Washington warned against the two-party system in his farewell address, and his logic has never seemed as obvious as during the 2016 election cycle. The two-party system will divide the country, he thought, and promote an "us versus them" narrative that's harmful to the efficacy of our government.
The rhetoric used in the 2016 presidential race blatantly reinforces that narrative, and its style would almost certainly make Orwell cringe were he alive to bear witness. Consider this excerpt from the conclusion of Hillary Clinton's DNC speech:
"But here's the sad truth: There is no other Donald Trump. This is it.
And in the end, it comes down to what Donald Trump doesn't get: America
is great – because America is good.
So
enough with the bigotry and the bombast. Donald Trump's not offering
real change. He's offering empty promises. What are we offering? A bold
agenda to improve the lives of people across our country - to keep you
safe, to get you good jobs, to give your kids the opportunities they
deserve. The choice is clear, my friends.
Every generation of
Americans has come together to make our country freer, fairer, and
stronger. None of us ever have or can do it alone."
Orwell's quotes are certainly relevant here. There's a lot of vagueness throughout, and plenty of loaded words. Her assessment of Trump definitely lacks precision and the imagery her plan invokes is definitely stale. Unqualified words like "good," "freer," "fairer," and "stronger" probably play well to an unconscious audience but carry little concrete meaning. A lot of it sounds like an attempt to make wind appear solid-- to further divide and distract voters from the real issues with our system.
The resulting message reinforces the two-party regime. Basically, it's either us or Trump, she says, encouraging the idea of a two-sided game and omitting third-party ideas entirely. She goes on to tell voters that in order to not feel alone, they can come aboard, no questions asked. In doing so, she's guilty of promoting short-term, incremental party gains over long-term transformation.
Orwell takes special care to point out that all parties are guilty of using hazy language, though. Take this from Trump's RNC speech:
"But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens.
USA, USA, USA. My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and
dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief
from uncontrolled immigration. Which is what we have now. Communities
want relief.
Yet Hillary Clinton is proposing mass amnesty, mass
immigration and mass lawlessness. Her plan will overwhelm your schools
and hospitals, further reduce your jobs and wages, and make it harder
for recent immigrants to escape the tremendous cycle of from poverty
that they're going through right now, and make it almost impossible for
them to join the middle class."
Again we see the relevance of Orwell's quotes in today's politics. Hillary's plans are described in a lot of ways-- radical, dangerous, lawless, overwhelming-- but it's tough to pinpoint what Trump feels make them this way. His specific meaning is lost among his colorful language, and again the theme becomes "us versus them."
Convention speeches may not be the proper platform to engage in specifics, that's true. But that doesn't mean that these two aren't guilty of using ambiguous language to sway public perception. Their words are designed to make the electorate feel inferior and conform to their party's ideals. The meaning of their words ride shotgun to the emotional appeals they're going for. And most significantly, their statements are intended to turn the election into a two-sided competition of good versus evil rather than an objective assessment of what's best for all of us. Bad speech, here, leads to a bad political system.
Spencer,
ReplyDeleteI also analyzed the 2016 presidential race and couldn’t agree more with your assertions. I have become frustrated with the changing political landscape as candidates are more focused on finding faults/discrepancies of their opponents as opposed to clearly defining principles and ideologies they intend to carry out as president. Vague and unclear diction seems like it has become the easy escape for presidential candidates. Similar to our class discussions, I think the ambiguous language frequently observed in politics is a push to appeal to a wider array of people. With that said, once these candidates get elected president, there is often disappointment as the public base their expectations off of the confusing promises they perceive from the vague political language at hand. Consequently, I completely agree with your final point that bad speech leads to a bad political system. I appreciated your concluding paragraph when you acknowledged how politics might not be the best platform do analyze Orwell’s findings, but this landscape is smothered in what Orwell says not to do. I wonder if the general public will start to notice this misleading tactic resulting in an improved political platform in the future.