1
1
1
In other words, to be articulate is to be dishonest, to be a hustler at the very least (a sentiment captured hilariously by The Onion: "International Con Man Barack Obama Leaves U.S. with $85 million in Campaign Fundraising" ). And at most, a powerful orator can rob a person of their minds, and turn them into "zombies," as one commenter wrote. They can be a Hitler or a Jim Jones, who uses words to "brainwash" the masses into unspeakable acts.
And no doubt, the powerful orator like Obama, like Martin Luther King, like Ronald Reagan, like Jim Jones, and Hitler can move the masses to action.
But this is where the analogy ends.
There is a profound difference between orators who use language to compel us towards greater horizons, towards kindness, towards industry, towards equality like Martin Luther King Jr. than those who compel us towards hatred, division, and destruction, like Hitler.
The powerful speaker as Obama is can bring out the best in the masses. Consider when MLK, in a time when blacks and whites were segregated, shared his dream, "that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'" And consider, now, how far we've come from that moment, with Obama as president. Consider FDR, amidst the Depression, asking for strength: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." These words like "Yes We Can" have the power to move us towards a brighter future, to bring out the best in us, to motivate us to overcome the challenges we face.
If anything, we should fear those who talk in elliptical vagaries, like Palin and Bush. We should fear those speakers who cannot compose their thoughts with clarity and specificity, as the inimitable George Orwell argues in his famous and still relevant essay "Politics and the English Language." Words matter very much in a democracy, and the "fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers." Incoherent language reflects incoherent thought, as Orwell eloquently describes: "the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." In other words, we should fear those who misuse language, who create false analogies, who speak in circles, for this is perhaps a habit of mind. And this habit of mind can fundamentally corrupt a democracy, which is based on freedom of speech.
And ultimately, Orwell shows us that we should be wary of those, like Sowell, who use manipulative and ill-conceived metaphors to exploit our deepest fears such over-used analogies, as Orwell claims, can "corrupt thought," as the image overrides the reality. In other words, we confuse the metaphor with the actual reality. In this way, the language is "debased," misrepresenting reality, "concealing or preventing thought."
What value is freedom of speech if that speech has no value?
Real change in democracy, Orwell claims, begins with language: "If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration." And while certainly, Orwell would have ripped Obama for his vagaries like "Hope" and "Change" Obama appears to be a step in the right direction, towards a more elevated political discourse.
Words do matter. They reflect and shape the way we think. And we should honor good, clear, specific, and eloquent language, rather than distrust or discredit it.
1 | 2
