse fueled the apparent panic of both present and future incidences of all sorts of crime.
Perhaps one of the most prominent figures in crime reduction of the ’90s, Princeton professor John J. Dilulio, Jr. utilized a specific kind of terminology to frame “crime-ridden” communities and their residents as nothing short of subhuman: http://www.city-journal.org/html/my-black-crime-problem-and-ours-11773.html
Dilulio’s article is long-winded but essentially boils down to an ostensible rise in crime, particularly among black youth, a circumstance that must be curbed or millions of then-children will submit to the black ether of violence and apathy, whereby “the words “right” and “wrong” have no fixed moral meaning.” Dilulio and his fellow scholars collaborated to produce a paradigm that spawned the notorious pejorative “super-predator,” the kind of contemptuous rhetoric that would be injected into, as Fran alluded, “the political bloodstream.”
Dilulio’s writings were adroit. His proclamations, akin to a doomsday televangelist, soon attracted the attention of the Clinton administration who, as we can examine in retrospect, pursued the eradication of crime to the point of devastating whole primarily-black communities. Even today, as these communities reel from the long-term consequences of Bill Clinton’s “tough-on-crime” tactics, politicians like Michael Bloomberg have implemented policies that branched from the trunk of “super-predator” rhetoric. In the past decade, “Broken windows” became a popular, if not the prevailing, form of policing within minority communities. Lately, the effects of racial profiling and the incarceration of black citizens committing petty crimes are becoming more apparent to the broader public. Communities targeted by broken windows have elucidated the personal trauma felt and entrenched distrust of police that follows.
The real detriment caused by such policies stems from the craft embraced by Luntz and his clients. Their haphazard attempt to appeal to their constituency or consumer base has inevitable consequences for groups who have been systematically marginalized in American society. Dilulio himself used a racially coded way of communicating an irrational and erroneous fear of a society swallowed whole by black crime, the resulting devastation of which has yet to be effectively repaired.
Below is the link that will lead you to the ‘Executive Order 9066: Resulting in the Relocation of Japanese (1942).
The United States president will get away with anything that the public will allow. “Whereas the Successful prosecution of war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense premises, and national defense utilities as defined in section 4 Act of April 20, 1918.” This was issued by Franklin Roosevelt in 1942. The truth about this situation was that native-born Americans of Japanese descent were sent off to ‘internment’ camps because the President had stated that it the way to protect the United States from being invaded by Japan. As if there was a paranoiac belief that somehow Japanese-Americans would discretely guide the Japanese government into through passageways in order to take over the United States. The wording makes a difference in all aspects. The president led the nation to believe that native-born Americans were a threat. They had to leave behind their homes and properties. They were not able to gain them back. They were sent to live behind a barb wired camp. This is a violation of civil rights.
The wording that was used was perfect to mislead the public. There were people that were opposed to the situation but the unfortunate circumstance was that it was an executive order. That is very hard to overrule. There were many politicians fighting against this order but it was hard to combat it.
https://ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?doc=74
This election year, has, ushered in many new interesting languages, both in the form of adroitly crafted phrases in the style of Frank Luntz and George Orwell’s description of “slovenliness” of languages. Carefully crafted phrases remain prominent features in political speeches, most especially, in presidential election campaigns. Judging, by some prominent historical speeches, which still resonate until this day, candidates generally reflects their identified political party’s ideologies in their speeches. Examples of such political phrases, includes the well-crafted “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” phrased by John F Kennedy. Also, “If you treat people right they will treat you right… ninety percent of the time” phrased by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s. Such political phrases, that are carefully worded, are also delivered in appealing languages. Though, they are employed to helped candidates met their political end, they have the effects of promoting deliberations. On the other hand, tactlessly structured political speeches, reflecting disrespect deters deliberations.
In this link, The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/22/donald-trump-to-african-american-and-hispanic-voters-what-do-you-have-to-lose/ Mr. Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate in his stated effort to engage and solicit African Americans and Hispanic votes, delivered his “What do you have to loose” political speech.
Donald Trump’s speech, supposedly addressing African Americans and Hispanics voters, was delivered to a cheering crowd of his supporters, who are mostly white. In his address, Donald Trump stated “I say it with such a deep-felt feeling: What do you have to lose…Right now, you walk down the street, you get shot. Look at the statistics.” As, I watched this movie like speech, it evoked the description of the types of bad political writings, George Orwell described as a “writing of some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not the “party line” Orthodoxy.” In my opinion, George Orwell could not have described the feelings I got from watching Mr. Trump delivered this speech better. I agreed with George Orwell assertions that, “One often has a curious feeling that such one is not a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them.” The whole speech seemed unreal, I was appalled, in watching Donald Trump, a potential president of this country gave this speech, supposedly, to seek African Americans and Hispanics votes. Such poorly crafted political phrase, chosen Mr. Trump dose not promote effective deliberations, in fact, it can actually discourage deliberation because it tends to discourage inclusiveness, which encourages deliberations.
This speech, viewed from any angle, is the case of an effect becoming the cause and the cause became the effect. Trump’s speech is good example, of George Orwell’s alcohol analogy, where it is difficult to determine if, drinking alcohol cases failure or failure causes drinking of alcohol. Donald Trump’s poor choice of the phrase “What have you got to loose” in addressing the nations of African Americans and Hispanics, is either because he is completely oblivious that his slovenly language is reflective of his emotions or is emotions are reflected in his words. In consideration of George Orwell’s analysis of the effects of poorly crafted linguistics, Donald Trump’s “What have you got to loose” phrases exemplifies the “slovenliness” of Pacification, where political speeches consist of “Euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” Although, many see, Donald Trump as “say it as it is type of person,” attempting to defend him at this point, is like “defending the indefensible.”
Hi Joy,
I often wonder if the people speaking read what they were handed. In my opinion it is ridiculous that Trump, wants the votes of Hispanic and African-Americans, yet he speaks to all white audience. If he wants to address certain culture, shouldn’t he go to neighborhoods, all over, with all cultures and religions. In Trump’s case I think he is trying to use fancy wording, not realizing he is pushing and loosing people with it. As I said in my post. Most people will listen or read something they can understand, not something that will make them feel stupid.
As Frank Luntz puts it in the video words can be used to confuse people but if it is used right with the right audience, the intended effect with be derived.
As Frank Luntz puts it in the video words can be used to confuse people but if it is used right with the right audience, the intended effect with be derived. This election has been a very interesting one. There has been a lot of attacks from each political party against the other party. Most of these have been very negative. Here is one of the speeches the Democratic Presidential Candidate gave to an audience in San Diego on June 2nd 2016.
Mrs. Clinton’s speech was supposed to address foreign policy, yet the speech was devoid of any foreign policies. I am pretty sure this suppose major bill on foreign policy got a lot of people to watch or listen to her speech. This speech was mostly to respond and punch holes in all of what the Republican presidential Candidate has said in previous speeches. This increased the number of people who viewed her speech. Here is the speech Mrs. Clinton had given in San Diego.
http://nyti.ms/1XlZhsP
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
I have chosen to attach Hillary Clinton speech at the Democratic convention: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-dnc-transcript.html.
It is very interesting we are talking about language, which is used in the political speeches. I have to quote this as I think it is very interesting: “Vocativ analysis shows. At 46 minutes and 4,707 words, her speech was longer than any other candidate’s so far, but it was written for the average middle-schooler, according to the Flesch-Kincaid readability test—the most widely recognized reading comprehension algorithm.” (http://www.vocativ.com/201734/hillary-clinton-speech-eighth-grade-level/).
Yes, she used very simple language, easy to understand for most. No fancy words which would throw off or bore people. I am a Nurse assessor, and every day I go to patients houses, most are educated at the level of 12th grade, 8th grade. They all are in their 70-80 years old. Whoever is running her complain knows what they doing. They are aiming for people who understand basics, have time on their hands and whatever pertains to them and their care, medical support etc.
Simplicity is used to make sure politics are accessible to all. She is talking about religion, about fighting terrorism, need of pay raise, inequality. Those are the issues that are on the table at this time and age. She also states that America is a symbol of Freedom, equality, justice and opportunity.
Frank Luntz studies how are words used, I liked the video and the study he was doing. Positive words brought so much resonance with the public. There is another side of using words, they can confuse people. I must say if I read something that I don’t understand due to wording, I will quicker stop the reading and never come back to it. On the other hand if I see word I don’t understand and it is happening from time to time, I would go and check it out as it is opportunity to learn something new.
The example of the slovenliness of the English language that I choose is Donald Trump as he delivers his presidential campaign announcement in 2015. This speech does not serve to promote effective deliberation as it is loaded with “gobleigook,” and sentences and phrases that do not make sense and language that is vague and ambiguous. As stated by George Orwell on the issue of the slovenliness of language, “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because out thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” I think this is applicable to this speech as the thoughts emanating from the speaker do indeed seem to be contributing to the quality of the speech. Some of his phrases seem to have been strung together just for the dramatic effect or to get an emotional reaction from the crowd. Examples of these phrases include:
“Gross Domestic Product is a sign of strength”
“Make the US great again, it’s not great again”
“How stupid are they”
“You will get bored winning”
“There are no jobs, China has our jobs. Mexico has our jobs”
“They are sending us not the right people, when Mexico sends their people they’re sending people that have lots of problems” and “They are bringing drugs, they are rapists….”
This speech is filled with meaningless words and inflated phrases that do not facilitate the deliberation process and is a good example of the slovenliness of the language. Mr. Trump is addressing serious issues like the economy, national safety, and immigration and is using language that is so limited and simplistic that he seems to be trivializing the issues. In my estimation this serves to demonstrate his lack of commitment to effectively engage in effective deliberation.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+video+of+Donald+trump+presidential+campaign+announcement&view=detail&mid=DBAB06370C14B0A2B92EDBAB06370C14B0A2B92E&FORM=VIRE
Speeches that are addressed to the public must be clear and well structured, spurring action. George Orwell is not fond of the usage of metaphors, foreign words, or the passive voice – instead urging writers to craft phrases that have not been used by other writers before them. However, not all words and expressions clearly represent what the speaker has in mind. Their misuse can effect how people receive the information being conveyed, oftentimes erroneously. In the case of metaphors, it is important to note that not all individuals use them appropriately due to misunderstanding their context, consequently leading to the public misinformation and confusion as to the meaning of the message itself. The usage of the passive voice can hide information; foreign words should be exchanged with those that can be understood by the people being addressed as to avoid being lost in translation. The use of ambiguous language and phrases affects the development of deliberation and also affect its outcome. The speaker should avoid words that are extraordinary and structurally deep and instead, resort to simple language that can be understood by the majority of the speaker’s audience. There are of course, exceptions to this rule should the language of the people in and of itself involve complexity. The language which was used by the English colonists and their offspring for generations differed greatly in the past than the English we use today. One of the most important documents in the United States; the Declaration of Independence, was written in old English, and was deliberately structured as to prove a point, be informative and finally, to be concise. The exception in the case of simplicity of language exists here because old English is more rigid and difficult to understand to modern English readers and speakers. Nonetheless, the document was an important one that allowed people to revel in their newfound freedom and country.
The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, and is a complex, beautiful statement that played an important role in American society and the freedom of its people from the tyranny of the British king. The declaration provides an explanation as to why the colonists overthrew the King and as a result, how this country became a separate nation from Britain. To emphasize key words and points, Jefferson often capitalizes the words to draw attention to their significance. The wording of the document is sometimes ambiguous, causing readers to interpret it in the manner they choose. This however, doesn’t always have positive connotations and this is related to the morals and viewpoints that they grew up with. For example Jefferson states that all men are created equal, thus enjoying rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Yet what does it mean to have a right to the pursuit of happiness? I do not think that there is one answer for this question. It just allows people to have the right to create a greater life for themselves. One person can see it as the opportunity to live free and the other one could have seen happiness in slave ownership. Jefferson also uses a lot of different words to identify the higher powers. For example there are at least four different words that identify God such as Nature’s God or Creator. This allows the reader to personally identify his or her god in the manner believed. However, Thomas Jefferson was able to not just express the desire of colonies to be free but also he was able to bring up arguments with the usage of history, imagery, and reason.
Link to the document : http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
In the article, Orwell lists few rules to prevent slovenliness. They are: never use a metaphor that you used to see in print; never use a long word when you can you a short one; cut out a world if it is possible; never use passive verb when you can use the active verb; never use a foreign language, scientific word when you can use everyday English. He states that when “you simplify you English…and when you make a stupid remark, its stupidity will be obvious.” In my research for this assignment, I found a clip by Trump when he was asked about his proposed ban on Muslim entering the country. I think Trump’s talk has all the element of Orwell’s rules, and its “stupidity was obvious.” Yes. I agree with Orwell that political language is crafted to ” make lies sound truthful, and murder respectable” as shown in the blogs by some of my classmates. I would suggest that language that is simplified to a 4th grade level is not conducive to effective deliberation as shown by Donald Trump in this video clip. Enjoy !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnLa1BvtaxM
Above is a link to Ronald Reagan’s 1961 speech against socialized medicine. Ignore the clearly partisan slideshow that accompanies the audio.
Confirming what you already thought, Ronald Reagan was not a proponent of socialism. In this speech, he gives a linguistically sophisticated, yet simple argument. While I don’t agree with his conclusion, I believe his speech promotes deliberation, and is an excellent example of well-crafted political language.
He begins by grounding his argument in contrasting quotes. First, from a well-known socialist, and then James Madison, a constitutional Framer. The quotes serve to oppose one another, while Madison’s is clearly meant to lure the audience to Reagan’s side. He then launches right into his points. Reagan addresses how healthcare is an easy target for socialists because it’s hard to make a policy that denies people medical care. His counter argument is that socialized medicine is a slippery slope to start down. He gives a scenario of doctors not having the freedom to choose where they work because the government is dictating otherwise. He addresses the legitimacy of democracy and majority rule, but asks his audience to consider that the Framers put in place checks and balances to protect minorities. Roughly paraphrasing, he reminds the listeners that we have the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny. The converse being that the government has no right or business telling people how to live. The final words of his address are quite poetic, again I’m paraphrasing: If you don’t strike down socialized medicine, one day you’ll be telling your grandchildren what it once was like in America when men were free.
Reagan knew his audience, as well as their backgrounds and ideologies. He knew that he was talking to mostly wealthy white women who hold American ideals in high regard. Every part of his short speech works to undermine socialized medicine from the perspective of his audience. I believe that he does an excellent job of appealing to the emotions of his listeners, and infusing intelligent dialogue with his political argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6WAZSp6k_o
I know many people have used great political examples, but I decided to take a different route. There is another person who is in the public eye that exemplifies linguistic “slovenliness” which is Kim Kardashian. Now, I am not too thrilled to use her as example but I decided why not. This link here will show all the slovenliness she has shown in writing. She stated her dinner with Obama as, “I had dinner with Obama once, and he just seemed very firm about the change, and that’s like his motto.” This is what Luntz says is a dying metaphor because she clearly is not interested to know what change President Obama is trying to bring or his motto is. She later on says that she was not actually having dinner with him, but she was at the event. This shows the other explanation Luntz explained that when someone uses dying metaphors they stop being aware of something to avoid change to the original phrase. She states afterwards that she did not have dinner with him because she could not continue speaking in depth about Obama’s change and she can leave it at her original statement. She also has a tendency to create private definitions as Luntz states, “And they say I didn’t have a talent…try balancing a champagne glass on your butt…LOL!” Talent is someone who has natural ability to do something or a skill. In her private definition, she thinks balancing something on her butt is talent, but many people will not think that as talent or they make think her butt is fake and it is not a natural ability. Another example is when she stated that, “I’m so mature now. I’m a grown-up version of myself.” What does this even mean? You are a “grown up version” of yourself while you are “grown up”? We do not know her exact definition of her “maturity or growing up”, and this is another great example of private definition. Luntz would believe that Kardashian has messiness of language and it makes easier for her to have foolish thoughts. My example shows that a person should not deliberate this way and they should have metaphors that make sense, actual educational definitions to express their beliefs, and have evidence.
Here is a recent speech by Giuliani at the RNC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luzajJDsGOY
It is a very belligerent speech, full of many inaccuracies and falsehoods. There isn’t really a linear structure or much of an organization to the topics discussed. It’s merely meant to emphasize and reinforce an “us vs. them” mentality that borders on fanaticism. This rhetoric in combination with Giuliani’s tone as well as the volume of voice, have an incredibly chilling effect on the part of the listener. I cannot help but feel a quality of insanity envelops this entire speech. What else can one think when a former leader utilizes his position to perpetuate and highlight stereotypes about Muslim people? He completely vilifies Hillary Clinton and proclaims Trump as some sort of savior.
Perhaps this is an extreme example, but obviously it doesn’t encourage deliberation. It alienates various populations by generalizing and painting over whole communities with a broad brush. Unless you’re someone who agrees with what Giuliani is claiming, no person with opposing views will attempt to have a rational discussion by presenting an opposing argument. He doesn’t make any room for that kind of deliberative process.
And yet, I don’t think that a more slick or more carefully constructed speech in the style of Frank Luntz is much better in terms of encouraging deliberation. About a year ago, I listened to an interview with the authors of a book called “Spinglish: The Definitive Dictionary of Deliberately Deceptive Language” (http://www.wnyc.org/story/guide-spin-doctors/). When language is used in such a manner, to “spin” or obfuscate a real situation, there isn’t much room for open deliberation. Instead, an alternate reality seems to be created precisely in order to suppress disagreement by reshaping the perception of the listener.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/nyregion/what-donald-trump-got-wrong-on-stop-and-frisk.html?_r=0
George Orwell was meticulous about writing. Writing should be precise, specific, yet creative enough to clearly convey a picture of what the author is trying to communicate. Orwell had little patience for the inability of writers to communicate the “intention” of their pieces and associated it on a deeper level to society’s decadence. He had a special disdain for the euphemistic use of language in political discourse.
The Stop-question-and-frisk, or stop-and-frisk program, in New York City was ruled unconstitutional because it “targeted racially defined groups”, namely the black and latino minority communities. Such an innocuous name (read adroitly crafted phrase). Let’s just do a brief, polite check and you’ll be on your way. At its peak in 2011, more than 685,000 persons were searched, and judging by the lawsuits filed against the New York Police Department (NYPD), many did not see it as harmless as the name suggested.
Donald Trump has regurgitated the name of program in his election bid, in an appeal to an audience that it will make them safer and bring back “law and order”—another adroitly-crafted phrase. Lunz explained the use of language and how it must appeal to emotions even more than intellect in order to get people to act. Obviously Donald Trump understands this and his entire campaign has been run on buzzwords and craftily designed phrases such as mentioned above.
Ultimately, the malleability of the English language makes it possible to be both vague and specific, loose and disciplined, euphemistic and straightforward, creative and unimaginative based on the communicative objective of the writer.