Politicians and lies
Politicians. To quote Stephen Fry, "Like them or loathe them, you'd be mad not to loathe them." With the amount of sleaze going on in today's 'democratic' system, it's easy to see why the title of politician has practically become a dirty word. The question is; how do they get away with it all?
There is no one simple answer. The ability to blatantly deceive and lie can be attributed to a multitude of factors: Poor accountability, structural failures of the political system. Whatever the issue, it's obvious that politicians are about as good at their job as the England football team, and about as expensive to keep on the payroll, too! Manipulation of the English language, however, is perhaps one of the most prevalent ways in which politicians manage to consistently fail at their jobs and not get fired as one would if one were to fail any other profession as miserably as some politicians do theirs.
The problem is not just with British politicians. Corruption and conniving is practically a prerequisite of politics worldwide. Take President Nixon, for instance. When confronted on his crimes of the Watergate scandal, where he invaded the privacy of the Democrat party's offices, he eluded accountability by answering scathing yes-or-no questions with a torrent of vague drivel:
"You got caught up in something and it snowballed?
It snowballed, and it was my fault. I'm not blaming anybody else. I'm simply saying to you that as far as I'm concerned, I not only regret it. I indicated my own beliefs in this matter when I resigned. People didn't think it was enough to admit mistakes; fine. If they want me to get down and grovel on the floor; no, never. Because I don't believe I should. On the other hand there are some friends who say, "just face 'em down. There's a conspiracy to get you." There may have been. I don't know what the CIA had to do. Some of their shenanigans have yet to be told, according to a book I read recently. I don't know what was going on in some Republican, some Democratic circles as far as the so-called impeachment lobby was concerned. However, I don't go with the idea that there ... that what brought me down was a coup, a conspiracy etc. I brought myself down. I gave them a sword, and they stuck it in and they twisted it with relish. And I guess if I had been in their position, I'd have done the same thing."
Nixon was asked a direct yes or no question, yet chose to answer with a lengthy rationalisation for his actions. This practice of blatantly flouting Grice's maxim of quantity achieves a number of things. It lets the politician in question take a scathing question and diffuse the criticality of it by waffling on until the question is forgotten, leaving people to try and make sense of the superfluous answer. They hide from accountability behind their long words and complex, pre-prepared responses. They try and make their mistakes or wrongdoings seem practically logical by portraying themselves as the experts by holding the floor and using negative politeness strategies.
But politicians aren't always like Nixon. They don't always own up to mistakes, but quibble over the pettiest details to try and change their mistakes from a searing indictment of failures by corrupt politicians to a victory of the system; a proof of the total success of government. Such instances are seen with the current coalition government, such as when Cameron hiked up tuition fees. Instead of apologising for breaking yet another coalition promise, he focused on why he broke it and on the hypothetical boons of raising tuition.
In this sense, politicians are like children in trouble. They break trust and lie in order to get their way, yet when they're asked to say sorry for being naughty, they try and justify their actions instead of apologising; an act of face-saving. This begs the question, why haven't Cameron and others of his ilk been put on the naughty step?
This same question is raised in the works of George Orwell. Not only in his fictional works such as 1984, where he calls political language 'Doublespeak'; A modified language designed to absolve and glorify government, but also his many research papers, such as "Politics and the English Language", in which he says "Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
There is no question. Politicians are often manipulative and untruthful, and they use the English language as a tool through which they deceive and excuse themselves of blame.
References:
Websites-
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/07/greatinterviews1
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-on-education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language
Books-
1984, George Orwell
-By Josh Corbin
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.