While in an interview with
Jake Tapper from CNN, Donald Trump was asked to address the comments he made
about a judge’s heritage, in which Trump said, and I paraphrase, that the judge
should not have been on the case due to his Mexican Heritage. Jake brought
about the subject saying “You said you thought it was a conflict of interest
that he was the judge (on the Trump University case) because he’s of Mexican
heritage, even though he’s from Indiana.” As they danced about the subject for
a few minutes, there were quotes from each party that emphasized what Orwell
refers to as respectable murder and solid wind. The interaction:
Jake states “…if you are
saying that he can’t do his job because of his race, is that not the definition
of racism?”
Trump responds by saying “No,
I don’t think so at all.”
Jake, puzzled by his response,
says “No?”
“No, He’s proud of his
heritage. I – I respect him for that.”
Jake fires back with “But
you’re saying he can’t do his job because of that.”
Trumps explains to Jake
saying “Look, he’s proud of his heritage, OK. I’m building a wall. Now, I think
I’m going to do very well with Hispanics.”
Now, I’m not here to comment
on my opinion of Trump’s or Tapper’s comments, I simply find this interaction
between the two to be exemplary in terms of Orwell’s definition of political
language. First, let’s look at the accusation of Trump’s comment being racist.
Trumps comment – that the judge being of Mexican descent is a conflict of
interest due to Trump’s intention of building a wall between USA and Mexico –
whether or not it’s racist, has some sense of logic to it. The logic being if you
have a negative reputation amongst a certain subgroup, someone from that
subgroup might not make an objective opinion regarding you.
Now, for Tappers point.
Tapper is on the side of “appearance of solidity to pure wind” and in both of
his main statements/questions, he is saying that Trump has stated the judge can’t
do his job because of his race. He is taking the message of Trump’s statement
and amplifying it, changing the words so that Trump’s statement implies definitive
racism. It’s a lot like our discussion in class about Orwell’s point about how
you can manipulate words. The teacher can’t just say “I believe in killing off
your opponents when you can get good results by doing so,” but the teacher can
manipulate his/her words to make the message sound less harsh. Tapper is
amplifying the shortened, to the point, less acceptable message. Now for Trumps
comments. He’s says the judge is proud of his heritage (Mexican), and therefore
supports the best interest of Mexico, and that he respects that. He’s taking a
comment, and trying to remove any potential racism from it, what Orwell would
call “respectable murder.” He even goes a step further in trying to remove racism
from his comment by saying “I think I’m going to do very well with Hispanics.”
So yes, I agree that this
idea that political language is used to make murder respectable and give solidity
to pure wind is relevant to 2016. The reporter, Jake Tapper, takes the message
of the statement and uses language to make the potential racism in the comment
definitive, while Trump uses language in an attempt to dispose of the idea of
racism in his comment. This idea of solidity and respectable murder can be seen
with any candidate, from any party, in nearly everything they say. This is just
one example of how Orwell’s points are relevant in today’s world.
The full transcript can be found at http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1606/05/sotu.01.html
The full transcript can be found at http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1606/05/sotu.01.html
Grant-
ReplyDeleteGreat post, very informative. Your example is a clear instance of improper language that Orwell describes.
I do have a follow-up question for you, and for the class as a whole, that I am now thinking about:
Although there is poor language in this conversation, is it justifiable considering the circumstances? In this instance, it is clear that Trump's comment needed some sort of clarity and response, hence the interview. While I understand your comparisons between the two men's English language and Orwell's critiques, I don't know if the exchange between them could be much different.
Personally, I am not sure if this is justifiable or not. What I can conclude is that we, as a society, need to quit finding reasons to justify the truly unjustifiable improper uses of English language if we would like to diminish our current political discourse. But how do we do that? Where do we begin?
I'd be interested to hear anyone else's thoughts on this.
Michael -
ReplyDeleteAs for your question as to whether their language is justifiable, in terms of their goals for the interview - absolutely. Each party in this dialogue had a goal, Tapper's was to expose the racism within the comment, and Trump's was to be vague to try to keep as much support as possible. Like we talked about today in class, politicians use vague language because it helps them capture larger audiences. If trump says "well yeah that may have been somewhat racist." then he loses support, which harms his chances of achieving his goal.
So in short, they are justified in using their language to support their goals.
However, the way each of them takes a message and changes the "harshness" of it simply due to their choice of words is a perfect example of how political language is consciously to change the meaning of a message and achieve a goal - neither of them care about the effect of what they are saying has on the English language.
Grant, I completely agree with what you are saying in this post, and I'm glad you pointed out that there are flaws in the language on both sides of the interview. It is clear that Trump is using his words carefully in order to make his previous words about the Mexican heritage of the judge seem less racist and justifiable. He does this by adding his own remarks instead of answering the question asked when he responds, "Look, he's proud of his heritage, OK. I'm building a wall. Now, I think I'm going to do very well with the Hispanics". The question asked was only asking about his ability to do his job and trump didn't address that at all. Instead, he inserted his own remarks about the man being proud of his heritage, and how trump respects that. This is what Orwell would call "the defense of the indefensible". Trump clearly made a remark that, in my opinion, is very racist, and because of this he uses his words to twist the entire conversation into something more "politically correct". All this being said, it is clear that the interviewer is using similar tactics to get Trump to say what the audience wants him to say. The interviewer does this by shaping his questions to elicit a specific response and I am so glad you brought up that perspective because often the interviewer's language can go unnoticed. Well done!
ReplyDeleteI somewhat disagree with your response. Trump has shown time and time again that his form of governance would be in the vain of "take no prisoners". He says what he wants and doesn't think or care about the repercussions, and moreover doesn't give a damn.
ReplyDeleteTrump is a true media genius who knows how to manipulate the media to play his words and sound bites. He is goods at saying a lot of words, but not truly saying much. His language is to the extreme, being overtly controversial to gain free media attention.
The fact is that the words from the leader for the free world will have serious impacts and repercussions. Words shape our world, negative words bring people down, while positive words lift and inspire people.
Tapper is doing what all good journalist should do, and that is to clarify a fact or statement when you think that is could be misunderstood or misinterpreted. He gave Donald Trump the opportunity to clarify and restate his point, but Donald stayed course and insisted that the mans heritage would cloud his judgement.
Jake was doing his job, while Trump looked like an ass.
In closing I will leave you with this quote:
Jane Goodall referring to the actions of Donald Trump in a recent interview with The Atlantic “In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals, In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks.”