Vague or meaningless phrases. Defunct metaphors. Pretentious words. These are three things George Orwell argued were ruining the English language in “Politics and the English Language,” written in 1946.
They still are today.
The reason? These forms “construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.”
When this happens, communication becomes impossible. If you don’t know what someone else is saying or advocating, how can you assess it? Public officials are particularly deft at filling sentences without saying anything, then as now.
Here are a couple of local (bipartisan) examples, with attempted translations.
1) “Steele is taking a page right out of Karl Rove’s playbook, but he’ll find that Marylanders reject the politics of division.” Oren Shur, spokesman for Rep. Ben Cardin, a Democratic Senate candidate, in response to Lt. Gov. Michael Steele’s recent speech against gay marriage.
Critique:
» Lazy usage. The speaker could not think of a fresh comparison for Steele, so instead uses presidential adviser Karl Rove, evil personified in Democratic Party-speak.
» Pompous. “He’ll find that Marylanders reject…” We can hear the chorus swelling behind us.
» We have no idea what “the politics of division” means. Different parties are supposed to offer different ideas. By nature, politics are divisive, unless you live in China or North Korea, where everyone believes the same thing. Not.
Translation: “Steele is a conniving strategist who only talks about gay marriage to win votes from social conservatives. But he will find out that most people in Maryland don’t really care about the issue.”
2) “While Martin O’Malley blows more hot air with no substance on how to cut electricity rates, Gov. Ehrlich actually accomplished it. O’Malley’s continued attempts at blame, that have been resoundingly rejected by the public, are hardly leadership.” Maryland Republican Party Chairman John M. Kane describing Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley’s response to the impending 72 percent electricity rate hike from Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
Critique:
» Redundant. Hot air by nature does not have “substance.”
» No facts. How can we know if O’Malley’s suggestions offer no substance without first stating what he said? How do we know that his suggestions have been “resoundingly rejected?”
» Horrible grammar. “Continued attempts at blame.” Huh? Who is O’Malley blaming? And has he actually blamed someone or just attempted to do so?
» Pompous. We imagine the speaker banging a gavel on a podium for extra effect.
» Vague. Ahh, leadership. Never defined, but so easy to claim the other side doesn’t offer.
Translation: We cannot translate this because we do not have enough information. Isn’t it amazing how you can string two sentences together without saying anything?
With the election season upon us, we hope that politicians will think before they speak, mean what they say and say what they mean.
Otherwise, voters won’t be able to legitimately choose their elected officials.
But speaking clearly offers other benefits. Politicians who speak and write clearly will also craft understandable public policy and laws. Then maybe we won’t need so many lawyers to interpret both.
