Chpt2: Credibility Problem
In 1946 George Orwell wrote “Politics and the English Language“, an essay critiquing the political language of the day. It observed the connection between what he saw as the debasement of the language and the connection to the political orthodoxies of the day.
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
Modern political dialogue is less complex, lacking in classical rhetorical form, driven by perceived clout and emotion, but no less insincere than the period during which he wrote. You could indeed see this as the ultimate destination of his predictions. It is easier to think poorly in English because the use of language is in decline, and as the language declines foolish thoughts become even easier.
Position 1: Speak simply to win (bigly)
Much has been given to analysing the vocabulary and diction of modern and historical politicians. This language analysis goes hand in hand with two important psychological dimensions, analytical or critical thinking, and confidence. We have seen a marked decline in the analytical and intellectual nature of political speech, instead veering off towards informal and intuitive styles that fit better with modern media and communications.
Broader cultural shifts can account for some of this change. In a more complex world, with mass media and a 24/7 news cycle, the success of a political figure relies heavily on keeping the interests and attentions of a large audience. Early politicians would have been more familiar with communicating through print media, in-person speeches, and smaller audiences and found these methods ineffectual in the face of mass communication technologies such as radio, television, and later, the internet.
As a result, politicians have adapted their campaigns and leadership to focus on bite sized slogans that appeal to the fast turnaround of media coverage. Add into that the fear that career politicians have over their own words, fearful of public backlash or that their words are turned against them. It is much easier to dish out meaningless and empty slogans that sound good, but mean nothing.
Into that empty rhetorical space has stepped figures claiming to say the unsayable and in turn changing public mistrust and boredom into contempt for politicians and hostility to politics. This is the rise in populism we see in western politics today.
Position 2: Slogans are not rhetoric, just bad prose
Orwell saw clearly the connection between bad prose and oppressive ideology on both sides of the political spectrum and all that it enabled. He also understood that this is a self perpetuating situation. When a leader adopts a certain style of speech it is not uncommon for those under them to adopt similar patterns. The longer that continues, the more desensitised people become to political talk and the less they believe the bad prose.
The period shortly before Orwell wrote his essay was rife with political slogan writing. Both sides of the war used propaganda to increase loyalty to war efforts and the commitment to victory. Dig on for Victory, Loose Talk Costs Lives, Avenge Pearl Harbor! This period in time was punctuated by some of the great political speeches of the 20th century, delivered by engaging orators and wartime leaders, such as Roosevelt and Churchill. However these political slogans of the day also served to breed distrust and racism towards foreigners and fellow citizens alike.
In comparison with the vapid and nebulous political slogans of today:
Make America Great Again
Build Back Better
Get Brexit Done
Change Politics for Good
Drain The Swamp
Recent polls in both the USA and the UK have revealed that trust in politicians is in freefall. A study from Pew Research showed that in 2022 only 22% of the US population had trust in the government ‘at least most of the time’. In the UK a 2018 poll showed that only 11% trust politicians to tell the truth ‘a great deal or a fair amount’. A damning indictment on the state of modern political rhetoric and the trust that we have in our leaders.
Today, people rarely see, or watch, long form political debate. Most exposure is through shortened clips in main stream media or through social media: soundbites, slogans, statements with no supporting arguments and claims without justification. By the same token, political speakers are less used to long form political debate and employing critical thinking themselves. This lack of critical thinking leads to ingrained fallacies and biases in political speech and the inability to communicate ideas to others through debate.
This is the self-reinforcing spiral that Orwell sees within the decay of language and in politics. The more simplistic the message the more polarised the political spectrum becomes. There is no nuance in a slogan, it’s all or nothing. It becomes the rallying cry of the voter block.
Position 3: It doesn’t mean what you think it means (anymore)
Increasingly, attitudes once thought to be political, if biased, have now given way to declarations of mental instability, or imbalance. Opinions have become characterisations of unwelcome, dissenting or controversial positions.
Modern political jargon, the use of ‘exhausted idioms’, and the repetition of buzzwords and spin “give give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” How many politicised words today have lost all meaning through over-use? Fascist, progressive, far-right, liberal, woke, *phobic (phobia), toxic, denier, misinformation, disinformation, emergency!
All of the above can be considered serious topics when attached to behavioral or sociological issues, but continued hyperbolic use in the absence of rhetoric has rendered them meaningless. Orwell was clear in stating that the use of language of this style was not just incompetent writing, but that it serves to suppress critical thinking.
“What we think, we become“
Gautama Buddha
A decline in critical thinking is well understood. When you are surrounded by and fed singular opinions, like views on political or social issues, it stifles critical thinking. This is especially true in children and students as they are susceptible to manipulation. This is the power of indoctrination. Worse, is that individuals lacking critical thinking skills are more susceptible to later manipulation and propaganda from those who have their own best interests at heart.
Critical thinking also requires intellectual and cognitive ability. It requires curiosity, open-mindedness, skepticism and persistence. In other worse, you cannot think critically if you are ignorant of its process, and as a corollary, critical thinking is as much about how you think, as what you think.
Finally, attitude plays a huge role in your ability to think critically about a subject. Even if you are extremely intelligent you will not be able to think critically if you are not willing to venture outside of your own intelligence. If you are not humble you will avoid examining alternative opinions for fear of being wrong.
Position 4: When instinct fails, follow the rules
If we are to take anything from Orwell’s essay it is that in order to have clarity of thought, we need to have clarity of the written word and of our speech. Too often we use words with nebulous definitions simply because they have become part of every day language and politically charged discourse. Pointing out the ‘pure wind’ inherent in the words being used does not end an argument or a debate, but it does make the opposition less credible. If you want to be credible, speak clearly and with ethos, pathos and logos. Indeed, Orwell created simple rules to follow:
i. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
“If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy,” writes Orwell. “You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark, its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself.”
When you listen to politicians and educators speak, understand that how they say things is just as important than what they are saying. It is often language that is used to suppress critical thinking, divide and polarise as well as maintain the illusion of valid opinion or fact.
Political language is used to make lies sound truthful, to give substance to topics that have no meaning, and to argue in defense of the indefensible. This is just as true today as it was in Orwell’s time.
Beware the Snake Oil Salesman.
https://the0xreport.press/chpt2-credibility-problem/