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.
29 thoughts on “Deliberation and Political Writing”
Comments are closed.
I have decided to discuss the Article, Obama: We are not at war with Islam, to reflect on the use of slovenliness and also well-honed phrases used within political writing.
George Orwell believed truth is obscured and that people can sound like they know what they are talking about by using essential key words related to a topic. This is an example of slovenliness thinking which results in sloppy language. The use of dying metaphors, pretentious diction, and operators of verbal false limbs have taken on a life of its own throughout today’s generation use of the English language and within political writing. As this abusive use of the English language has become the normal way of comprehension and implemented into basic writing thoughts and skills, proficient writers are now found to take on the struggle to not conform to the writing norms and reverse what has occurred with slovenliness in political writing.
Kevin Liptak, White house producer and author of this link, has displayed this through his article on how President Obama also is trying to clarify whom exactly the issue on terrorism should be directly pointed to within certain countries. As Americans have been hypnotized by media outlets and news networks to place blame for Terrorism on the Islamic religion and Middle-Eastern countries the minute your hear key words such as Isis, Muslim, extremists, or enemies of the “state”. As Frank Luntz used phrases that brought unified thoughts of citizens which would initiate change on how we view things, such as “War of Terror” instead of “War on Iraq”, it changed how placed blame for the issues that surrounded terrorist attacks, not a country, but against people who took extreme measures to attack and destroy. Kevin Liptak executes the same purpose by highlighting President Obama’s clarification of what the central focus should be concerning terrorism. Obama uses a well-honed phrase “anti-extremism”, this helps to unify the American mentality, in which he decided not to call a war on ISIS a religious one, it makes a distinction of whom he is going to war with are those who have perverted Islam.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/politics/isis-obama-extremism-summit/index.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13
The article I chose to use for this post is the state of the Union address by president Bush shortly after the attacks on September 11th. In one of the hardest moments in American history, president Bush uses political language to call for a need for a military response to the attacks.
Bush’s “war on terror” became a term most commonly used when addressing any activity related to terrorism. The term became a justification for many un-American practices, from the patriot act to torture issues, all found their justification in the ‘war on terror”. Wars are so harsh, hence the methods used to fight a war are often harsh.
President Bush goes one step further and calls it a ‘global’ war on terror. He calls it our “civilization’s fight”. This immediately engages everyone who shares American values to accept the American strategy of involvement in the fight against terror. President Bush created a polar scenario where you are either with us or against us. It is hard to criticize a government when they are fighting a “civilization’s fight”.
President’s speech comes from Luntz’s school of thought of responding to emotional state of the American people. Responding to grieve and anger, with a firm promise of retaliation was necessary to attempt to strengthen our sense of weakness post attacks on 9/11.
http://www.pageonekentucky.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/paulinternet.jpg
Net neutrality is a recent hot-button issue that has come up due to internet service providers moving towards a newer model where individual house holds are charged based on usage, and paying for the ability to use certain websites as packages (similar to cable channels). As a result of severe public backlash, the FCC and the Obama administration have moved towards classifying ISPs as a public utility, similar to landlines.
However, due to the ideological rigidity of Rand Paul, he has come firmly against it in the above email blast sent out to his most ardent supporters. It is a perfect example of a Frank Luntz type message, using time tested phrases that are prevalent in right-wing messaging. Phrases such as big government, free market, hands off, etc., all are part of the e-mail blast. Although they may be tiring and overused, they most certainly are still dog whistle phrases that ignite certain voters.
Because of the fact that net neutrality is overwhelmingly positive for consumers, and negative for large internet service providers (who also happen to be large donors to Rand Paul), Rand Paul must carefully craft language that makes the reader appear to be hurt as a result of net neutrality. In fact, throughout the entire email, Rand Paul does not once mention the negative to consumers, stating instead the damage to businesses and innovation. Scare words such as aggressive, invasive, and harmful end the e-mail – emotional tactics that close off the e-mail rather than fully explaining what he proposes.
He notes the “free, flourishing internet,” which is exactly what net neutrality would ensure. What he truly means is a free, unregulated market for ISPs to do as they want to consumers. This is a perfect example of what Orwell wrote – saying something in such a convoluted fashion that the resulting phrase actually means opposite of what it should.
http://www.salon.com/2011/09/28/job_creator_myth/
I attached a link to text from prominent Republicans Eric Cantor and John Boehner, referring to “job creators.” The term “job creators” is in the style of Frank Luntz and it does provide careful thought, because I’ve been hearing the Republican Party toss around “job creators” for some time now, especially running up to Obama’s push to end the Bush tax cuts. I wanted to know exactly what they mean.
I discovered that the Republican Party has been using the term “job creators” since the 1990’s. The term is usually spoken by Republicans whenever the Democratic Party wants to raise taxes in some form or another. When Obama let the country know that he planned on ending the Bush tax cuts, the Republican Party immediately spoke out that Obama was “taxing the job creators.” This became the Republican mantra. But if you look deep enough you can see through it. Since the Bush tax cuts mainly benefited the wealthy, then “job creators” is just a code word for “wealthy people.” I’m sure in focus groups, “taxing the job creator” goes over much smoother than “taxing the wealthy person” This is Luntz style type phrasing playing on emotion. Nobody wants to hurt a “job creator.”
There is no proof that taxing the wealthy increases jobs or helps the economy. For example from 1925 till 2010, if you take the years that had a top tax rate of 70% or above, job growth averaged 2.6% and GDP averaged over an enormous 8% a year! By contrast, in the years when the top tax rate was 40% or below, job growth was .94% and GDP growth average a paltry 3.5%. So the Republicans are not only trying to protect the wealthy with the term “job creators” they are being dishonest with the American people.
The language I’m focusing on is even more interesting in light of the newest, hot off the press NSA scandal. In late October 2013 the director of the NSA, Keith Alexander, the director of national intelligence, and other NSA and Justice Department officials testified at a congressional hearing.
It’s no secret, and no wonder, that the public was upset after Edward Snowden’s explosive revelations of the mass surveillance the NSA conducts. There were immediate calls for better oversight of the NSA as it completely lost the trust of the people. The utter lack of trust still exists today but you can tell the testimony was clearly an effort to repair it with “linguistic slovenliness”.
The officials clung to what they know is a sensitive spot for Americans: 9/11 and terrorism. They pounded home the notion that if it weren’t for their mass surveillance, our nation would sustain more deadly attacks. Alexander stated “We see what neither the CIA nor FBI could see” before 9/11. “We help them connect the dots.”
Citizens want to feel safe. We don’t want another 9/11. And Alexander preys on that. In the aftermath of the tragedy, we came together with a sense of American pride and he tries to exude that in a martyr type fashion saying, “I would prefer to take the beatings” from the public and in the media “than to give up a program that would result in this nation being attacked.”
The testimony was full of cliché excuses for overstepping bounds, however I think it did incite debate. A lot of people didn’t believe the testimony. Certain folks continued to demand for the programs to be shut down. Some thought safety is the number one priority and so the issue should largely be left alone. And of course there are those that ran the middle path with thoughts that some secret surveillance is necessary, but probably not to the extent that’s come to light.
The debate continues to rage on today and will keep going, as it should. This is an important that can’t be ignored.
I used several articles to review the testimony:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/nsa-files-us-intelligence-officials-testify-in-congress-live-coverage
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/nsa-chief-keith-alexander-house-hearing
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/29/nsa-spying-congress-testimony/3304221/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/kynect-obamacare_n_5310263.html
Obamacare, the name given to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is a term that is often associated with general negativity and confusion. Many people see the ACA as a burden to those who already have insurance, and confusing and expensive for those that do not. This confusion and lack of understanding about the ACA is exemplified in the Huffington Post article, “Kentuckians Hate Kynect A Lot Less Than Obamacare” (2014).
Kynect is actually just the Kentucky version of Obamacare disguised under another name. This name change exemplifies Frank Luntz’s strategy of word choice and word association. The article points out how the belief that Kynect is not Obamacare is what pushed it to be a success. When the health care plan is referred to as Obamacare, most people in Kentucky are against the reform. “Taking Obama out of the equation also seems to give the health care law a small boost nationally…approval for the ‘Affordable Care Act’ was 7 points higher than approval for ‘Obamacare’” (Edwards-Levy, 2014). Although Shakespeare said, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet” (2004, 2.2. 43-44) the American people can be swayed by a name, in this case the name Kynect. The article also states that “… a 56 percent majority disliked Obamacare, while just 22 percent felt negatively toward Kynect…. The percentage of GOP respondents who were unfavorable toward Obamacare was 51 percentage points higher than the percentage who felt that way about Kynect” (Edwards-Levy, 2014). And just like that, the act of rebranding Obamacare has created success in Kentucky. It is fascinating how something as simple as this name change has made the difference between success and failure.
The name Kynect is credited to Kentucky governor Steven Beshear. Since Kentucky voted Republican in the last two Presidential elections, the name change to Kynect from Obamacare, or even the ACA, successfully caters to the demographic of Kentucky. “Over the past year, Kentucky’s health care website has proved to be a huge success. More than a half-million Kentucky residents have signed up for the Bluegrass State’s version of Obamacare. A majority of Kentuckians approve of it” (Brill, 2014).
This brings to light the true issue under debate – is the fight against Obamacare or is it against Obama himself? The controversy surrounding the ACA highlights the deeper issue of who is in charge of a person’s health. With the current state of our government so divided, the debate about the benefits of the ACA are clouded in partisanship. There is never a time to discuss the legislation and work out what is truly best for the American people. With the simple change to Kynect, Kentucky, at least, has found a way to please their citizens and open the floor for a healthy debate, leaving partisan politics on the side. “Residents of Kentucky may hate Obamacare, but they’re much less hostile toward Kynect” (Edwards-Levy, 2014). The name change has reopened the channels of communication to learn more about what the ACA is and is working to accomplish.
This simple act of rebranding a product that people were against just because it was affiliated with Obama has proven successful. “Kentucky continues to outshine its big brother in Washington. Of [the] 13 million enrolled nationally for private insurance on the exchanges or for Medicaid, Kentucky has pulled in 521,000. That’s an astounding 82% of the state’s uninsured population, a percentage far above the national totals” (Brill, 2014). A simple name change has allowed a majority of Kentuckians to have the health coverage they need and deserve. “Kynect’s largely successful rollout hasn’t generated goodwill for Obamacare, but the new survey numbers suggest the state exchange has avoided being mired in partisanship to the same degree” (Edwards-Levy, 2014).
The decision to call Obamacare by any other name in the state of Kentucky has proved to be a clever one. In the words of former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, “In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be” (McMath, 1996).
Brill, S. (2014, July 14). How Kentucky Got Obamacare Right. TIME. Retrieved from
http://time.com/3062886/how-kentucky-got-obamacare-right/
Edwards-Levy, A. (2014, May 12). Kentuckians hate kynect A lot less than
obamacare. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/kynect-obamacare_n_5310263.html
McMath, R. M. (1996). What’s in a name? American Demographics, 18(12), 60.
Shakespeare, W. (2004). Romeo and Juliet. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University
Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/baruch/reader.action?docID=10190740
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-03-22/mitt-romney-health-reform-repeal-obamacare/53711598/1
Mitt Romney carefully crafted this article with terms and phases aimed to raise emotion. This article and its terms and phases are directed at the Affordable Healthcare Act specifically calling it “OBAMACARE”. Simply using this term is placing blame in a demonstrative way. Mitt Romney also uses words and phrases that are pre-frabricated such as “budget-busting”, one-size-fits-all”, “top-down bureaucracy”, “out-of-control”. “root and branch”. These terms all seem to me as phrases that are meant to raise emotions.
I believe that by raising these emotions in the public, through well-crafted terms, brings about more deliberation. Deliberation sometimes needs emotions high to get the conversation started. This was an article that set forth strong catch phases in defense of appealing the Affordable health care act.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/01/05/132680683/the-many-lives-of-the-death-panel
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/01/09/why-it-is-so-difficult-to-kill-the-death-panel-myth/
The topic of end-of-life is an uncomfortable subject for most people despite ethnicity or socio-economic status. However, we are mortal and death is inevitable. The two articles discuss the conversation of death and our government’s involvement.
Prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the country was in favor of end-of-life planning. It won support of both House and Senate to be covered in Medicare’s Initial Preventative Physical Examination in 2008 and signed by President Bush. President Obama planned to add end-of-life planning with the enrollment of the ACA by compensating primary care physicians for talking to their patients about advanced care planning during annual visits.
In August 2009, Governor Sarah Palin publically spoke out against President Obama’s end-of-life planning and referred to it as the “death panel” created by Democrats. She went on to say it was going to be up to the government to decide whether the elderly and disabled are “worthy of healthcare”. The public’s reaction after Palin’s play on words resulted in the removal of end-of-life planning from the ACA.
Frank Luntz may see “end-of-life planning” and “death panel” as one in the same. He may also see there are different emotions ignited with each term. As Orwell theorizes how sloppy language can produce bad thoughts, Palin and her affiliates successfully achieved their goal using that philosophy. It is obvious “death panel” invokes more fear and negativity when compared to “end-of-life planning”.
The result of this sloppy language has shut down this much needed deliberation of end-of-life planning as one third of Americans still believe in the “death panel” myth revealed in a Kaiser Permanente study poll. In recent years the affect of this sloppy language has caused the current government and medical community to deliberate on ways to reintroduce this initiative more transparently. They are also deliberating on more ways to educate the public on end-of-life planning.
When discussing philosophies of deliberation, Frank Luntz is a prime example of Litman’s expert leader. Simultaneously, Frank Luntz is a prime example of how weak Litman’s deliberation philosophy is as it strengthens Madison’s deliberation philosophy of needing a system of checks and balances to prevent corruption. The use of language and play on words has great potential of corruption.
Throughout history we have seen the various use and misuse of language. Language can be a very important yet sometimes dangerous tool. Politicians have twisted language to gain favorable support, tyrants have abused language to rally the masses, poets have tweaked language to create art, and musicians have used language to create song. Sometimes the effect language has on an individual is not readily acknowledged or noticed; in fact many times language will influence us on the subconscious level. This phenomenon is portrayed by both Orwell and Luntz.
One example of politically engineered language is of the work of Adolph Hitler during WWII. Hitler ingeniously altered and carefully manipulated language in order to rally the masses and gain loyalty. He was able to do this so effectively that he was able to rack up millions of supporters, followers, and soldiers to liquidate and murder millions of innocent people strictly on the preconceived notion of an “aryan” or “perfect” race.
We are able to witness this creative use of language in many promotional videos and in many of his texts. The link below is an excerpt of a letter he wrote justifying his desire to separate from jews. In this text he refers to the epidemic as “jewry” as if the infestation of jews throughout was some sort of disease or plague that needed to be eliminated. Hitler then goes on to explain this antisemetic movement against jews as “rational” and “scientific”. This causes readers to relate to Hitler’s calm and logical demeanor. It is also evident that Hitler did not reveal his grand plan all at once. He was aware that individuals could only handle a little at a time, and in a way slowly spoon fed large masses into his plan. His slow and calculated moves ensured further success of his plans. In this text we see that he is only suggesting for systematic liquidation; however, further on other texts reveal his plan for more extreme measures.
Another example of Hitlers politically engineered language is in his book “Mein Kampf”. In english the title reads “My Struggle”. This portrays Hitler as a victim or martyr. The title of his literature alone causes people to sympathize with Hitler. He is painted as a leader who has suffered and understands the struggles of life like any one else can. Through the use of language he is already able to make himself more relateable to others. In fact it did not matter what Hitler had written in his book, it was actually reported that very few actually read the book from beginning to end. However, everyone owned a copy of it. It was given as birthday gifts, graduation gifts, and even celebratory gift to new borns. It was important that the title was carefully calculated to catch the peoples attention. There are however many instances of carefully crafted language throughout the entire book. Language was a very powerful weapon for Hitler.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Adolf_Hitler's_First_Antisemitic_Writing.html
I will discuss a crafted phrase i found when reading an article in the NY Times about the Affordable Care Act titled: Tax Error in Health Act Has Impact on 800,000. In the article they mentioned how the government calls the tax penalty that one would receive if they didn’t obtain health insurance “shared responsibility payment”. After reading the article and watching the video on Frank Luntz it is interesting to see how politicians change their use of words/language to gain public support for an issue and how such a small change can make such a big difference. Even in the example i found when reading the article, tax penalty sounds so much worse than “shared responsibility payment” even though both are referring to the same thing. I thought it was interesting how Luntz used focus groups to test out what the public wanted to hear.
I do not think that this strategic use of language makes for good deliberation because even though the words have the same meaning politicians are essentially trying to trick people into feeling differently when they hear a phrase so that they gain more support for their issue. Like Luntz said it is 80% emotion and 20% intellect. This strategy obscures the intention of the policy which means that the audience is getting mixed messages resulting in manipulated thinking. In order for deliberation to be properly promoted the public needs to be informed and be able to form clear thoughts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/us/incorrect-tax-information-health-insurance.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?_r=0
The term “Death Panels” was coined by Sarah Palin in an attempt to attack the new health care reform bill. The term, in its simplicity, was able to create furor among the misinformed and thus spur the national debate going even when the myth had been debunked almost immediately.
I think most politicians bank on the idea that at least a portion of the public will remain misinformed and that portion will be able to create enough furor to do its deed. In this case, the misinformed public and the intentionally ignorant media rode the “death panels” claim to attack the new health care bill. The provision in question authorized Medicare to compensate voluntary consultants on “end of life” procedures. This in no way suggests that a panel will decide whether one lives or dies. Nonetheless, the outrage forced the provision to be removed from the bill.
Like “climate change” and “death tax”, the term “death panels” is simple enough that it allows everyone to develop a quick interpretation of the meaning. In this case, by allowing more people to think they are in the loop, the discussion was able to develop and expand. The outrage lasted long enough that it was able to make a change to the bill.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/statementon-the-current-health-care-debate/113851103434
Ah, Michael Ng! You beat me to posting about Sarah Palin’s uproar on ACA’s “death panels”! As soon as I heard about this assignment, I immediately wanted to blog about Palin’s August 7, 2009 Facebook post, “Statement on the Current Health Care Debate”, and how her use of the phrase “death panels” exacerbated the issues in my blog post, Problem Memorandum: Deficient End-of-Life Care and Expanding Options.
The rationale for the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (PPACA) is, arguably, to provide more accessible and more affordable healthcare for all Americans. If we agree on the need to do such, and I believe we should, then we must find a way to pay for it. What most of us don’t understand is that we currently are finding a way to pay for it, but we’re doing so in a much unorganized, indirect way. Wonder why healthcare expenses on your insurance bill seem to be overpriced? It is due to a cost-shift to make up for the healthcare expenses for those without insurance. Healthcare expenses among the uninsured is largely unfavorable to our healthcare expenditures, which account for, what I recall, almost 18% (and rising) of our national GDP. However, if we only tax to make up for expenses, this will be a never-ending solution. So, if we can’t just rely on taxing, also known as the Individual Mandate, then we must consider rationing/cutting costs. This is the same methods you and I, or any business would do if we needed to find additional sources of income; if we can’t gain it through tax or income/another source, them we need to cut costs.
Unfortunately, healthcare is not an unlimited resource. We simply cannot do everything for everyone, and this is a fact of life and without a doubt a hard discussion to take on. So difficult, the current culture of America is to avoid such conversation and take extreme measures to “do whatever you can”, because, in my opinion, it takes away the guilt of making any decision. As I have mentioned in my post, a quarter of Medicare expenses are in the last year of life, and 30% of those expenses are in the last 30 days of life. What the PPACA originally proposed was to focus on this population and encourage discussion among families/healthcare proxies and their respective healthcare provider to understand the realities one may face and what their wishes are if the client/patient was unable to provide such preference. In the original bill, the PPACA proposed we reimburse physicians for their time to have these discussions. These discussions would reveal some want every measure to prolong life in any way possible (which is fine), and others want a more comfort care approach, optimizing their ideal quality of life. The point is these discussions must be had.
However, in the summer of 2009, Sarah Palin has claimed this provision would create “death panels so his bureaucrats can decide, based on the subjective judgment of their level of productivity in society, whether they are worthy of health care”. This is false. The fact that the PPACA is a highly difficult and lengthy read made Americans believe Palin’s claim that death panels were indeed to be included in the bill. But the truth is, nobody is to decide the fate of their loved one except for the next of kin, or their health care proxy with guidance from the physician. This term of “Death Panels”, of course, caused uproar and was met with resistance, and ultimately the topic of solving of end-of-life care was removed from the PPACA before passing in Congress.
So, I digress. Do I think this example promotes deliberation? No, I absolutely do not think this example promotes deliberation. In this example, I believe her rhetoric, or flat out lie, was used to persuade and instill fear in the American public. The idea of a death panel intensified the distrust in the American government and created an imagery that even I would say no to. In my opinion, to promote deliberation, all sides should be brought to the table and then discussed. There is no room for false statements.
For this week’s post, I have decided to take a look at Hilary Clinton’s Pennsylvania Primary Speech from April 22, 2008. Although Hilary won many primaries, she lost the Democratic Party nomination to Barack Obama. While researching this speech and the “carefully crafted language to achieve a political end”, I found it interesting that she not only used choice words, she used choice accents during the campaign. “While speaking from the pulpit of the First Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama on March 4, 2007, as part of ceremonies honoring the anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery marches of 1965, Clinton used a broad Southern Drawl during parts of her talk and used speech patterns common to the Southern United States” (Wikipedia). I also found it interesting that Hilary tried to connect with many of the U.S. geographical areas. For example, she could adopt that southern drawl at times because she did live in the south for 17 years. During her Pennsylvania Primary Speech, she claimed a kinship because her grandfather had worked in Scranton, PA and her father went to Penn State University. This is all part of the “carefully crafted language to achieve a political end”. An effort to have the public feel an emotional attachment. So now, I’ll take a closer look at the Pennsylvania Primary Speech.
I think this speech is a beautiful example of the use of language. Hilary’s first sentence sets the tone; the road to the White House “runs right through the heart of Pennsylvania”. Immediately drawing Pennsylvanians in emotionally and encouraging them to feel a true part of the Presidential election. From there she uses phrases such as: “roll up our sleeves and get to work”; “make this economy work for middle-class families”; “the victory we share”; we will; “American people don’t quit, deserve a President that doesn’t either”; “you’ll stand with me”. These are just a few examples of how this speech is inclusive and attempts to pull everyone in to feel a real emotional attachment. For me even reading it years later, I feel emotional, inspired, and passionate to stand up in support.
I do not feel this type of language is conducive to deliberation. I feel the purpose of this speech is to do exactly what I said I felt like after reading it – emotional, inspired, and passionate. A political speech does not give an opportunity for deliberation or opinions from another side. It is a one-sided discussion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22text-clinton.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
In thinking about the readings for this week and how sometimes politicians come across as not convening a message because of language used, all I could think about were the state of the unions that former President George W Bush gave to the union.
For my example I am analyzing one of his final state of the union 2006.
Political inclinations aside I think it safe to say that President Bush was known for his sometimes-whimsical language to convey certain points, but I think this last state of address is a good example of that. In this address he uses his key phrases that he known for mostly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html
I think his use of language is very much what was described in the video that Professor Hoffman showed during his discussion. He uses key words to hone in on topics that he wants attention brought to. His most famous key phrase during his presidency was “the war of terror” and other phrases that he used to describe the responsible parties for this war.
In his last state of address he uses the emotions of the American people to justify some of his policies through out his presidency. In the address the part that I think of when I make this comment is:
“…On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country…”
“…Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause…”
Statements like these act on the emotions of those who are watching, instead of looking at the facts of the war. He uses key words like “murder and destruction” to justify his reasons for war and play on the emotions that were felt during that time. He further justifies the war by stating that we are basically the ones responsible for the worlds freedom and heading that fight. His language, like in most of his addresses put the American people in either a state of agreeing or not agreeing with him, divining the country instead of uniting them.
In this address he also coins the term and introduces the “American Competitiveness Initiative”. Once again using strategic word placement to call attention to a program. The words he used were pretty simple, but placed another way could be taken out of context. If for example he named the program “The Initiative for American Advancement”, perhaps it wouldn’t not have gotten as much praise. This program was in hopes of increasing funding for research in the science. In the end the program didn’t receive the funding necessary and didn’t achieve what it was meant for, leaving many researchers without funding for projects to continue.
In summary, thought the speech he uses the emotions of the people to address them instead of giving the facts necessary to come up with their own conclusions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/11/remarks-president-americas-leadership-ebola-fight
For my post I read President Obama’s remarks on America’s leadership in the Ebola fight. This took place at the White House on February 11, 2015. This speech is a thank you to those who helped fight the Ebola crisis, recap of what he said last summer that “fighting this disease had to more than a national security priority, but an example of American leadership” and that the “world looks to us to lead” and he discussed the accomplishments of the mission so far. He also talked about what has been set up here in the US and about leading a “massive global effort to combat this epidemic”. Overall it was a nice thank you, a review of what was done, and what still needs to be done.
As I was listening to the remarks, I could picture Frank Luntz working to “carefully craft” this speech, like in the video lecture. Many positive descriptive words on leadership were used. He used words like outstanding, extraordinary, phrases like “who respond to challenges like these not only with skill and professional but with courage and dedication”, “can do spirit” or “America is committed as ever”.
This speech moved me. I felt proud that the we were helping and will continue to help fight Ebola. Using carefully crafted words can create a more powerful speech. I liked it in this scenario. However, I am not so sure it is effective in deliberation. I think carefully crafted words/phrases works to easily sway individuals. To deliberate includes to carefully think or talk something through. Therefore, they may not be making a well thought through choice or decision. To me, that is not good deliberation.
The article I chose discusses President Obama’s phrase “fat cats” which was one of the ways he referred to people that worked in the financial services industry. Obama’s phraseology was used in an effort to place blame for the financial meltdown and the suffering US economy. Since the former President Bush was no longer in office, he chose to focus on Wall Street, which many American’s believe represent Republican values, as his next scapegoat.
Obama targets these “fat cat bankers” numerous times throughout his first four years in office as well as during his 2012 campaign by using phrases such as “you guys caused the problem” “playing by a different set of rules” and of course referring to people in finance as the “1%.”
Obama’s political message as it relates to the economy fits in with the Luntz school of thought appealing to the emotions of the American people who just experienced the worst recession in generations. By utilizing a small group of individuals as the scapegoats for the struggling U.S. economy, he positioned himself brilliantly to appeal to the larger American population.
The article can be found here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126073152465089651
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb23.htm
I would like to discuss the Nazi’s use and manipulation of language as an example of well-crafted political copy. In the video lecture, we saw how Frank Luntz was able to easily alter a group of people’s views on the “Estate Tax,” by changing the phrase to “Death Tax.” This phraseology tugs at the emotional side of thought, which he claims makes up 80% of our brain (as opposed to rational thought, which accounts for only 20%). In Mein Kampf (1925), Hitler outwardly addresses this dialectic:
“The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses… The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning.”
In Nazi Germany, a complex system of euphemisms, code words, and idioms in colloquial and professional context was strictly enforced in both personal and professional contexts. For example, the term Endlösung (“final solution”) referred to the annihilation of the Jewish people. Sonderbehandlung (“special treatment”) was one of many nonspecific words the Nazis used when referencing murder or genocide. This sort of linguistic manipulation was a linchpin for the Nazi regime’s goal of the extermination and mass murder of the Jewish people.
For this post I looked at a speech given by Joseph Goebbels on New Year’s Eve 1934, the same year that Adolph Hitler became dictator of Germany. Joseph Goebbels was the Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany, and had significant control over the supervision of the news media, arts, and information in Germany.
This is a motivational speech geared toward congratulating the German people (at least, the Aryans) on their hard work creating the Third Reich, and encouraging them to continue in the New Year. One of the hallmarks of this speech, and potentially all of Nazi phraseology, was its focus on the concept of a true German. Themes of “tradition,” “strength,” “self-confidence and will” permeate the language and encourage the audience to value their heritage. Of course we now know that in Hitler’s view, the great German race could not exist or flourish with Jews still in existence. But if you look at this speech and didn’t know that he considered the two races mutually exclusive, it would just seem like a normal rally speech.
As can be seen in the following excerpts, weakness and individual thought was frowned upon:
“Only our strong and fanatic faith will give us the strength to solve them. If the German people stay united and work together, it will master fate and build a new future. Peoples never lose because of inadequate weapons, only through a lack of self- confidence and will.”
“No one has the right to become weary. Everyone is needed, each in his place.
We will not fail if we have the courage to be stronger than the misery that once defeated Germany.”
It is natural for us to look back on the horrific acts taken by the Nazis and wonder how so many intelligent citizens could have been persuaded to participate. However, the Nazis were incredible wordsmiths who understood the power of language as a political tool.
The world of politics is so complicated and the jargons used are obviously in place to sway you one way or another. I chose Obama’s Remarks to the Nation on Immigration on November 20th 2014http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/remarks-president-address-nation-immigration. In this address President Obama talks about immigration system and how it needs to be fixed.
Obama in the address uses words such as “common sense” ” the american way” to propose legislation he believes will ratify our broken immigration system.
I believe Luntz would think this to be a well though out speech even though he obviously wouldn’t support it. Obama harps on people’s using words such as we don’t want to break up families, common sense path to fixing our immigration system and this policy is very American. I think at the heart of the immigration battle is a lot of emotions with a lot of people not understanding all the facts.
I think this speech is a good deliberative piece because even though it presents one side, it can open the door for both sides to be discussed. Obama’s statement is maybe a starting point for informed citizens to start and investigate the truth and lies behind the immigration problem
Garkinkle teaches us that the foundation of rhetoric and polemics were used in the past as tools of weapons by individuals that sought out prestigious and powerful positions. It was done so in an effort to persuade public opinion towards their perspective deeming them as intellectuals and experts in their field. Today we have evolved the usage of rhetoric but continue to employ polemics, a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something.
An example of a polemic method is one that is currently being used by many of our political leaders is in the the term illegal alien vs. undocumented worker. In an effort in halting immigration reform some Republicans have used the more offensive term. In the first article it shows Jessica Vaughan, a senior immigration analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies and former State Department official using the term “illegal aliens” as a means to persuade voters not to approve a new immigration bill.
In the second article that I provide, it addresses this issue of misusage of language by presenting a letter prepared by The Hispanic Leadership Networks that was sent to mainstream media and politicians saying that “it criminalizes people rather than their actions”.
Since the release of this letter many Republicans have chosen to address immigration reform without the use of disparaging names. American History teaches us when we first built this nation how language and it’s usage was used to dehumanize Native Americans.
The refinement of manners is an objective that has not been expanded by many of our national leaders. As Garkinkle said it best when he pointed out “to think better, is to study better”. Frank Luntz was able to illustrate this by his operation of practice where he assess the results of different words with a group of people. Evaluating different words he was able to achieve the responds he desired.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:RoPLPge3QSwJ:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/20/anti-amnesty-leaders-new-house-border-bill-flawed-could-be-bigger-immigration-package-stalking-horse/%2Brepublican+leaders+using+illegal+alien&gbv=2&&ct=clnk
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/latino-group-to-politicians-dont-call-immigrants-illegal_n_2581096.html
After reading both documents, I come to an understanding of Garkinkle’s perspective stating that when it comes to our writings, we have to make it short and straight forward to the point. There’s no need for adding run along sentences that are repetitive and makes no sense.
I purposely chosen a pro article about hydrofracking, the reason being is that the writer is trying to converse his message across to the poor working class with all the positive things about fracking. “The New York State Petroleum Council issued a separate statement today saying hydrofracking is a safe, proven drilling technique that will boost the economy and bring money to struggling schools and municipalities.” Through this quote, the article is definitely targeting and persuading the poor communities who are not doing well financially. This reminds me of Garkinkle’s paper, asserting that the audience is an important contributor when it comes to writing you essay, article, etc.
After reading the whole article, the writer did not once mentioned about the negative impacts of hydrofracking. The article is purposely hiding the negatives and display only the positives. If the audiences are not active informed citizens; they will definitely support this article.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/07/pro-hydrofracking_business_groups_blast_new_yorks_5-year-old_moratorium.html
I have always known that public figures and politicians need to use care in the language they choose. I realize now it is so much more than just a careful choice of language rather it is the crafting of words in order to persuade and create an emotional response.
I tried to think back to terminologies that have changed over time and in order to not insight inflammatory reactions. I thought about years ago when Dr. Kevorkian became infamous for euthanasia otherwise known as doctor assisted suicide and how many people were against the idea. As time passed it is now called “death with dignity”.
The change in terminology to “Death with Dignity” is an “adroitly- crafted term” in the style of Frank Luntz to gain support of the public. Many states including New York have Bills entered into Congress in order allow those with a terminal illness to obtain a prescription to help them end their lives humanly and with dignity.
The change in terminology is used to reinforce the original idea and build support. Taking away the word suicide allows some to view it as a human right to be able to die with dignity.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/09/11/a-debate-on-death-with-dignity/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/08/26/death-with-dignity-should-not-be-equated-with-physician-assisted-suicide/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/04/the-return-of-marxism
Why Marxism is on the rise again?
“Workers all over the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!”, According to Marx, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. To eliminate class conflict and achieve social-economic equality, Revolution was inevitable and accompanied by the war,with the violence as the dominator which is justified by glorious cause. The slovenliness of the language is used as a “powerful tool for political manipulation which makes lies sound truthful and murder respectable”. Since Communism seeks equality in restraint and servitude,even denies individuality, also it advocates absolute equal distribution in the “community”, as well as centralized government which may lead to totalitarian. As happened in Korea: We are two nations divided by a common language.
Furthermore, it contradicts the nature of human beings which is competitive and acquisitive, social stratification is ingrained in human society since hunter-gatherer period. Throughout history, the language used in Communist Manifesto was taken advantage to achieve personal ambitions, even bring about cold war. Especially when communism has proved an illusion, fascism came to stage. It’s based on common human weakness which is easier to agree on negative programme, on hatred of enemy, on the envy of better-off, rather than on any positive task.
The propaganda based on Marxism used by a few historic figures prevents people from thinking clearly and independently. Communism regards individuals as mere agents and numbers. On the contrary, the political languages used incite people to give up certain entitlements in democracy and blindly devote themselves to irrealizable Utopia.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/02/22/388156660/when-pot-goes-from-illegal-to-recreational-schools-face-a-dilemma
This is a link to a story I heard on All Things Considered where the reporter actually discusses the use of language and the problems with legalizing marijuana. Specifically, the term “recreational marijuana” has presented some problems at a high school, where administrators noted that calling something recreational has made it hard for them to explain to kids why they should not be using pot (either at school or ever or only sometimes, depending on your point of view).
The terms medical marijuana and recreational marijuana – while descriptive of what is going on legally in many states — does shift the debate from whether or not marijuana is safe and when it is safe to who should get to use it and when. It has moved the debate – and helped move the legal process – from “if” to “when/how.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/science/steven-brill-tackles-health-care-in-americas-bitter-pill.html?gwh=C165B6A088DBF25C633A1BE06813BE9D&gwt=pay
It was very interesting to read Garkinkle’s chapters on language and its use and I agree that it is a subject which will always remain very important. Orwell’s article was even better because I really enjoyed the fact that he was analyzing work and their use of language by supposedly high-level writers and professors and found so many things wrong with it.
I believe we have all notice everyday new words becoming part of our daily life and whether they are high level neologisms or ridiculous words like selfie, we all are being influenced and our lives are being touched in some way.
It is not easy to stay informed with a world of such enormous information, especially when it becomes available in seconds. As a result deliberation becomes more difficult also.
It was not difficult to find articles, it was hard to pick one. From global warming to Arab spring there are thousands of new words or new expressions used in our everyday language by journalists, politicians and everyone else.
I picked an article on health care and its “mess” because for some reason no matter how much I read about it, no matter how much I try to understand the whole ‘reform’ part I do not understand it fully and I am not sure many people do unless they are experts in the field or they work in a health insurance related job. There seems to always be something new, something changed or unchanged. No matter what it is, I believe health care reform remains a complicated issue for many.
http://www.bustle.com/articles/58182-6-things-that-dont-make-you-a-bad-feminist-no-matter-what-anyone-says
In this article, the author defines feminism as “the belief in gender equality”. She then proceeds to argue that anything a woman decides to do – any choice she makes – is by definition “feminist”. The author writes: “You are still a feminist, so long as you’re choosing to do those things because you want to.” This writing is incredibly lazy and vague. It does not incorporate any systemic analysis of the context in which those “choices” are made or the systemic oppression that feminism stands in opposition to. The idea of feminism has lost all meaning. Taken to its logical extreme, because I’m a woman, even my choice of what to eat for lunch today is “feminist”. Today many writers and public figures argue that feminism means different things – even opposite things – to support their arguments and appeal to a certain voting base/demographic.
This article inspired backlash, and other writers published articles denouncing this version of “choice feminism”. I wonder if this type of reactionary writing can be considered deliberation.
After reading the chapters this week and listening to the lecture we learned a lot from two public opinion guru’s. Dr. Frank Luntz wrote the book It’s Not What You Say, It’s What You Hear and is famous for his promotion of the words “climate change” instead of “global warming”. George Owell criticized the “ugly and inaccurate” written English of his time. So for starters lets take the famous phrase “Precipitation entails negation of economy”. The phrase has obviously been gobbledygooked with the true meaning it never rains but it pours. After reading many classmates posts its seems like President Obama’s gobbledygook seems to be the hot topic that’s pouring out on our discussion board.
I’ve decided to about Obama’s Speech on the Auto Industry from 2009 in which he called for more aggressive plans from Chrysler and General Motors. When I first started reading Obama’s speech I thought that he was finally going to do what GM has been asking for, he was going to bail out the auto-industry. As I read further on Obama stated that the federal government was going to provide General Motors and Chrysler with emergency loans to prevent their sudden collapse at the end of last year — only on the condition that they would develop plans to restructure. In keeping with that agreement, each company has submitted a plan to restructure. After reading this it seems Obama isn’t going to bail out the auto-industry, but why end his speech with “We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish. This industry is, like no other, an emblem of the American spirit; a once and future symbol of America’s success. It is what helped build the middle class and sustained it throughout the 20th century.”
Obama stated that the United States Government had no interest or intention of running GM. One interesting piece of information I found when researching this speech was that Obama fired the CEO of General Motors just days before he made his speech. How could the United States Government have no interest or intention of running GM if they are calling the shots and firing GM’s CEO? Is it all about politics? This speech is a true example of Gobbledygook Double-Speak and I agree with Dr. Hoffman that many of the speeches we would research wouldn’t lead to good deliberation and I believe this is an example of one that doesn’t.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/us/politics/30obama-text.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-immigration-speech/2014/11/20/14ba8042-7117-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html
In President’s Obama’s speech on immigration this past November, Obama uses linguistically appealing phrases in order to demonstrate his point. He begins his speech by talking about the “limitless possibilities” of immigration reform and constantly refers to the “broken” system. He repeatedly used the work “broken” to remind us that the immigration system needs to be fixed, not improved. After referring to the system as broken, Obama often uses the word security in the following sentence, suggesting that once the immigration system is fixed, the country will be more secure. Listeners will connect fixing immigration with security.
Obama uses the term “education but not deportation.” Paralleling these two phrases is purposely done in order to remind us that educating our immigrants will reward us while deportation is a term often used for criminals, illustrating how inhumane deportation will be. Obama is juxtaposing images of children and criminals. His speech is skillfully crafted to evoke sympathy and compassion in the American people.
Obama ends with “all of us are created equal,” language clearly taken from the Constitution, the very fabric that the country was built on, suggesting that if we would move forward with immigration reform, we would be upholding the Constitution.
The topic of immigration is one that many people have strong opinion about. Many Americans feel that Obama’s catch phrases and somewhat slick terminology have a tear jerk and grips us emotionally, yet the practical plan needs to be resolved and executed.
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.