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.
23 thoughts on “Deliberation and Political Writing”
Comments are closed.
This is Obama’s speech on National Defense on May 23rd 2013:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/23/obama-drones-guantanamo-speech-text
In the text, I noticed that the President was careful with his choice of words – using Political English in the style of Frank Luntz to address the 9/11 attacks on the United States, as well as the use of drones by U.S. military in Afghanistan. After reading the speech a few times, I realized that he used the word “kill,” anytime he wanted to make note on an attack on United States civilians. For example he said, “Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could,” in reference to the 9/11 attack. In the speech, you notice that he used the word “kill” more than once and always in the context of another country or a group of terrorist attack on the U.S.
I noticed however that when he started discussing the issue of U.S. military using drones, he refrained from using the word “kill,” but instead used the words “civilian casualties.” The use of that phrase was often used to say that the U.S. killed the citizens of other countries. There has been reported incident of the U.S. military using drones in Afghanistan and it resulted in the deaths of 50 innocent civilians. Yet, as President Obama stated that “Nevertheless, U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exist in all wars,” it almost bypasses or tries to forgive the act of killing. Obama also uses the phrase in many other instances when he tried to explain the act of killing American civilians in Yemen and Pakistan during a drone attack.
I think that using words that are strategically crafted does not promote deliberation – at least not in a good way. One of the arguments that Obama is trying to make among others is that the use of drones is necessary and justifiable – despite many Americans expressing that they are against it. Using words like “casualties” instead of “kill” does not draw dire attention to the subject, which in turn blinds the public on the use of drones by the U.S. More so, a Gallup poll shows that below 50 percent of Americans know of any news stories about drones. If Obama’s speech is supposed to promote deliberation, then it is certainly a skewed idea meant to distract the public from being knowledgeable about the real issues.
Today’s military jargon certainly fits Orwell’s thoughts on linguistic ‘slovenliness’. Here is a recent article describing the latest updates from the crisis in Syria: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/small-number-u-s-trained-syrian-rebels-still-fighting-n428381
The lines from Secretary Carter and President Obama are examples of some of the language that would make Orwell cringe. President Obama has said consistently in regards to Syria, as well as other areas in the Middle East, there would be no ‘boots on the ground’. Carter, on the other hand, often notes how rebels are being ‘recruited, vetted and trained’ by the United States to fight ISIS. Both are empty phrases that do little promote deliberation.
No ‘Boots on the ground’ seems to be the favored phrase to describe our currently military strategy; however it’s not even true, as we have advisors, special forces and other military personnel actually on the ground. Thus, the only reason to repeat this phrase seems to be to use empty, vague jargon to avoid any specifics on what we can actually do, and hope the public just accepts it. The same goes for the training – by mentioning the recruitment and vetting, it seems to imply it’s a long, difficult process, and the public should not expect too much in way of results.
Between all the different factions and conflicting goals, the crisis in Syria is extremely complex, and thus has no easy answers. However, this is the exact situation in which open deliberation should be a priority. Instead, President Obama and his administration are providing vague jargon that offers little insight. The only way to find the potential solutions would be to actually provide some facts about the situation on the ground and what various military options would entail.
“Rogue State”
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/22/noam_chomsky_the_united_states_not
“Rogue State” is a powerful and contentious phrase. It fortifies those who use and weakens those who are defined by it. Although aspects of this phrase have been present for quite some time, Anthony Lake, a National Security Advisor for Foreign Affairs magazine, crystalized its meaning in 1994. Lake reported that the five most dangerous rogue states were North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and Libya (all adversaries of the United States). At that time and to this day, the term is understood as a nation or a state that breaks international law and threatens the security of other nations. Moreover, rogue states usually act alone and incite fear in the international community via violence. This phase is commonly applied by the U.S. to bully and disparage nations that do align themselves with America’s ideology.
Noam Chomsky, a vocal critic of American foreign policy and advocate of human rights, employs this phrase to describe the United States and their relationship with Iran. Here Chomsky strategically uses a phrase against the United States that they have used to justify their military endeavors. In other words, he flipped the script. Highlighting how the United States ignores international consensus brings about aggression, Chomsky paints them as a dangerous nation. He explains that “the United States is exceptional. It’s a rogue state, indifferent to international law and conventions, entitled to resort to violence at will.” This rhetorical tool appeals to emotion and embodies dishonesty. Chomsky frames the United States as a bad guy and readers are forced to take this information in.
I believe this emotional statement is on par with other strong phrases, such as Frank
Luntz’ “death tax” and “climate change”. In the assigned video lecture Luntz described human understanding as “80% emotion and 20% intellect”. Although that statement is debatable, it has been proven effective, and, I would argue, is operative in Chomsky’s case. But does the “rogue state” phrase promote successful deliberation? I do not think so. Yes, it helps manifest political action, but it also manipulates the audience. Those who utter the phrase are good political writers as they “know their purpose and audience”, as Adam Garfinkle laid out. This sounds effective but it neglects the truth of the matter and operates on subjective terms. Good deliberation should be diverse and consider humane and nuanced consequences. Implementing the “rogue state” phrase, as Lake did and as the United States continue to do, neglects alternatives and, in certain cases, civility. In using this phrase, Chomsky unveiled its manipulative quality and called for its use against the manipulator acting against the majority, that is the international community.
https://edreformnow.org/about-us/what-we-do/
Education Reform Now is a political action committee promoting change in education policy. The edreformnow.org website contains examples of both slovenly and inspired writing. It’s “about” page opens with a claim that it is an “action tank” — action is far more impressive than just thinking. This effective phrase is followed by paragraphs of text that “consists in gumming together long strips of words that have already been set in order by someone else.”
Education Reform Now’s goal is to “reorient education policy” to include “mutually reinforcing policies,” “new methods of content delivery,” and “new tools of influence” “from cradle to grave.” The writing is engaging but needs decoding. The jargon continued with “bold and innovative solutions,” “modernization,” “reconfiguring notions,” and “new policy levers.”
The topics in the deliberation of education policy changes are ultimately listed and described concisely on the webpage: teachers, families, students, economic resources, and achievement. There are many helpful details and clarifications after the jargon initially encountered clouded the message suspiciously. In the end the website is an asset for policy deliberation.
http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/618-15/equity-excellence-mayor-de-blasio-reforms-raise-achievement-across-all-public
The above link is a press release from City Hall following a press conference held on September 16, 2015 to incorporate new education programs in New York City schools. I think this release is an example of Orwell’s linguistic slovenliness. A majority of this example uses strategically constructed language to urge readers to see a positive perspective towards the changes.
The title grabs the reader with the phrase “equity and excellence,” an idea that is echoed in the release by both Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor Farina. The main focus of this article is the concept of equality, one that Orwell lists in his text as a word with variable meaning that at times can have intent to deceive.
The article starts with ideas and goals for change with carefully crafted positive and uplifting language to ensure that the reader and listener have a hard time arguing with the fact that they are helping the children. The names include “raising the bar,” “universal access to challenging and necessary college-track classes,” and “driving innovation.” The release goes on to describe the programs in detail whose names include “for all,” “universal,” and “partnership” in the titles to reiterate that these programs promote equity in the New York City school system.
The Mayor is quoted in this release speaking in clichés and metaphors like, “there is a tale of two cities in our schools” and “our schools must run on the twin engines of equity and excellence.” Orwell stresses in his writings that metaphors are known to leave messages vague and that they call up visual images, which can stop the reader from thinking.
The use of these words and phrases throughout is intended to really drive home the point that the mayor is trying to make, he is bringing positive change to he New York City school system to make things “equitable and excellent” for all learners.
The way that this press release is phrased makes it difficult for readers to argue with the intent and value of these programs. I do not think that this promotes deliberation, rather it is written in a way to purposely persuade readers to agree with and support the new programs. Equal and Excellent education for all is an issue that most people can rally behind, especially those that have children or relatives in the New York City Education system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-show-more-humor-and-heart-aides-say.html
This was an article published by the New York Times, referred to by New Yorkers as “the paper of record.” That this can be published in a paper as large as the Times demonstrates how the word “news” has been perverted from its intended meaning. Were this to count as “news,” it would, at least, have to contain new information, which it does not. Readers of the Times already know that Hillary Clinton is trying to be likable, which is the real meaning of the article’s headline. This is not news. Hillary is a politician. Politicians need to get votes. The article also fails to do any of the things we hope to find in good journalism. It asks no questions and includes several direct quotes from Hillary’s campaign staff, which is made up of people who are paid to convince people to vote for her.
Rather than to provide news to its readers, my sense is that the intended goal of this Times article was to provide targeted political advertising space on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Given that the ad spends more time defending the product than promoting it, the audience the author probably had in mind was early Hillary Clinton supporters who are now thinking of withdrawing their support now that there are other alternatives in the market. In its weak defense of the candidate, the article contains many words and phrases designed to mislead the reader. The success of Bernie Sanders’ campaign is referred to as both “startling” and “insurgent.” Who is startled? And in what sense can it be considered insurgent? The anger felt by some voters in response to the news that Hillary stored her government email on her private server in New York is dismissively referred to as “persistent questions about her use of a private email server.” Emphasis is given to the fact that in polls she shows “favorability higher than any Republican,” despite the fact that she is running against other Democrats, not Republicans, during the primary race. Whether or not these tactics are effective is debatable. Despite the article’s many attempts to reassure the reader that Hillary is still the best candidate for president, I finished it thinking that this campaign is desperately trying to sell a product no one wants.
As Orwell says in his closing remarks, political language such as this is “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” This article, disguised as journalism, attempts to convince a now shrinking group of people that Hillary Clinton is still a good candidate for president, which might have been the case if she was running against Scott Walker or some other arch-conservative. As Bernie Sander’s poll numbers continue to rise, I expect we’ll see several more “news” articles in mainstream Democratic publications detailing the latest reasons why we shouldn’t give up on the Hillary Clinton candidacy.
This is the link to the full text of Jeb Bush’s foreign policy speech :
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/full-text-of-jeb-bushs-foreign-policy-speech/2240942
In his speech, Governor Bush states ” Who can seriously argue that America and our friends are safer today than in 2009, when the President and Secretary Clinton – the storied “team of rivals” – took office? So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers. “ Reflecting on this statement, one can recognize the slovenliness that Orwell talks about. By using terms like “ team of rivals” and “ history-makers”, he is calling up for a visual image that can have a big effect. Although expressing it very vaguely, he is using words to create that perception, that visual image to have the desired effect. More so, these terms exemplify what Lutz identifies as adroitly-crafted terms to achieve a political end.
Furthermore, throughout his speech he overuses euphemisms and tries to convince the public to comprehend that we can use war to make peace. This is what Orwell calls “ pacification”. For instance, Bush states, “ In all of this, let us never forget that in fighting evil, we are doing good, in stopping the merciless, we are delivering justice, and in destroying the violent, we are defending the innocent.” Just like Orwell stated in his essay, “Political language-is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable”.
In his speech, one can undeniably see the exemplification of Orwell calls linguistic slovenliness and what Lutz identifies as adroitly-crafted phrases. More so, although unclear to the public, according to Bush, one of his reasons for running for presidency is to bring solutions to the problems we are facing now as “a nation”. One of the characteristics of effective deliberation is to assess problems, although in that case he is blaming Clinton and Obama for the issues we are facing, using facts and evidence that are in his opinions true. Although I am tempted to say that he makes usage of effective deliberation, I am more inclined to say that his approaches are not ones that give rooms for reasonable doubts to partake into decision-making.
“War on Terror”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPuY5hI96U
http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/09.20.01.html
On Thursday, September 20,2001, President George Bush declares “War on Terror” as he addresses a Joint Session of Congress and the nation about the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2011. In his speech, President Bush discusses his plans and states “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (Bush, 2001). Bush’s plan for the “War on Terror” is vague and idealistic. Yet, it provides flexibility in adopting new laws such as the USA Patriot Act that reduce restrictions on law enforcement agencies and foreign intelligence. For example, “unlawful combatants” were detained without trial and deported to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Middle Eastern countries where torture is routinely used (Ward, 2005). Although detainment without trial and torture is unconstitutional, it was seen as necessary and exceptional in the war against terror.
The “War on Terror” phrase typifies Orwell’s concept of linguistic slovenliness. It is vague and lacks precision. According to the Oxford Dictionary, war is defined as a state of armed conflict between different nations, states or groups within a nation or state. It also defines terror as an emotional state of extreme fear. The war metaphor is an never ending battle against an emotional state, which enables the Bush Administration to use war propaganda and reinforce images of terror. The term is deceptive and clever for political purposes. It can obscure actual intent, befuddle thoughts and reconstruct the enemy that is targeted. That said, it does not promote effective deliberation.
Writers, politicians or anyone in this society chooses the right words to achieve their objectives. Language is a set of words and phrases with meaning behind them. It is carefully crafted not just to inform a reader, but to convince them. Garkinkle teaches us that the basis of rhetoric and polemics were used by people who sought powerful positions. It was primarily done to persuade the public towards their perspective; making them experts in the subjects they were presenting. Our writing needs to be clear and concise where each and every one of us understands.
Politicians carefully use certain words that create sentences that persuade and create an emotional response. George Orwell’s argument in Politics and the English Language states that the English language has become worse as time goes by. He believes politicians’ uses more words than it is necessary to manipulate the public into believing their perspective. In addition, he states that the politician’s purpose behind euphemisms and phrasings hid their meanings. Orwell was trying to teach everyone that the simpler and more honest a person expresses their words, the better the policy will would be.
Luntz emphasis that the power of language shapes the way how a person thinks to promote an agenda. He states that it’s more “How you feel and think-80% is emotion and 20% is intellect.” His language strikes to a group of people by using emotions rather than their intellect. The article “If Planned Parenthood goes, all female patients suffer” exemplifies to Luntz style of writing with the language use of the word “suffer.” The headline of the title strikes individuals emotionally into moves their awareness into a non issue into a public concern. The word “suffer” can cause an emotional sting to female patients or any low income families who cannot afford expensive health services. Without Planned Parenthood, there will be more abortions and dead mothers. Planned Parenthood is the best resource for reproductive education and the widest possible distribution of birth control-which reduces abortions. It prevents suffering for female patients. Defunding Planned Parenthood means more unwanted pregnancies which leads to further backroom abortions that can cause more deaths. Women should have the basic medical care one must expect in the United States. This also correlates to Orwell’s writing style in which the writer presents their perspective in a clear and logical way that supports her reasoning’s about a political issue. Her prose of writing about this issue is in a natural flow that is easy to digest.
I do not believe this type of article constructs an efficient deliberative environment. Deliberation must be open to all perceptions. This article persuades the group to support an issue in an emotion way rather than giving facts to back up evidence. If the parties do not have all the facts at hand deliberation won’t be effective. Public exploitation and irrational thoughts are at risk.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2966336-155/letter-if-planned-parenthood-goes-all
Obama and the U.S. Soulless Class by Sher Zieve, author and political commentator.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve/150921
“We have reached the end of our country.” This is a quote from the above referenced material. As Luntz stated, to be effective a writer should find words that work best and should and can sell issues. Luntz also emphasizes the importance of carefully chosen words. Political disagreements can be contentious but using hysterical language is inexcusable and is often used to confuse and misinform the reader. In her attempt to incorporate Luntz’s branding style she uses simplistic catchphrases such as “Dictator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama” and “ObamaLaw that overrides US law.” This slovenly style of writing does serve its purpose of creating a negative, emotional pitch and is sheathed in hysteria and inaccuracies. Like Orwell Additionally, other statements in the article were a garble of polemic and mythical language. Orwell describes polemics as pursuing conflict using words instead of a weapon and mythical thinking as anxiety produced due to negative perceptions.
This political news report does not encourage deliberative debate, has no civility and does not lead to compromise or solutions. Misinforming and deceiving citizens by labeling political things we do not agree with such as “bully-gate,” “Obamacare,” etc. is the current type of rhetoric that is used today to accentuate political writing and speeches. The quality of the words and logical content does not reflect the type of effort described by theorists such as George Orwell and as Orwell describes “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”
Bellow is the web link to an editorial article, “The Guardian view on the VW crisis: the planet should be afraid,” that possesses all four Orwell’s “bad habits” in political writing:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/commentisfree/2015/sep/22/the-guardian-view-on-the-vw-crisis-the-planet-should-be-afraid
According to Orwell, writers save much mental effort by using stale metaphors, similes and idioms “at the cost of leaving their meaning vague, not only for the reader but for themselves.” Orwell describes four types of “bad habits” in writings and all of them have two things in common: “staleness of imagery” and “lack of precision.”
The article from The Guardian does a sufficient job explaining the issue of governmental control of sustainability and commercial gain from miss-measurement of pollution that led to one of the biggest controversy in the car industry. However, the author overuses metaphors and idioms. Almost every sentence has similes. The author opens with “Like the slowly stewed frog, the world has grown steadily used to the banditry of its banks. The remorseless drip of revelations about laundering, rate-fixing and mis-selling have built up too slowly to provoke a violent reaction, but they have seared a distinction in the public mind – that between despised and predatory finance on the one hand and, on the other, more reputable lines of business that make real things.” Readers may think they are reading fiction and not an article on business and environment issues in a daily newspaper.
I think this article does not promote an efficient deliberation. It persuades the reader to emotionally support an issue rather than stating facts and letting the reader analyze and think for himself.
“Common wealth nations”
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21589887-unreformed-commonwealth-deserves-die-improved-it-could-be-rather-useful-what-it
The words “common wealth nations” is a very powerful phase that has succeeded in creating the largest political block in the world, second only to the United Nations. This words were coined by the British in the mid 20th century with the decolonization of the British Empire through increased self-governance of its territories. The british realizing its loss of global dominance came up with the common wealth concept where a nation upon gaining its independence from Britain mostly through diplomacy are invited to join the colonial power as a free and equal partner and to share in its wealth. The United States was not invited to join the common wealth nations because it attained its independence through a revolution not diplomacy. The Commonwealth has no clear role and mission. It confers no trade privileges upon its members, does not coordinate their defense or foreign policy and lacks both the budget and the executive authority to make a practical difference in the world. Periodic meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government are at best a talking-shop and at worst an expensive junket.
The growth of the common wealth nations attests to Luntz emphasizes on the importance of carefully chosen words. The successful use of this phrase promoted and continues to promote successful deliberation between Britain and its former colonies.
The economist points out how irrelevant the organization is but the power of phrase “common wealth” which translates as shared wealth with its ideology of inclusion and togetherness has made it very attract. In reality the phrase was create by the British to help it create and lead a global political block which is merely a British consolation prize for the loss of the Empire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/nyregion/de-blasio-tackling-the-perception-and-reality-of-a-homeless-crisis.html?_r=0
We often write with clutter and try to use big words and fluff to seem intelligent exactly what George Orwell says in his profound essay. The clutter of these words can often cause confusion and if used to often will create nonsensical thoughts. Some times it is needed to use more explicit diction when explain thoughts or trying to persuade and other times simplicity is key. With anything the key is knowing the correct time and place; when to use what type of language.
This New York Times article is an example that exemplifies Frank Luntz’s concept of the interchanging of words/phrases to create a reaction out of the public or to see what is valued or deemed important. Here Mayor de Blasio after months of tying to blatantly ignore the increase problem of homelessness in the city finally admits its growing existence by choosing to say “there is a both perception and a reality problem”. By using the words perception and reality De Blasio is trying to switch the conversation about the issue of homelessness in a more positively light and take the heat off of his administration. Deterring New Yorkers from understanding the real cause of the increase he makes it seem as though our viewpoint has shifted; as though these are the same individuals we have walked past for years instead of newfound population of homeless New Yorkers. This is similar to Luntz’s “death tax” and “climate change” he who controls the conversation controls the perception. With using this diction we now look at the topic differently.
The New York Times example opens the door for deliberation to commence. It presents a topic worth of discussion and requires an informed public who values their experiences, the media and expert knowledge to make an informed decision about what they see in every day life, who is responsible and solutions to that topic.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/video-photos-transcript-governor-cuomo-and-vice-president-biden-announce-push-raise-new-yorks
The link above is a speech given by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, proposing a New York State minimum wage increase to $15 dollars per hour. In his speech the Governor is using vauge language to sell his proposal of increasing the minimum wage across the state. The minimum wage isn’t the root problem he’s trying to convey, rather it’s a solution to fix many other problems. He uses metaphors to describe issues faceing the state, which for the most part works decently well.
I find that his solution of a wage increase seems rather weak. He makes a reference to a study which he says indicates, “…There is not a single neighborhood in New York City that is affordable to someone earning the minimum wage. ” Yet he leaves the reader to assume that his proposed minimum wage will drastically change that.
He is also quick to dismiss counter arguments, and does not go into detail as to how his opposition is wrong. The words throughout the speech are vague yet that is exactly what he wants. He is trying to appeal to the broadest audience as possible. However the simple language he uses does seem effective enough to begin the process of deliberation. The Governors vagueness may entice curiosity among citizens and stakeholders.
On a side note a video recording is posted on the Governors YouTube channel, ironically public comments have been disabled.
I present you with a piece about basic income guarantees (BIG’s) as defensible on Libertarian (philosophical) grounds, brought to us by the Cato Institute: http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income#.b3oknt:3cP6
I am a big on relating policy back to the philosophical roots that it came from. When one thinks of Libertarianism the first things that come to mind: small government, low taxes, et cetera. Conversely when we think of the government writing checks to people we think the antithesis of Libertarianism – Liberalism in its many forms.
This author is both crafty and cagey at the same time. To frame a big government program such as a basic income guarantee as defensible on Libertarian grounds is well crafted (I have to admit that this Liberal reader found this to be both shocking at first, until I read deeper into the text). So is this lazy or is this or is this adroitly-crafted.
To me, this is piece shows skill and knowledge of the philosophical underpinnings of Libertarianism and is clever and resourceful in how it approached the subject. To synthesize a bit, a BIG is when, as a matter of Public Policy, there is a program in place that prevents people from falling bellow a certain income level (think of it as a minimum wage). Essentially, if you did not make that minimum income in a given year the government would cut you a check. Now obviously there are issues with this in an Ameican context (money is not the same in New York as Kansas, so what is a fair minimum). But accepting that there are logistical issues with the idea from the gate, this is not something that one would expect to be defended by a member of the Cato Institute. But it is, and he defends this oddly liberal conception of the good, the just, in a way that most Libertarians would say okay.
To me, this is the apex of well crafted, well planned, well thought out, writing. But could it open a debate? In fact, it did, this paper was talked about for months in the media, both major and small. Work like this gives me hope that people on both sides of the ideological spectrum can see the good in other ideas and can even reconcile the oppositions ideas within their philosophical framework.
http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/
This is Donald Trump’s Presidential announcement speech, which was published on June 16, 2015 in the Times. I think this article is an example of vagueness. Through out the speech, he was mostly criticizing other presidential candidates. For example, he said that, other candidates “sweated like dogs”. This sentence shows to me how he was disrespectful toward other candidates. For his announcement for presidency, I think he should pay great attention with his word choice. However, comparing candidates with dogs does not seem that he was using that skill.
Throughout the article, it feels that he was very pessimistic about the United States growth. He was mostly pointing out how no growth happened at all throughout the time period. He also used the term “Islamic Terrorism” instead of terrorism in his speech to get the attention of the audience by using specific phrase. It shows me how Frank Luntz’s concept where changing the terms slightly can have a great impact to the speech. To make people more tensed he used the phrases like, “we have nothing, we have nothing” in a sentence. This phrase derives the audience attention where they were eager to listen how he can come up with everything for the future.
Example of good deliberation is where there would be more stated solutions. The people would able to understand what is the problem and how it can be solved. In a presidential announcement, people should understand why this candidate is running and what are his policies as a president. However, in this speech, Trump was mostly talking about problems in the country. He usually never focused on how he will bring solutions to this issue. Although in some part of the speech, he tried to come up with some solutions, he never explained clearly about it. He was not clear with his policies at all to the audience. I think this is a great example of bad political speech where audience was confused about his policies. This might be very dangerous in the future. If he gets elected, and then he come up with the real solutions which was not stated over here then people might feel frustrated about their choices.
Now that we have collectively survived many more months of his campaign that anybody ever imagined, I wonder how much of “the Donald’s” word choice was carefully prepared and how much it is improvised.
Please do not get me wrong, his type and choice of language does not promote deliberation in any level. People tend to feel outraged about what he said, when he said it, and who he may have offended, but almost no-one skips that debate to really criticize his ideas and proposals.
After months of campaigning, it has become more evident that like Frank Luntz, Mr. Trump is appealing to his audience’s emotions and hoping that that is enough to split the Republican primary vote in his way to being named the Republican candidate to the U.S. Presidency.
Yogi Berra famously once said “it ain’t over till its over”. Along with a collection of other grammatically week sentences that held a wild depth of knowledge. Although not the most educated athlete in American sports, Yogi did have decades of experience as a successful player and coach. The idea that eloquence is required to articulate intelligence is stupid. Lol. A message can be delivered by a variety of tools, and the only judge is the recipient. Language is but a tool and different people use it in different ways to convey a message; how well that message is delivered is all that matters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/sports/yogi-berra-yogi-isms-quotes-explored.html?_r=0
http://www.ted.com/talks/michelle_obama/transcript?language=en
Above is a link by Michelle Obama which presents her plea for education. Mrs. Obama stresses the importance of education to the public because it has helped her achieve the person that she is today. This speech promotes deliberation because it is simple. It is not elaborate , and it does not use words already put together by another person. Rather, it comes from Mrs. Obama’s personal experience. She expresses herself without any embellishments in her speech. She speaks about the past and how her emphasis on education has made her the person she is. Her reference to her past and her simplistic approach are what makes this good deliberation because she proves herself to be credible.
http://tamilnation.co/ideology/golda.htm
Attached is the text of a speech that Golda Meir made to the the Council of Jewish Federations in Chicago in 1948. Her rhetoric largely appeals to the compassion and sympathies of American Jews. The argument relies almost entirely on the humanity of her audience. Her speech was a plea to America and its Jewish population to help fund the fight to secure the collection of kibbutzim that would become modern-day Israel.
Although the speech is simple, it was powerful. Its entire premise is political, and yet, it does not succumb to many of the crimes in discourse that Orwell decries. It is not excessively flowery in attempting to shade her writing a certain way, and does not rely on phrases with little meaning. English was not her first language, so this may account, in part, for the way that Ms. Meir wrote and spoke it.
There is what Orwell might consider unnecessary material in the speech. It is at times redundant, as many political speeches are. They find power in the repetition of particular words and phrases. Sometimes this seems to play on the assumed stupidity of the audience. Still, it managed to accomplish exactly what Golda Meir had intended it to. She asked for $25,000,000. She received double that.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21581745-how-republicans-and-democrats-use-language-war-words
Attached is the link to an article entitled “The war of the words.” In this article, George Orwell said that political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder sound respectable …
He spoke of how kinetic action means killing people and collateral damage means killing people by accident. I don’t believe these words promote deliberation. Some people do not understand what they mean and will not take the time to investigate their meaning. Therefor e a discussion is not held because there is a lack of understand for the issue. Collateral damage sounds like a finance term rather than the death of innocent people. This for me is an example of language use to hind information from the public.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/11/super-pac-names/5375699/
I decided to comment on how many organizations, usually political ones, have a tendency to choose names and slogans that are misleading, neutral and positive sounding regardless of their missions and policies.
The article lists at least 4 different names of Super Pacs that either say little about what they exactly do or contradicts their objective.
Another example would be Americans for Prosperity. Let’s be honest, who in the world would be against prosperity? And when one visits their website, at the top it reads:
“We Fight for Freedom. America was founded by ordinary citizens who stood up and fought for their freedoms… At Americans for Prosperity, we continue that same fight today.”
These type of language is carefully crafted to appeal to those who feel their “freedom” is in jeopardy, utilizing the word fight, which is typically used in any political context, and referencing to the founding of the country, which gives the organization’s objectives more credibility, whatever they may be.
At the same time, one could argue that the average american does not fully understand the philosophical concept of freedom, how to fight for it and once we have it, how to make it proper. So it is the call for patriotism and its vagueness which makes it a good example of carefully designed political speech.
I forgot to mention, that these names obscure the real purpose of the organizations. Frank Luntz may think there is no difference in some of the word’s meanings, however, appealing to emotions when an audience does not fully understand an issue or a position, could be dangerous.
If a group believes in their mission and their working methods, they usually don’t hide it behind a vague slogan.