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.
“Insisting on treating all uses of these tools as if they were the equivalent of an official directive is conceptually mistaken and practically disastrous. It discourages officials from collaborating in the most efficient and effective way, creates incentives for evasion of existing legal standards, blurs the lines between security concerns and compliance with record-keeping laws, and over time casts a pall of impropriety over the very banal desire to be able to talk things over in private.”
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/6/12732252/against-transparency
This phrase, written by Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, is a perfect example of the obfuscation and linguistic opacity that Orwell was railing against in “Politics and the English Language”. The author is using wonky language and rhetorical flourishes to avoid saying what he actually means. To translate the phrase into “good English”, as Orwell does:
“Government transparency is bad.”
The dangers of using complicated language and obscure arguments to dispute a widely held belief (in this case that government should be transparent) is that it obscures a highly theoretical argument that is hard to actually defend in practical terms. For instance, the article spends much time describing security theory, technology, and “input versus output disclosure”, but never considers the practical effect of giving powerful, elected people ways to avoid accountability. Orwell would say that arguments like the one this article presents are “largely the defense of the indefensible…Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness”.
In addition, this type of writing limits deliberation to those who can actually parse the argument and those who are well-versed in the language of policy wonks. The deliberations that result are less an inclusive discussion towards a greater good than a small-scale technocratic debate over academic theories.
Link: Achievement Gap Between Black and White Students Still Gaping (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/13/achievement-gap-between-white-and-black-students-still-gaping)
I think the term “achievement gap,” as used in this article to describe discrepancies in academic performance between white and black students, is an example of an intentionally crafted political phrase. The term “achievement gap” implies that discrepancies in school performance among kids of different races is due, at least in part, to the students themselves. When framed in this way, it’s not hard to determine that black students don’t do as well as white students because they don’t work as hard to achieve as white students do.
Not everyone interprets the term in this way, and I think that conversations about the achievement gap can be productive. But I do think more often than not it changes the scope of the deliberation. Instead of focusing on the numerous structural barriers black students face in and out of school – which is the real source of the “achievement gap” – the term allows deliberation on the subject to consider whether there are personal shortcomings in the students responsible for the gap or whether family or other factors should be assigned a bigger role than is fair.
Recently, education advocates have been shifting away from the term “achievement gap” and more towards the term “opportunity gap,” which I think lends itself to much more effective deliberation. In an opportunity gap, there is no doubt that the problem stems from structural issues. Deliberation can then focus on the best ways to attack those issues, rather than questioning how much, or even whether, they are at play.
Orwell and Garfinkle redirected my attention on the requirements of good communication, language (spoken and written) and deliberation. The requirements include precision, the information should be presented in a clear manner, secondly, a true intention should be transparent, and understandable to a targeted audience. There are additional criteria, but the aforementioned requirements are basic to the exchange of communication. Deliberation should include a mental connection of a clear message for each party to understand what is being discussed in the exchange, listening and the right of rebuttal or agreement.
I sense ambiguity in social and political dialogues that leave me thinking what do these words actually mean? Political writings often try to persuade citizens to make a choice or distract from the real issues and are probably not forthright with the intentions of the information. Writing for social settings could imply some of the same intentions in addition to informing the audience of services, products or resources. An article that demonstrated Frank Lundtz’s, “Framed Language” can be viewed below.
http://www.newsweek.com/reform-bill-drastically-alter-social-security-53589
“Reform Bill Would Drastically Alter Social Security Benefits” is an example of political goobly goo, in the title a confusion in the words to lead the reader in a direction which is actually in contrast facts in the article. The word-play starts with the word reform. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines reform as, “ to make better, improve by removal of faults, correct or rectify. Actually, the articles contrast the new administration’s view on Social Security as an election promise when “President-elect Donald Trump was pretty clear during his campaign that he planned to leave Social Security alone”. In addition to the changes that may have to occur to keep Social Security active its subjective as to the solutions being offered are making the program better, fault free or problems rectified.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/trevor-noah-lot-say/
To demonstrate something I’ve read or heard that constitutes carefully crafted language, I cannot help but sharing one of my favorite episodes of Freakonomics Radio: “Trevor Noah Has A Lot to Say”. For those who enjoy watching news satire or late-night talk shows, Trevor Noah is someone who puts the Daily Show in a new meaning, adds diversity, and will compel you to break down the polarization into laughers through his linguistic charm like a “chameleon”. In his book, Born a Crime, on politics, race, religion, and his new memoir, he defines the way to bridge the gap between different people — and certainly to connect to his audience — is the language. He is not interested in being angry like his predecessor Jon Stewart. He explains, “You’re trying to win. Anger doesn’t help you win. Half of the time, it sends you into a blind rage.” On the issue of diversity, he deliberates that diversity is not only what makes us different and innovative, it is also what makes it more difficult—the biggest barriers to social trust. When asked by Dubner whether he felt in any way less grateful that he wasn’t the first choice for the show, his response was, “Why? Most of us are not the first choice in our lives. Most of the people who are married are married to someone because it’s not their first choice…If Will Smith didn’t turn down The Matrix, Keanu Reeves would have never made it. I always think that that’s what life is.” He then added, “I would hope that Jon leaving would change the ratings. I would hope that would then give me an opportunity to build up to something myself. To see some growth. To see what a base is and to go, “Ok, I can work up from here.”
I don’t know about you. But I’m pretty convinced by his eloquence in deliberation that translates to political satires.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-luntz/words-2011_b_829603.html
The link above are some examples of words and phrases that Frank Luntz believe will be the most powerful in business, politics, the media and culture in the year 2011. I have to ask the question, these words and phrases, are they powerful enough to get the public attention no matter what year it is? Luntz stated, “It’s not what you say; it’s what people hear…the right words at the right time can literally change history.”
I must say I agree with him on this because people tend to react to words with their emotions, but does that mean everyone agrees with Luntz. I can tell you this now, not everyone is a fan of Frank Luntz. Jeff Sexton seems to think differently when it comes to 11 Words for 2011. Sexton believes, as he writes in Rethinking Luntz 11 Words for 2011, that when it comes to advertisers, these words were “bad” choices. He goes on to say that these choices in words were best for Luntz employers who are politicians and his targeted audience for the post. Sexton then deliberates why he believes these words were not fit for everyone. I believe some people will agree with Luntz, while others will disagree.
To some extent it all depending on the situation, and who your audience is when it comes to words. I am in customer service and I see this every day. For example, not everyone react to one word the same. On the other hand you see this in politics, isn’t that one of the reasons why critics say Hilary didn’t win the election, she was not able to reach her audience emotionally. Words, “it’s not what you say; its how you say it” and that is my take on this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38996179
I often find that the British politicians are second to none with rhetorical flourish.
The linked article reports remarks given by the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union (Brexit), and reactions by politicians in favor of the move.
Mr. Blair encouraged people opposing UKs exit (Brexit) from the European Union to “rise up” and oppose the move, because people voted “‘without knowledge of the true terms of Brexit’, and said they should have the opportunity to change their minds.” in order to find “a way out from the present rush over the cliff’s edge”.
On the opposing side:
“‘Iain Duncan Smith, who was a prominent Leave campaigner, said Mr Blair had shown the political elite was completely out of touch with the British people.
He compared Mr Blair returning to the political scene to the British horror comedy ‘Shaun of the Dead’, with ‘his hands outstretched to tell the British people they were too stupid to be able to understand what they were voting on’.
A former leader of the controversial nationalist UK Independence Party characterized Mr. Blair as a “former heavyweight champion coming out of retirement” who would “end up on the canvas”.
Mr. Blair uses dramatic metaphors like warning of a cliff’s edge to underscore the gravity of the situation and the importance of his proposed actions, and the thrust of the argument is that the voters were not aware of the consequences of their actions, as they lacked the information of what Brexit means exactly in real terms. His opponents provide colorful ad-hominen attacks, and use imagery of “the common man” to describe Mr. Blair as out of touch, and arrogant.
I chose to give an example concerning Brexit, as the complexity and uncertainty regarding the impact of the policy to the UK, or for the European Union, are beyond the capacity of people to comprehend, and the full effect have not yet materialized as the negotiations have yet to start, and the Brexit has not yet happened. The confusion and uncertainty invite politicians to use metaphors. It is remarkable that the politicians in favor of Brexit attacked Mr. Blair for the far-reaching negative consequences of his actions (participating in the Iraq war, and allowing unrestricted migration of EU citizens), even though they themselves have just made a decision with potentially more far-reaching consequences. In that way, the brexiteers are minimizing their own role, emphasized by language that the decision was done by the people (even though the vote being 52% to 48% was narrow) and is in their interest, regardless of whether there might be new information supporting arguments that the move is not in the interest of the UK.
“President Trump promised to replace the Affordable Care Act with something that is better, is cheaper and covers more people. Scratch that. Republican leaders in the House and Mr. Trump’s secretary of health and human services released a plan last week that would provide insurance that is far inferior, shift more medical costs onto families and cover far fewer people.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/opinion/ryancare-you-can-pay-more-for-less.html?hpw&rref=opinion&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
This NYTimes op-ed is carefully crafted (in Luntz’s style) to persuade the readers that the Republican proposal for replacing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is expensive and not what the people want. The entire article is written with clear intent. Of course, the people who read the opinion section of the NYTimes are not usually the ones who are looking for a conservative point of view or for a glowing review of Republican policies. This assumption, that the readers are predominantly liberal, demonstrates Luntz’s idea that the speaker or writer should not lay out what they want to write/speak about but rather what the people want to hear/read.
We see examples of Luntz’s theories and practices everyday in politics but especially around elections. I appreciated Hoffman’s point in the video lecture that people are more likely to participate in discussions when they are prompted with framed language. I do find this type of presentation of language to be incredibly dangerous. Personally, I’m a supporter of the Affordable Care Act and I really don’t want to see it repealed. I read the above op-ed and it just further proves how I already feel about the health care law. I don’t, however, read opinion articles put out by conservative publications about the ACA because I know they are crafted for their own audiences and will be biased against the law. This habit that I have engaged in, can be dangerous. While I personally often seek out unbiased, neutral, academic publications about issues that matter to me, in order to get a balanced view, many others only read and view the news that is crafted (using Luntz’s technique) to what they want to hear.
This also relates back to our discussion in class this week about confirmation bias. When I’m perusing the Sunday times, I want to read something that either informs me on a new topic or confirms my already developed feelings and opinions on certain issues.
One of the most aggravating examples of “slovenliness” that I’ve seen over the years is Fox News’ demonizing of the poor. In particular, Bill O’Reilly’s piece on the 50th Anniversary of the War on Poverty encapsulates this destructive strategy:
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2014/01/10/bill-oreilly-happy-50th-birthday-war-poverty/
In the piece, the blame is put almost entirely on the poor and paints those who receive government assistance as lazy, irresponsible and, frankly, enemies of the state.
To quote O’Reilly, “…if you are dishonest, embrace intoxicants, conceive children you can’t support, act in a crude, disrespectful way and generally believe that you are owed prosperity — poverty may well come knocking.”
This does nothing to encourage deliberation. All it does is incite irrational emotion and breed violence. It fuels the war between classes and creates an atmosphere of distrust among American citizens. It does nothing to shed light on the many complicated factors that lead to poverty or the complicated solutions that are necessary in addressing it.
Are there flaws in current government programs that attempt to address poverty? Certainly. There is always room for improvement. But we can’t even get close to reaching any solutions when one group completely demonizes the other. No one wants to have to rely on government assistance. No one wants to not have a meaningful career. No one wants to live in a difficult situation. These “opinions” are nothing more than an accumulation of stereotypes that evolved into masked bigotry.
“Public School Fires Back After Betsy Devos Criticizes Its Teachers”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/public-school-fires-back-after-betsy-devos-criticizes-its-teachers_us_58ab1153e4b045cd34c3acda
Caroline Bologna’s article is about a public school and its community, in Washington, DC, responding to the comments of the US Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos. During Devos visit to Jefferson Academy she graded the teachers on their individual approaches to teaching students. The quality of responses to Mrs. Devos comments is what shapes the alluring headlines. Bologna’s use of the term “Fires Back” represent the responses made and provokes the right emotions to draw the reader’s attention.
Consistent with Frank Luntz’s well-honed phrases, the term “Fires Back” is used in place of a less provocative word. The article encourages deliberation of different topics concerning the school. Since the focus of the article is on the reactions to Devos comments, deliberation would be limited on some of the topics. For example the reason for Devos comment is briefly noted of its use to make a political-example about federal education programs by mischaracterizing the teachers. As a former substitute-teacher, Bologna’s article relatedly shines some light on the challenges many schools face. The support of their community aids the teacher’s claim, which is contrast to the remarks of Devos. Teachers round the nation have enough challenges each day and they do not need anymore to increase the burden.
George Orwell’s “A Collection of Essays” discusses politics and the English language and how “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for use to have foolish thoughts”. When comparing the example passages, Orwell states that the passages have two qualities in common: “the staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision.” A great example of what Orwell refers to is the acceptance speech of Donald Trump after he won the presidential election, and pretty much almost all the speeches he makes. Trump’s style of deliberation is completely opposite from Obama who was a very talented public speaker. Trump’s speeches fit perfect into what Orwell describes as a “mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence.” Trump tends to use incomplete sentences and jumps from one topic to the next, without much substance in the message he is delivering. The passage below from Trump’s acceptance speech is an example of the “slovenliness” of his style of deliberation.
“We must reclaim our country’s destiny and dream big and bold and daring. We have to do that. We’re going to dream of things for our country and beautiful things and successful things once again.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/politics/trump-speech-transcript.html?_r=0
To me this is just a bunch of nice words thrown together without much meaning or connection, because when you actually take a look a closer look at the transcript of the speech, it makes little sense. Perhaps it is because he does not have much experience in public speaking, and does not believe in working with speech writers to assist him with creating speeches that better convey his message to the audience.
As I respond to this week’s prompt I must take issue with some of the argument put forth by Orwell. I don’t believe anyone writes badly on purpose. The poor writing styles he describes in the use of our language are frequently taught. People often write without thinking critically about what they are actually putting down on paper and what they really mean to communicate. Sometimes this is due to ignorance of good sentence structure and punctuation, and sometimes it’s due to misunderstanding technical content.
I bring up this last point because, as a horticulturist, the Snapdragons vs. Antirrhinum comment resonated with me. I can go either way with what to call these delightful flowers but most often what I call them depends on my audience. There is some truth that using the scientific name may sound more romantic, but in this case, the more romantic, scientific name is also more consistently known by experienced gardeners. When writing, I compose my first draft in my “spoken” voice. After proof-reading, I edit to diminish any writing and stylistic errors to which Mr. Orwell might object. This is key: what is spoken may not make sense once it is written down. It’s not easy. Everyone should proof-read what they write for clarity, to make sure that what they meant is what they “said,” and that the piece is clearly written.
When Orwell mentions “foolish thoughts” and “gumming together long strips of words” my thoughts turn to Republican strategist Kelly Anne Conway. While one may not think of her as a writer, her use of the English language, included here, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/08/kellyanne-conway-vs-jake-tapper-annotated/?utm_term=.7dcd863b34fe
is among the best examples of Orwell’s slovenliness. She uses phrases such as “big tent party,” “transparent and public,” “get on with the business,” “the president’s business,” and “come together on big issues” to mention a few, and all to say nothing. We’ve heard these phrases before at other political rallies or conventions, and during other presidential administrations. Although interviewer Jake Tapper’s questions were specific, by incorporating these phrases into her responses, Conway provides a good anesthesia to anything she says following them. Her responses default to evasive and unclear when a qualified “yes” or “no” would better inform. In Conway’s case this is a planned, linguistic tactic designed to “answer” her critics, to save face with her supporters, and not to provide any new information.
Orwell wrote that “Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” #LockerRoomTalk
This CNN article exemplifies the linguistic slovenliness of President Trump’s “locker room talk” defense. “Yes, I’m very embarrassed by it. I hate it. But it’s locker room talk, and it’s one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We’re going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS.” In an Orwellian fashion, Trump employed doublespeak when he tried to turn words that described unwarranted sexual advances into harmless sounding banter that is spoken amongst men in dressing rooms. Then, with a “lack of precision”, Trump moved from the topic at hand to a completely unrelated one: foreign policy.
In Frank Luntz fashion, “locker room talk” served as well-crafted political language because it worked. Politicians approvingly appropriated “locker room talk” to maintain a majority on Capitol Hill. The normalization of sexual assault by the President and other public servants adds to a cultural mindset where women are seen as objects. Trump is now the President. If the only reference had been “sexual assault talk”, would he be?
The language in the CNN article does not promote deliberation. It is a blatant rerouting of intention on Trumps part. When ones point of view is initially presented as “alternative facts” (another doozie of a doublespeak), an inclusive exchange is unlikely to occur.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/donald-trump-locker-room-talk-presidential-debate-2016-election/
Garfinkle and Orwell stressed the importance of simplistic, consistent, and precise language to express thought rather than preventing or concealing a message. George Orwell’s “The Politics of the English Language” delves into the dangers of the slovenliness, staleness in imagery, and vagueness in the use of the English language in hindering opportunities for good deliberation. He encourages simplifying language to communicate a thought by choosing the right words to clearly convey the intended message. I think his logic “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” made perfect sense and how, when reversed – language corrupts thoughts, is often the outcome when a reader misinterprets a writer’s ambiguous thoughts through the use of vague language.
http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/index/2017/2/17/what-conservative-principles
I came across this post from Bill Maher, a progressive liberal comedian who is ruthless in expressing his opinions publicly and being politically incorrect, that hinges away from vague, stale imagery and pretentious rhetoric. If you’re not familiar with his views and work, it’s not hard to identify his political leanings after reading the post. The title alone (in true Bill Maher sarcasm of course!) “What Conservative Principles?” is a giveaway. The effective use of metaphor such as “like an apple core from a car window” provide a visual of how Republicans conveniently dispose of their principles. He juxtaposes Republicans’ actions and words from the past to the present to justify his claims. I thought this post clearly expressed his thoughts crafting the right words and simplifying language to eliminate any intent to mislead interpretations. Also, I felt that he used frustration and inequity to persuade, influence or move readers at an emotional level – in line with Luntz’s concept of using emotions to move audience to action.
Though it was successful in delivering the intended message, I doubt that it promoted good deliberation. This kind of rhetoric simply promotes ad hominem attacks and vitriol toward the Democratic party and liberals from the right; on the other hand, it serves as confirmation bias and conforms with progressive liberals’ views encouraging to increase the resistance to the opposing party from the left. In order to facilitate good deliberation, we need to find a neutral ground to objectively communicate our thoughts that does not impose our views.
“I think the decision is P.C. B.S. That’s my political opinion.”
Article: NBA’s removal of 2017 All-Star Weekend from North Carolina (via The New York Times) https://goo.gl/bzzrHH
Video: Press Conference Response from North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (via AP) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLfjwfbC6sY
North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory’s response to the National Basketball Association’s decision to remove its 2017 All-Star Weekend from North Carolina coincides with the Frank Lutz method of emotional re-framing for political purposes.
Gov. McCrory employs the terms “elite” and “P.C.”, which have been co-opted by right-leaning politicians, to divert attention from North Carolina’s controversial removal of LGBT anti-discrimination protections. In this case, the protection was the right to use the restroom that coincides with whichever sexual identity an individual aligns with internally. McCory’s refusal to rethink the removal months earlier cost the city of Charlotte an estimated $100 Million in revenues.
Receiving backlash from many angles, Gov. McCrory turns to innuendo and emotional phrasing to not only deflect the blame from himself, but to rally support from the many around the country that have been well conditioned to believe that it is those “meddling elites” vs. us “hard working folks.”
In the end, Governor McCrory’s statements not only serve to deflect the the blame from his own policy decisions; they act to add more fuel to the fire separating conservatives and liberals citizens. This fire seems to be built on emotion, making it more and more difficult to address issues through healthy deliberation.
Here is a link to the article for the New York Post by Bob Fredrick, which exemplifies linguistic “slovenliness” to entice emotion from the reader.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/21/riots-erupt-in-sweden-after-trump-cites-non-existent-terror-attack/
Its purpose, to inform the public that President Trump was correct in his claim on a terror attack in Sweden and how riots have occurred thereafter. He first stated that “rioters from an immigrant suburb of Stockholm torched cars and threw rocks at the cops”, not identifying the rioters to any socio-demographic group. He confirmed that no arrest were made and the police spokesman whom stated “one officer was hit in the arm and slightly injured”. He then added to the article “I was hit with a lot of punches and kicks both to my body and my head. I have spent the night in hospital,” reported by Fox News of an unnamed photographer, which is an ambiguous source of information, to contradict the information initially stated.
Fredrick then shifts the direction and states “The neighborhood in question is heavily populated by Muslims, most of them immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East”. With the structure of the article in conjunction with the language that the writer exemplifies, this is an example of carefully crafted material to continue to drive the terror message as evidence that there is a need to implement on the president’s executive order agenda on the immigration ban. Articles like this only foment the emotions of fear and segregation based on a poor exhibition of facts and assumptions to motivate a public into false conclusions.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/20/denver-police-release-alien-before-alleged-murder/
“Denver Police Ignore Immigration Officers’ Pleas, Release Alien Before Alleged Murder”
“Denver police have charged an illegal immigrant with murdering an American just one month after they released the alien from jail despite pleas from federal immigration officials.
The criminal illegal alien, Ever Valles, was arrested in February and charged with the murder of Tim Cruz, 32.”
I don’t read Breitbart so I don’t know if there are better examples. But I randomly saw this article and it made my blood boil. This article seems to be designed so my uncle would share it on Facebook and shake his head and go “Tsk!” or maybe say “Jeez!”
By posting this article as an example of bad political writing I don’t defend the (alleged) murderer. In any large group there are sure to be people with problems. But I’m struck by at least three things:
1. The author seems to rewrite this article using the most polarizing words imaginable:
A. “The release-and-murder sequence” – the dashes make it seem like it’s some kind of routine mechanism that happens all the time;
B. “Pleas” – the requests of ICE officials for custody of the suspect, which are brutally ignored by the wimpy mayor;
C. “Criminal alien” – to make it seem like the suspect is a different species due to the legality of his immigration papers.
2. This article isn’t really news, in that it’s on a website with a national audience about a local event, likely designed to make credulous readers think there’s an epidemic of local cops and PC mayors not cooperating with immigration agents just trying to do their jobs. In other words, liberalism leads to people being murdered.
3. If you scroll past the ads for diet pills there’s a comments section. As of 9:30 on Wednesday there are over 2,700 comments from people mostly agreeing with each other, and the comments with the most responses are the most incendiary ones. The comments that are the most incendiary are the most prominent ones. I guess in a weird, sad sense, people commenting on this article are engaged in an act of deliberation. They are in a sense working out what the nativist, reactionary response to an article like this is supposed to be.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare
This article is about drone strikes and the “sloveliness” language used to defend the policy to use drones to fight terrorism. United Nations charter was created to prohibit use of force against another state but this has not stopped US from creating a policy that circumvents the charter. US president and policy makers are using pretentious diction and euphuisms to clearly minimize the negative impact of drones. Surgical strikes, targeted killing, collateral damage and signature strikes are common phrases being used to be less offensive and to sound more scientific. To the public, the use of drones appears legitimate to fight against terror. Surgical, target and signature convey precision of strikes but there is a growing concern especially from countries such as Pakistan that strikes are endangering many civilian lives. Obama approved increase authority to use drones based on “signature”, which implies the operators are not required to confirm identity of a threat. They are authorized to act if there is intelligence from sources on the ground and information suggesting a credible threat to US interests and national security.
The language used to in the drone policy shifts focus away from accountability and legality into potentially false report of killings. There is lack of consistent evidence that drone strikes are actually precise. Reports on number of casualties from the Pakistan press suggests deaths are reaching hundreds to thousands, while internal CIA reports are within single digits of casualties. The conflicting reports provide more vagueness to the issue and do not promote effective deliberation.
According to George Orwel political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” He also said “A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details.”. It is so true that in politics is really important to choose carefully each and single word that need to be express. Politicians tend to accommodate the true to their convenience and to make the public hear what they want not what they are really thinking.
Lets take as example the world war, it sound horrible in plain English, so they have always generated a smokescreen of euphemism. “Kinetic action” means “killing people”. “Collateral damage” means “killing people accidentally”. Politicians typically use the word “kill” only to describe what our enemies do to us, not what we do to them. That is also killing but does not sound nice or appealing to the public. We can find different examples specially in political speeches.
The example i have chosen is a speech by Barack Obama. In one of his speech in May he explained his drone warfare policy and spoke of “lethal, targeted action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces”. As Orwell said, when “certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract”. He did not said kill instead he alternate the words to convey the same idea. His deliberation was well thought out and was what the public wanted to hear.
According to the Economist Newspaper Orwell worried that sloppy language disguised bad ideas. Some influential Democrats today have a different complaint: that Republicans use words more skilfully to win political battles. Conservatives are shameless and simplistic, they grumble, and it works.
On the other hand Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant, once said: “There’s a simple rule. You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.”
Nowadays it is so difficult for politicians to stick to the true in their campaigns since they are in a way force to say what we want to hear to built slogans based on what the public will support. At the end i believe that politicians will never use language the way Orwell did, marrying clarity of thought with precision. It is so difficult to put words together that are true and will sound nice to everyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/is-obamacare-just-a-branding-problem/512936/
This Atlantic article discusses the implications of the rebranding of the Affordable Care Act as “Obamacare.” The Affordable Care Act extended health insurance to million of uninsured Americans, however the ACA’s official name is also somewhat misleading as health insurance premiums have risen for some Americans. Regardless, the majority of voters actually enjoy being covered for conditions that may have otherwise left them unable to get insurance. The issue with the ACA lies within its nickname: Obamacare. A popular late night show host recently conducted a very unscientific poll, but the results are still troubling nevertheless. When asked “which program do you prefer: the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare,” the majority of participants responded by saying they prefer the ACA. Moreover, many did not realize that the ACA and Obamacare are one in the same. This is cleverly crafted language aimed at delegitimizing a program rolled out under President Obama. How can the U.S. have a productive conversation about healthcare if the average citizen disagrees with a program over its moniker. Dubbing ACA “Obamacare” obfuscates the objective of the program, and severely hinders its potential success. Moreover, Sean Spicer, WH Press Secretary, admitted yesterday that while no plan to replace ACA exists currently, it will look more or less how the ACA should’ve looked had it been rolled out properly. What he seems to say is that Trumpcare will be a copy of Obamacare, but without all the vitriol and anger that rendered it ineffectual for some Americans.
Attached is a link to an article printed in the New Yorker by Jane Mayer. The article is written in the intimidate aftermath of the 9/11 during the war in Iraq and Iran. In the article Mayer quotes President Bush in a statement he made about using torture and outsourcing torture by way of rendition. Mayer writes, “torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.”
In order to put distance between the US and the idea of the federal government using torture both inside and outside of our borders, Bush and other politicians began using the phrase ‘rendition’ or ‘rendition program’ and even those phrases were used in secret:
“Arar (a Canadian engineer who was suspected of having terrorist affiliations and was detained, sent to Syria and tortured), it turned out, had been sent to Syria on orders from the U.S. government, under a secretive program known as “extraordinary rendition.” This program had been devised as a means of extraditing terrorism suspects from one foreign state to another for interrogation and prosecution. Critics contend that the unstated purpose of such renditions is to subject the suspects to aggressive methods of persuasion that are illegal in America—including torture.”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/02/14/outsourcing-torture
I believe this is a direct example of what Orwell refers to as newspeak. Rendition to the average citizen holds no connotations either positive or negative and therefore can be used to confuse an audience or to make torture programs appear less harmful.
When I think of well-honed, carefully crafted language, I think about Dr. Cornel West, the style and manner in which he writes and speaks is quite adroit, to say the least. He carefully chooses words that illicit emotion and inspire deliberation. He is incredibly intellectual, well informed and genuine, but when I’m reading his work or listening to him speak, I’m always weary of the rhetoric behind the flashy words.
In this New York Times Op-Ed piece titled “Dr. King Weeps From His Grave”, Dr. West says “poverty is an economic catastrophe, inseparable from the power of greedy oligarchs and avaricious plutocrats indifferent to the misery of poor children, elderly citizens and working people.”
This is a long-winded, albeit smart sentence but it essentially means only means the American government and wealthy corporations don’t care about poor people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/opinion/martin-luther-king-jr-would-want-a-revolution-not-a-memorial.html
Frank Luntz’s carefully crafted headlines and quotes capture audience’s immediate attention. Quoted for saying “its not what you say, its what they hear” rings true both positively and negatively in the media. The tone of an article can sway the reader’s opinion and is often mainstreamed to meet the ideology of the network. I think that Frank Luntz’s pointed republican creativity is on par to the quick tongued dialogues of Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert. However, for every perfectionist of the written word, there is a Donald Trump. Over the past two years, the ‘slovenliness’ of Trump’s speech has been consistent with “gumming together long strips of words that have already been set in order by someone else.” Maher has even coined the term “Teleprompter Trump” to designate the the handful of times that a more presidential and subdued Trump has taken tone. The following articles demonstrates the “slovenliness” of our elected President’s literacy with the finest of a Luntz’ inspired headline.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/us/politics/trump%2Dconcedes%2Dhealth%2Dlaw%2Doverhaul%2Dis%2Dunbelievably%2Dcomplex.html?_r=0
The article elicits deliberation as it re-examines the complexity of unified health care system while reminding many American’s of Trump’s lackluster promises.