I am not a political science major, nor a political strategist. I read books and poems in my college classes. My knowledge is limited with respect to American politics and governmental policy, but there are some things I feel confident about criticizing, and one of them is the ridiculous amount of euphemism involved in politics. I was reading an article written by Meghan McCain, which was very eloquent and she seems to be a very well spoken young woman, despite that weird picture of her on her twitter. Whatevs, so she was writing this article in response to George Washington University's College Republicans organization rescinding their support of her on the basis that she's not a "pure" republican. Famously, Ms. McCain differs from her party on the issue of marriage equality. Among other Republican tenets, she claims she is, in fact "pro-life".
As a college student with a decent exposure to critical analysis of language, every kind of red flag goes off when I hear a euphemism as asinine and misleading as that one. Instead of brushing it off as political jargon, and shoving it under the umbrella of politico-speak that people tend to unilaterally accept, it’s worth approaching this problem through both a critical literary and psychological lens.
When any ol' Joe/Joanne says they are "pro-life", no one interprets that as a blanket policy on their lives. I know it, you know it, the Pope and Dalai Lama know it, Joe/Joanne is anti-abortion. When someone says they are "pro-choice", they mean they support a woman's right to choose to have a baby or not. This is again one of those stupid political jargon backwards ways of saying things that seems so slight but is actually wholly detrimental. By dancing around the touchy subject of abortion, we run the risk of not fully grasping the implications of the actually issue. Call it what it is, people.
People vastly underestimate language and I’m damn sick of it. Every single word you say reveals something about yourself, and when you are dealing with societal and governmental issues that have significant weight with people you can’t afford to throw around the world’s most vague and arbitrary terms, in hope that constituents will forget what you are actually implying and just go along with your perfectly pressed suit and combed hair. Honestly, I don't care how white your teeth are or what kind of font adorns your campaign posters, you are a politician and thus inherently self-serving and unreliable. No textbook or lobbyist or well written essay in defense of bullshitting can do anything that would make me think any differently. Politicians have been the same for literally thousands of years, beginning with the Roman Republic and Empire. Rhetoric is a key persuasive device. The hard part is finding a population educated enough to digest this rhetoric as opposed to swallowing it whole.
The "pro-life" euphemism is an interesting beast, because it doesn't directly imply anything negative. Identifying yourself as "pro-life" connotes a benevolent spirit of morality. Where it does the damage, however, is in the subtle implication that people who don't identify themselves as "pro-life", are, in fact, "pro-death". (While one could argue that the term "pro-choice" functions similarly to "pro-life" by implying some people are against choices altogether, I still feel as though "pro-choice" is significantly more germane to the actual issue, and thus an acceptable, direct way of expressing one's opinion on abortion).
Some might say this is "looking too far into it" or "over-analyzing". I firmly believe there is no such thing as over-analyzing, except in one's personal relationships pertaining to deeply rooted insecurities (obviously I've never experienced this and know my mature and intellectual readers haven't either...).
I cannot stress enough how strongly I believe one needs to cultivate their language like a garden, weeding out the unnecessary and usurping words and nourishing those that directly express one's desired intent. Little literary and oratorical issues that are ubiquitous in politics go unnoticed by many, who inadvertently make themselves susceptible to sheep-dom. Unfortunately for us, propaganda is aimed to swindle/convince the public into supporting something based off of any number of things; tag lines, bright colors, font style and size, etc, and it's quite an undertaking to challenge the conventions of language that people blindly accept.
Obviously, no one is an orator all the time. I myself employ my fair share of profanity and "awesome"s, "like"s, and "sweet!!"s. This is my colloquial speech, which everyone is entitled to. The key here is that I'm not a public figure, let alone a political figure with any kind of mass influence. However, language is still important. It can be subtle and beautiful and confrontational, but in a field as important as politics it should never be subversive, indirect, ambiguous, or meaningless.
Honestly thought, pro-life? “I am for living, the one thing that unequivocally ties all people together. I support the only thing I’ve ever known”. Seriously??
new post new post!!!
ReplyDelete