The Importance of Words in Politics Research Paper Example

In his essay, The Political Mind, George Lakoff raises an interesting point: that “The political power of words lies not primarily in their form – that is, in a speech – or even in the meanings they are directly linked to, but in the totality of brain circuitry that activation can spread to:  the frames, metaphors, prototypes, metonymies, and the entire system of concepts.” This concept that word choice is more important to politics than actual policy is uncomfortable for many people to consider, because it implies a sort of manipulation where politicians use the power of language against their audience. If a political figure is able to use language to make us agree on things we wouldn’t otherwise agree on, are politics just a matter of word games? Although it can be an uncomfortable idea, I believe that it’s true in many instances. By studying the strategies that political figures use to convince an audience, I’ve found that the language that a politician uses is often more important than their policies; that politics isn’t about what a politician says, but how they say it. 

To start, the way that a politician frames their ideas greatly effects the way in which the audience will receive their message. Before I explain further, let’s explore what it means to frame an idea. Framing has to do with the way information is presented, and how that affects our decisions. A simple example of this can be seen in the supermarket: imagine there are 2 packages of meat, one labeled 25% fat, and one labeled 75% lean. Although both packages have the same contents, most people would choose the 75% lean package because of the positive language; the word lean is more appealing than the word fat. Politicians can use this same strategy by using terms that they know will be more attractive to their intended audience. In Frank Luntz’s Words That Work on pg 778 of the textbook, Luntz gives the example of the terms “undocumented workers” and “illegal aliens”. Luntz explains how politicians who are in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country tend to use the term “undocumented workers” because it frames illegal immigrants positively, and it suggests that they are genuine employees who would like to work but just don’t have the paperwork in order to do so. In contrast, he states how those who want to deport these illegal immigrants use the term “illegal aliens” because the word alien frames illegal immigrants negatively and sparks feelings of distrust towards them for the audience. Another sensitive but relevant example is how different sides of the debate over abortion describe the disagreement. Politicians who are against abortion might label it the “fight against abortion” or describe abortion as “legal murder” in order to evoke sympathetic and upset feelings in the audience and cause them to feel negatively about abortion. Politicians who are for abortion would describe the opposite stance as a “threat against abortion rights” and use the term “pro-choice” in order to make the audience feel defensive of their rights to their body and make them feel as though those rights are being violated. As you can see in all of these examples, the topic/policy being described is the same, but since the terminology is framing the topic in different ways, it comes across completely differently. 

A way that politicians can use framing to their advantage is by utilizing euphemisms. Covering up uncomfortable words with euphemisms will effectively push a point of view that an audience may not be willing to believe otherwise. George Orwell commented on euphemisms in his essay Politics and the English Language. He remarks that “Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements.” These examples show how in politics, cruel or distasteful topics can be dulled down into milder and more appealing terms in order to prevent panic and avoid tarnishing the image of the politician and their committee. In the example of war violence, or “pacification”, if a political figure were to come out and bluntly talk about the murders and violence committed towards innocent people for the sake of war it would cause many citizens to feel uneasy and make them believe that the politicians running their country are cruel and unjust. By using the term “pacification” to describe the acts of violence, it now focuses more on the belief that the violence is necessary in order to maintain peace and to protect the rights and lives of the citizens in the audience, and does not damage the trust between the politician and the audience. Another example is President Nixon and his committee’s lies and euphemisms during Watergate, the political scandal that lead to Nixon’s resignation. Nixon used euphemisms in order to keep the men on his committee thinking that they were doing something moral, even when they were committing unjust crimes. John W. Dean III, Nixon’s lawyer, came forward after his resignation in a New York Times article, where he states, “If Bob Haldeman or John Ehrlichman or even Richard Nixon had said to me, ‘John, I want you to do a little crime for me. I want you to obstruct justice,’ I would have told him he was crazy… Rather it was ‘containing’ Watergate or keeping the defendants ‘on the reservation’… No one was motivated to get involved in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice- but under the law that is what occurred.” His testimony shows how powerful euphemisms really are when put into practice, and how politicians are able to get a desired reaction from their audience by dulling the terms that they use and making a situation more palatable. Dean wouldn’t have committed the acts that he did if Nixon hadn’t of carefully chosen his words, proving that he wasn’t following Nixon for his ideals, but instead for how he explained them.

One thing that has been more debated as time goes on is the usefulness of “politically correct”, or “PC”, language in politics. In my opinion, this connects back to word choice, framing, and euphemisms in the way that most PC language is just word choice utilized in order to avoid offending/misrepresenting any certain community or individual. In theory, PC language sounds like a perfect solution, creating a world where there is no injustice and prejudice against all effected groups is eliminated. Yet in practice, it tends to do the opposite, covering up genuine issues with confusing euphemisms and creating more problems than solutions. Michiko Kakutani’s The Word Police on page 764 of the textbook, Kakutani remarks how “Calling the homeless ‘the underhouse’ doesn’t give them a place to live; calling the poor ‘the economically marginalized’ doesn’t help them pay the bills. Rather, by playing down their plight, such language might even make it easier to shrug off the seriousness of their situation.” This statement, although harsh, is true—simply changing the word you use to describe something will not change what it is. While sometimes using alternative terms for certain ideas is effective, other times it only masks a serious issue and further offends the intended audience, causing resentment between a politician and their audience when the language was intended to strengthen their bond. This creates a need for politicians to be extremely educated and selective with their word choice, and avoid using “PC” terms that do more harm than good. Kakutani makes the connection between euphemisms and PC language on page 764, where he remarks, “Aren’t such phrases eerily reminiscent of the euphemisms coined by the government during Vietnam… or how President Richard M. Nixon’s press secretary, Ronald L. Ziegler, tried to get away with calling a lie an ‘inoperative statement’?” This comparison emphasizes how although euphemisms can be powerful in politics, sometimes they are cruel, and will cause the audience to be angry with the politician for deceiving them. He uses the example of Watergate, because due to the deceiving and untruthful language that Nixon used to cover up his crimes gaining publicity, he was nearly impeached and forced to resign his position. This is a cautionary tale for politicians who get too carried away with harmful euphemisms, and shows how being careful with word choice is important in political situations.

Although most people would say that they voted due to their candidate’s policies, word choice is more important to politics than any policy, because in the end, humans are emotional. Word choice is the vessel through which politicians can influence our emotions, it is the tool that they can use to shape the way that we think. The way they frame their ideas, the way they utilize euphemisms, and carefully selecting the terms that they use can cause people to believe things that they wouldn’t have been convinced by normally. Words do matter, and politicians need to utilize these elements of language in order to succeed.