Phrases Of Pretense
Politicization of complex issues invariably reduces them to for or against, black and white versions that do not resemble the realities of the actual issues
The use of phrases to claim the “moral/ethical/principled” high ground in politics is common but adds no value. Indeed, these phrases are typically disingenuous, diverting attention from the actual purpose and goal of a point of view. It’s a form of mislabeling meant to take ownership of an issue or agenda by implying that opposing views are without merit and morally suspect. As technology has increased the rate and quantity (but not quality) of communication (via social networks), phrases are weapons of choice in cultural and ideological “wars.”
The phrase “pro life” is at the top of the list. The implied meaning is that those who are pro choice are also anti life. A more appropriate and correct phrase would be no choice, not pro life, but that would create a more negative (and more accurate) portrayal of those who oppose choice for women. And, of course, as with so many phrases, these demonstrate the vast oversimplification of a complicated topic. The politicization of complex issues invariably reduces them to for or against, black and white versions that do not resemble the realities of the actual issues.
Although quite young, I remember the phrase “my country right or wrong” from the years of the Vietnam War. This conflict was a classic example of poorly conceived and executed U.S. policy — including, in this case, ignoring the experience of France in the same place trying to do the same thing. It divided the country into conservative versus left-of-conservative factions. To add to the divisiveness of the phrase, those supporting the war would march with American flags, a clear assertion that “patriots” were for the war…and implying that those who opposed the war were not. That the loyal opposition were also patriots was dismissed with the phrase, denying that wrong really meant wrong.
The phrase “nanny state” is a condescending reference to socialism (and “big government”) used frequently by conservatives, ignoring the varied and complex meanings of actual socialism in dozens of developed economies. Not only does the phrase completely ignore this, it also pretends that significant and widely accepted socialism doesn’t exist in the U.S. Conservatives seem rather obsessed with phrases in general as a form of communication, preferring simplicity — however inaccurate — to details and data. Their ideological principles, themselves simplistic and untethered from reality, are promoted with equally simplistic phrases.
There are lots of these phrases, and they are part of politics in every society. The underlying universal problem with them is how insufficient they are for political dialogue and conversation. Consider the phrase “make America great again.” It’s really quite meaningless despite sounding and reading like it has substance. What does great mean and when was the country great compared to now. As so often the case, it depends who you ask. The details, with coherent context and discussion, are not included with the phrase. What does come along with it are inane campaign rhetoric “solutions” that fail even the most cursory examination.
Of course, as a pragmatist, I’m inherently skeptical of what often passes for debate and argument in politics. When a senior citizen socialist candidate asks his young followers if they’re ready for a political revolution, I wonder if they understand how completely unrealistic both the question and its principles are in a country mired in political division and dysfunction. Without functional discussion and compromise, none of his platform would ever be implemented, assuming he could become the nominee of his party and then become president. In democracies, revolutions are not compatible with responsible governance.
Perhaps you remember when the current president, Barack Obama, campaigned on the theme of change. That was less ambitious than revolution, but when it comes to phrases it really doesn’t matter. Without moderation in the political center, the promise of real change couldn’t happen. The far-less-than-loyal opposition had no intention of working with him for the good of the country, so change became sporadic and incomplete. Getting things done takes far more than phrases.
Skepticism and doubt are the wisest initial responses to phrases — unlike the gullible who readily accept them and even proclaim them as telling it like it is. What they really mean is hearing what they already agree with regardless of how simplistic, derogatory or ludicrous. This confirmational bias is how marginal candidates manage to attract unjustified attention, aided by how little their supporters grasp about the actual task of presiding over a nation of diversity and pluralism that faces complex issues and equally complicated solutions. Phrases do not begin to describe the qualities of competence and leadership needed for the job. That would really be telling it like it is.
