Similar
to other posts, I decided to analyze an excerpt from the 2016 presidential race
in order to illustrate the use of pretentious diction and wordy phrases used by
nominees to come off as intellectual and accurate. In particular, I assessed Hillary
Clinton’s speech accepting the party’s nomination for president, and I found
several examples where Clinton implemented unnecessary and meaningless words
and phrases in an attempt to confuse the general public and support her claims.
I believe the 2016 presidential race is an obvious example that supports
Orwell’s claims in his analysis of politics and the English language.
First
of all, Clinton actively incorporates pretentious diction throughout her speech
in order to portray herself has highly intelligent and qualified for the
position. For example, Clinton includes words like, “unruly,” “reckoning,”
“paralysis”, “undermine,” “decimated,” “staggering”, and “stark” throughout her
speech in order to foster a well-informed and intelligent perception by the
public. According to Orwell, this complex and unique diction Clinton uses
throughout her speech is an effort to dress up simple statements and give an
air of culture and elegance. Orwell goes on to argue that punctuality and clear
word choice should remain the focus of English language. Clinton’s speech is an
apparent example of communicating through total vagueness seen in the
pretentious diction observed throughout her speech.
Clinton
also includes confusing and wordy phrases throughout her speech further supporting
Orwell’s claims leading to a vague message. For example, phrases like “we all
know the story, but we usually focus on how it turned out, and not enough on
how close that story came to never being written at all” coupled with “perils
of today's world will blind us to its unlimited promise” and “enough with the
bigotry and bombast” are three of many phrases Clinton strategically molded in
an effort to deceive the audience into several different interpretations. This
tactic that Orwell frowns upon makes sense in a presidential race as candidates
are looking to bring in as many votes as they can. When Clinton neglects to
implement decisive and simplistic writing in her speeches, she appeals to a
wider audience due to the vagueness and multiple meanings of what she says.
As
illustrated in Clinton’s acceptance speech and most political speeches in
general, vagueness and wordiness are often preferred over precise and
meticulous diction. This is a deliberate effort to confuse and misconstrue the
general public as to what the individuals’ true principles revolve around.
Although this method benefits political candidates, the general public is
unable to grasp true intentions and beliefs of candidates. If politics were to
actively utilize Orwell’s suggestions and claims, I don’t think politics would
be nearly as convoluted and cut-throat as the system currently is.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/hillary-clintons-dnc-2016-speech-read-the-full-transcript-a7161481.html
Joey –
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your analysis of Hillary Clinton’s DNC acceptance speech. I think you make a great point that Clinton uses large words and often strategically skirts around questions using wordy phrases meant to take attention away from the original question. Orwell might argue that Clinton’s pretentious diction is not so pretentious but rather more meaningless. He argues that many politicians abuse words or use them in improper ways to make themselves seem more educated. Do you think Clinton uses more pretentious dictation or meaningless words throughout her speech? Clinton’s wordy and vague phrases are definitely aligned with Orwell’s statement “Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” This vagueness aids to the sentence being interpreted in many different ways with no one completely understanding what her true point is.
You make an interesting point that the reason for Clinton’s vagueness and wordiness is to appeal to a wider range of voters, secure more votes, and ultimately win the presidential election. Do you believe it could also be to seem as though she is committing to certain objectives but still retaining the ability to retract her commitment based on no concrete and simple acknowledgment of what she is actually going to do? It is true that many voters are confused on candidate’s principles and platforms because they often are not very clear or do not commit to certain initiatives. I also agree that if politicians, media sources, newspapers, and other forms of information could actively use Orwell’s suggestions that our political landscape would be a lot easier to understand. It would aid to more knowledgeable voters who would challenge individuals to precisely commit to their word and thereby better the nation as a whole.