Politics and the English Language

From an Article written by Liam Julian called Entering Casablanca November 13, 2008 - National Review Online:

President elect Obama is selecting his staff and readying himself for the challenges he will meet when he assumes the presidency in January and Americans will soon see truthfully what type of president we’ve elected. But before Campaign 2008 recedes into history and is, as our modern way would have it, erased from our memories, it’s worth reflecting on the words of the man who will now inhabit the White House, on how those words inspired so many, and on whether the person who spoke them meant them — and whether the words actually mean anything at all

President elect Obama inspired the nation with a campaign focused on change and hope. He energized an electorate with his words, and I doubt there is hardly a person around who would disagree that Barak Obama campaigned on this idea of Hope; Hope for change. Here are just a few of the thousands of quotes regarding this theme:

“In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?” July, 2004 – Keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

“All odds — all odds — said I shouldn’t be standing here. But I am because of love and education and lots of hope. That’s what we can stand for in four days. That’s what you can stand for.” – January, 2008 at New Hampshire Primaries

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” - 2008 Democratic National Convention

Hope is his thing! He communicated it to the thousands — sometimes hundreds of thousands — who attended his rallies. He wrote a book called “The Audacity of Hope”. Dr. David Spiegel, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science has been recently quoted on NPR as saying,

”If hope gets too far off the mark, it’s more likely to hurt you than help you. Hope works when the person who is promising you something is genuine about trying to deliver it.” (Emphasis mine)

It is unquestionable that Obama inspired millions, but on what is their inspiration based? Is their hope perhaps "too far off the mark"? At the end of his report, the host of the show on NPR said,

“Barack Obama inspired me. . . . His promise sits like a weight on his shoulders.”

If I think back on the campaign I cannot remember one instance where he ever tried to temper the Hope. But now, as the transition to the White House has begun, I’ve seen two news conferences where that temperance of hope is being communicated. Today, his staff claims to be startled that their man’s preaching hit home! Here is a link to one of the many news reports on this: NY Times - Obama Aides Tamp Down Expectations

In Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, you’ll find this remarkable passage:

“When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly. Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House. . . . Change in the Congress. . . . Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed.”

Astounding, isn’t it? He didn’t know what to say then, so he just blurted out “change.” One has sufficient reason to wonder whether Obama didn’t employ this exact strategy, of evoking amorphous change in lieu of solid substance, throughout the past two years and thereby ascend to the highest office in the land.

If you have the time I recommend you read an essay written in 1946 by George Orwell, called Politics and the English Language. Its subject is the depreciation of the English language — more specifically, how bad writing leads to poor thinking leading to more bad writing and, eventually, begets a society that cannot distinguish meaningful words from empty ones. To bait you into reading it, here is the opening paragraph:

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Here is the link: Orwell 1946 Politics and the English Language