Politics and the English Language

I first read the George Orwell article in high school English class. I enjoyed it then, and I enjoy it still more now, having read many academic articles in music and other disciplines that abuse the English language in the ways Orwell describes. In re-reading last week's election polemic, I did not come across as many examples of imprecise language use as I expected. It seems that, in crafted speeches at least, candidates take pains to make their statements clear. In Friday's debate, even as they evaded questions, Obama and McCain stuck to simple sentences with which Orwell would be hard-pressed to find fault. (Orwell could attack my prose, I'm sure... I find it hard to write clearly about anything).

Here are excerpts of candidate answers that I deem imprecise not because they violate an Orwellian rule, but because they complete evade the question (whole transcript here http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/):

Lehrer: Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?

Obama: ...You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
And although we've heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy. And you're wondering, how's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job? How's it going to affect my house? How's it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college? ... (he outlines his proposal without saying for or against the $700 billion bailout)

McCain: ... And, Jim, I -- I've been not feeling too great about a lot of things lately. So have a lot of Americans who are facing challenges. But I'm feeling a little better tonight, and I'll tell you why. Because as we're here tonight in this debate, we are seeing, for the first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats together, sitting down, trying to work out a solution to this fiscal crisis that we're in. And have no doubt about the magnitude of this crisis. And we're not talking about failure of institutions on Wall Street. We're talking about failures on Main Street, and people who will lose their jobs, and their credits, and their homes, if we don't fix the greatest fiscal crisis, probably in -- certainly in our time, and I've been around a little while... (keeps going, optimistic about solution, needs to have transparency, does not come out and say he's "for" it, just that he's hopeful)

Both candidates use the terms Main Street/Wall Street. "Main Street" is becoming the kind of stock metaphor which Orwell might not like. Other than that, I think the language use abides by all Orwell's rules:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

In interviews, however, you can certainly catch a candidate in bad language use. I thought it would be too mean of me to use a Sarah Palin interview, but I managed to find a John McCain interview from last Thursday with some good "fudging" vagueness.

Gibson: Was the agreement on principles announced by Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank and others this morning -- was that enough for you to sign on, or do you want other changes in this bill?

McCain: Well, the principles frankly are those that I articulated. And as always the devil is in the details many times and I wanted to see of course whether homeowners are adequately addressed at keeping people in their homes and other aspects of it. But basically I set forth a set of principles that are very similar to these as well as the original plan of Secretary Paulson's, but there have been significant changes as we went through.

This answer has a few nice things.
(#1) Figure of speech: "The devil is in the details" is a colloquial phrase. According to Bartleby.com's The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition., it means that "even the grandest project depends on the success of the smallest components." McCain uses the phrase correctly here, but one would expect that his following remarks would elucidate those details just a little. Instead, the details remain veiled. Everything about the answer, and indeed this whole interview (just after the White House meeting when the bailout fell apart), is characterized by vagueness. McCain will not commit to rigid principles, preferring to speak about "optimism," in a way typical of most politicians.

(#4) Passive: "whether the homeowners are adequately addressed"... it's not so bad, right? But it could be "whether the plan will adequately address homeowners," and so it violates Orwell's rule #4. "There have been significant changes" should become "blank changed blank," using an active construction.

(#3) Wordy: What does the whole answer even say? I will attempt a paraphrase "I articulated the principles in response to your earlier questions, Charlie. Provisions in the bill must benefit the homeowners and aid their ability to keep their homes. My stated principles align with those already mentioned and with Secretary Paulson's original plan, but many changes have since altered the bill (or my principles? to what do the "changes" apply?)." As seen,
"there have been significant changes as we went through" is too vague -- it could refer to McCain's principles or to Paulson's plan or to the state of the economy. It provides no new information.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=5886415&page=3

Aaack! I have to be at the GRE place in 5 hours, but at least I got that done.