In my previous blog post, I considered the current controversy over pronoun use in modern society. I will continue to think about words, the ways we use them, what they say about us, and how they reflect our view of the world. In this post I consider words in politics.
Politicians have always specialized in manipulating words. Typically they throw them around a lot while trying to say very little. However until recently, political speech, even when it was passionate, was professional, conveying an air of competency and knowledge. Now it seems like public figures revel in using profanity, starting with a president who regularly uses words like “hell,” “ass,” and “bullshit.” He’s been labeled the “profanity president,” and this is thought to make him more relatable to us common folk. When he’s not swearing, he using trite words that convey little information, like saying someone is “a good man,” “a great fellow,” and “I really liked him a lot.” Besides telling us very little, these personal assessment often don’t even pertain to what is being discussed. Simple language may be understandable to us average folk, but it rarely sheds light on a complex situation or person.
Rather than making a politician more relatable, profanity has the reverse effect of bringing one’s discourse down to the level of a barroom argument. Any meaningful points are clouded by poor word choices, and listeners are often left wondering if politicians really know any more than we do.
Swearing, cursing and name calling is bad enough, but words can be used to create a whole new reality. We do this all the time when we write novels. But politicians are not supposed to be dealing in fiction, and when public discourse creates, rather than describes, reality, then words no longer communicate. They only confuse. I’m talking about when politicians make assertions that have no basis in fact; there’s even a new word for people who do this: “truthers.” They’re trying to get to the real truth of a situation is, usually by promoting a conspiracy theory. The term came into use recently to refer to those who deny the validity of our current presidential election, preferring instead to create some fiendish plot which no one can uncover. The word itself, “truther,” suggests this person knows the truth of what really happened. Do they? Or are they only creating a truth that is more in accordance with what they want to see?
When did truth and reality become two separate things? Perhaps at the same time that some news become “fake” while other news was “true.” Who gets to decide which is which? While movies with evil masterminds plotting destruction are popular and exciting, these are fictions. Imagining ourselves characters in a James-Bond-type story where a deep-state conspiracy is trying to overthrow the national election is an escape from reality, not a productive response to it.
Perhaps “truth” has always been a nebulous and relative word, but in order to function effectively as a society, we must all agree on some general truths that we hold to be self evident: that elections results can be determined, and that despite our differences, we can all work together for the common good. Not doing so and insisting on a different reality is like saying that there is more than one book of life, and the words in your book are different than the words in mine. What’s worse, we’re not even on the same page.