[lg policy] blog: The Role of Language in Politics

Sun May 30 13:06:09 UTC 2010

The Role of Language in Politics

As any reader of this blog likely knows, I am generally displeased
with the nature of political discourse in the United States. Thanks to
major, for-profit media outlets like CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, our national
discourse is shaped and our language is carefully selected to
represent primarily the interests of the few extremely wealthy men who
run those companies. As a result, we spend a lot of time talking about
issues like abortion, stem cell research, and immigration policy - all
admittedly important - and not much time talking about things like the
structure of power, voting policies, and income distribution. Of
course, we talk about those latter things some, but with those issues,
as with the more popular and sensational issues listed before, the
whole debate is framed by major media outlets. And that's the real
point: the range of acceptable opinion has almost nothing to do with
the range of possible solutions.

Perhaps the biggest reason for this is the brilliant associations the
so-called right and left have made around each others' positions.
Anything strongly conservative is "fascist," and anything strongly
liberal is "socialist, communist, or Marxist." None of those words is
used according to their actual meaning, but rather they have become
bugbears, denoting some vague sense of evil and despair that comes
from running a government that is not, as we call it, "moderate."

Moderate is much more a myth than words like Socialist and Fascist.
How so? Because the concept of moderate depends upon a linear model of
political discourse. For some reason we've all bought into the
Facebook Likert scale of politics; each position is scored from
strongly liberal to strongly conservative, with the middle being
moderate. Why should this be? What is so linear about politics? On a
superficial level, sure, it makes sense: if I believe the government
should take measures to prevent illegal immigration, it is fairly easy
to draw a straight line from there to the opposite position, which
says that illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. But does it
really make sense to draw that line? Even if we can turn the general
sense of what should be done into a linear continuum, surely there's
room for debate on the how?

Consider: one person might argue that we need to build a big wall
along the Mexican-American border. Another might say we need to round
up all of the illegal immigrants in the country and deport them. Yet
another might argue that we should work closely with the Mexican
government to improve working conditions there, so as to minimize the
incentives for immigration. Still another might argue that we ought to
do our best to simplify immigration law so that it is easier to
determine who is legal and who is not. And so on. The thing is, many
of these positions are not mutually exclusive for any reason other
than where they stand in our perceived left-right linear model of
politics. Yet, if you were to ask most Americans, they would think
that the border fence idea and the simplified immigration law idea are
irreconcilable.

This is just a single example, but we could do the same with almost
any issue. Try it yourself. Take a major, hot-button issue. Map out
the conservative position and the liberal one. Then determine possible
solutions, and see whether they are mutually exclusive.

I should say, what I'm talking about is not a moderate position,
because that implies finding the midpoint of a line. My point here is
that we are imagining - we believe almost unquestioningly - in a line
that does not exist. There is no linearity in political solutions.
Even a yes or no question like "should the USA reduce its military
budget" cannot be answered by liberal-says-yes and
conservative-says-no. The issue is more complicated than that. The
issue is not, fundamentally, linear.

With all that in mind, I want to return to the words we use in
politics to denigrate opposing positions. "That's socialism!" is the
cry around which - ironically - many people rally when talking about
President Obama (ironic because Obama is about as far from being a
socialist as everyone who derides him for it; indeed, he probably has
fewer socialist beliefs than most of the people who criticize him). No
explanation is needed. No examination of why socialism is bad, how it
works and doesn't work, and why we have to fear socialist reforms is
offered in the national discourse. We take for granted that socialism
is evil, that it has been tried and does not work, that income and
wealth should never never never be distributed throughout the
population.

In 1967, the median income in the United States was roughly $33,000.
Someone in the 95th percentile, on the other hand, made roughly
$89,000 per year. That's significant disparity, but not outrageous.

By 2003, the median income in the United States was roughly $43,000,
while the 95th percentile had risen to $154,000.

I don't have the more recent numbers, but I suspect the gap is still
growing. And here I wonder, when we start talking about economic
policy, why we talk about socialism in such evil terms. Does the
richest 5 percent of the country really need to make 4 or 5 times as
much as the median (and lets not talk about the bottom 20 to 25
percent, who make less than a living wage)? Is it not possible and,
perhaps, reasonable to change the way that income is distributed, not
in some bizarre pseudo-Marxist equal way, but simply so that everyone
can survive?

Here's the point. I'm guessing that, if you take out all political
language, almost everyone will agree that, yes, everyone should have a
chance to make it. Hell, it's in the declaration of independence. The
thing is, we've been hoodwinked into thinking that equal opportunity
exists under our current economic and social structures when it
certainly does not. We've been fooled into thinking that we have a
"welfare state," where people at the bottom are there only because
they are lazy and incompetent. We've succumbed to the idea that there
is no alternative - in the best of all possible worlds, to quote
Voltaire - to what is increasingly a reverse-socialism in our economic
policy.*

*That is, we have socialized losses and privatized gains, a truly
despicable situation. Remember that the bailout was paid for by tax
payers and paid out to large investment and insurance companies. In
other words, a problem caused, at least in part,** by income
disparity, was "solved" by increasing income disparity. Brilliant!

**It is worth noting that the biggest economic collapses of the last
century occurred at the times of greatest income disparity; that is,
in 1929, in 1987, and in 2008. Hmm...

All this because there is no language available to have a rational
discourse around economic (or almost any other) policy. You believe in
changing the tax structure so that it is more progressive? You're a
socialist-communist-Marxist pig who doesn't deserve to be in the
country, let alone the conversation. How much worse if you use the
word - socialism - yourself? Gone are the days when Albert Einstein,
Bertrand Russell, and John Dewey proudly called themselves socialists.
Today you have to apologize, all because of the power of language.

What terms are available, however, is not the issue. The issue is that
we have an entire political and social and culture machine that uses
language to force us to think of politics as linear, and forces us to
continually reinvent meaningful terms because the ones we try to use
continually get twisted and saddled with innuendos and connotations
they don't, in themselves, warrant. Language is a powerful thing -
maybe the most powerful thing there is - and it seems we don't know
how and don't want to use it responsibly.

http://nichtdiesetone.blogspot.com/2010/05/role-of-language-in-politics.html
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list