Like Humans Do: The Deterioration of Language in our Political Discourse

The Republican presidential debates illustrate perfectly a central problem of American political discourse. Our policy discussions have been dumbed down to the point that candidate platforms seem tailored around slogans, instead of the converse. We require no substance, and receive no substance, from our elected officials.

Take the current discussion on health care reform. It basically boils down to whether "Obamacare" is like "Romneycare," and whether either of these policies is compatible with some meaningless idea of "freedom." The very fact that we use "Obamacare" instead of, say, the Affordable Care Act, is indicative of the problem with the way we communicate. We hardly discuss policy costs, the bases of the reforms, or the way that they actually benefit or burden people.

A second example: Herman Cain is running on his 9-9-9 tax plan. The name is catchy. And most economists say that the proposal is completely unworkable. Yet Cain continues to promote it without being held accountable, and people are still taking him and his ideas seriously (apparently very seriously, according to the latest polls). At bottom, we have stopped using adult language and critical thinking when considering issues and candidates.

I imagine part of the reason that voter turnout is so low and Congress' approval rating is below 20% is because we rarely hear any substance-laden discussions from our elected officials. Again, to receive substance, we must require substance. We must reject talking points and demand facts. As the body politic within a democracy, it is our duty to hold our elected officials accountable. But we cannot do so unless we change the language of our discourse; up the sophistication and begin interacting like humans do. 

And now, David Byrne.