Modern public discourse

very interesting article here on the language used by politicians....

http://www.tnr.com/blog/john-mcwhorter/what-does-palinspeak-mean

Palinese itself isn't that difficult to understand. Governor Palin seems to be a novice in a lot of things, a necessity which she has turned into virtue. Ou la chevre est lie e faut qu'elle broute. It makes her a maverick by default. In other words, factual ignorance is political bliss; grammatical errors and tortured syntax are actually authentic representations of the righteous rage of the Sixpack & Tea Partysan demographic, which will not be fooled again by predatory lenders or the intellectual elite. Not knowing something makes her an outsider to people who do know something. And this is a good thing in an era of sound bite political philosophy, of paint-by-numbers word pictures that replace the ever suspect deep thought.

grammatical errors and tortured syntax are actually authentic representations of the righteous rage of the Sixpack & Tea Partysan demographic

oh yes, this I agree with. As the article said, she is an avatar of how a huge segment of society in America ...well, 'think', for want of a better word.

Not knowing something makes her an outsider to people who do know something. And this is a good thing in an era of sound bite political philosophy, ..

although I don't agree with this.

How can such stupidity be a good thing?

"grammatical errors and tortured syntax are actually authentic representations of the righteous rage of the Sixpack & Tea Partysan demographic"

That may be the case, but it doesn't mean that "Palinese" isn't that difficult to understand. How is it possible to understand something that makes no sense, either grammatically or logically?

Here's an example from her vice-presidential debate with Biden:

"PALIN: One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all of this. It's not the American peoples fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of."

The first sentence is appalling, but, to her credit, she improves during the answer. In short, she's saying that beer drinkers and hockey moms should not overspend (on beer?) and neither should the federal government.

One has to listen differently to this sort of conversational style. Rather than taking cues from the introduction of a subject of discussion with the expectation that a coherent argument will follow, one listens for key phrases, like "every day American people", "Sixpack," "band together," "never again," "debt," "personal responsibility," "never again." What one takes from these key phrases is the following:

1. She's talking to "us"; she likes us
2. We are "the people"
3. We are responsible
4. We want the government to be responsible

Speaking to a target audience that has the attention span of a mature gnat, this rhetorical style absolutely works. The "weeds" of the discussion (is the government to blame?, is Wall Street to blame?, are lenders to blame?, is deficit spending sometimes necessary?, etc.) would just get in the way of the appreciation of the beautiful flower on stage, and hey, we are beautiful flowers too.

Murr, thankfully at present the tea partiers are a small fraction of the political landscape here, for all the attention Palin receives, many Democrats fantasize about her running for President in 2012. Most of us think this would be the final nail in the coffin of the GOP. Nobody except nimnuls want a nimnul looking at the levers of power and wandering how to use them. Sarah P makes for a lot of controversy and press, but she gets very low polling numbers when people are asked if she should actually BE somebody.

I've stopped putting energy toward fighting the idea of Sarah Palin. It's possible the very best thing that could happen to this country would be for her to be elected President. The Republicans would do what they did for GWBush and give her all the expert Republican help she can take (we could call it, ummm... PalinCo). Four more years of Republicans ought to do for them just fine. It would be bitter medicine for the US and other parts of the world, but it would cure US of all these Atlas Shrugged fantasies and the idea that Republicans make sense.

Besides, the big money is scared to death of Sarah Palin. The oligarchs won't allow her to become President. They really love Barack Obama. Pretty much the only people who use the empty shell that is the Republican Party are professional Republicans, lawmakers, pundits and so forth, Tea Partiers, although they will tell you the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats, but if they want to cast a meaningful vote that more or less represents their views it will have to be for the GOP. Every vote for a Tea Party Candidate running as a Tea Partier takes a vote away from the GOP, not the Democrats. Big Money has seen the error of their ways with regard to the near disaster of 2008, with the exception of some large banking houses, yet, and does not trust the Republicans, especially since they are beginning to realize the Republicans are Stoopid and the Tea Party is with Stoopid.

The other group that makes up the current GOP coalition is made up of various elements of the Christian Evangelical Movement in America. The youngsters in this group are leaving the Republicans and coming to Obama in droves from what I understand. The Oligarchs are not happy having to share a party with a group whose desire is to start a nuclear war in the Valley of Megiddo as soon as it can be arranged.

Big Money is in an interesting position and so far seems to like Obama just fine where he is.

I think it means she speaks extemporaneously, among other things.

Does anyone see Biden's answer, also included there, as somehow more substantive? I don't see that.

Geneg, you are such a cynic!

I've pretty much had to give up politics. It just puts me in a sour funk that can last for days.

Cynical, not so much. Realistic, yes. However, if cynicism has crept into my attitude it's only after eight years of watching America commit sixteen different kinds of suicide under numb nuts while patting itself on the back for how wonderful things were. As long as America is stuck in this Republican dream the only thing that can awaken US is to have it turn into the nightmare it is. When one whole political party, one of the only two that matter, refuses to walk in the bright sunshine of reality and continues to sulk in the dark corners of their alternate universe, demanding Atlas shrug, we are in a sh*tpot full of trouble. I feel my blood pressure rising just thinking about it.

As for extemporaneous speaking, I think there is some of that, but what makes her so poor as a speaker is while speaking off the cuff she has to remember to include all the shibboleths included in #5. Having to dip into a dictionary of phrases that must be included while speaking off the cuff can make your remarks non-sensical. I'm not sure she speaks off the cuff much anyway.

Remember if not for that bore McCain (the 'Maverick') we would not hear much from Palin, Joe the Plumber, even that nit wit Mike Fuckabee. Palin is someone you might find at a wrestling match, a car race, or a rural bowling alley. Of course they are more than ok at those venues, as a potential prezident, or national spokesman - quite another matter.

All very interesting responses.

Theoria, I think you're spot on with your analysis of Palin's style, and how it is received. Ironically, you managed to summarise in 14 words what it took Palin to say in 175.

Geneg, from someone who looks in from the outside at American politics, the Republicans are still an absolute mystery.

One sentence from the article struck with me:

someone more commenting on impressions as they enter and leave her head rather than constructing insights about them.

I think this is a very accurate description of what she is doing with her language. Trouble is don't we all have the right to expect from our leaders, or from people who aspire to lead us, that they can do a little more than 'voice impressions as they come and go'? Don't we have the right to expect someone who can 'construct insights.' Slick, Biden at least gave that impression, with his organisation into four sub points.

on a side note here, I just completed reading Infinite Jest, and it struck me that DFW was trying to do the same thing with his prose: describe characters who have impressions that come and go, rather than being capable of forming insights about their dilemmas.

It does not seem to me that using "buzz words" to emotionally, but not rationally, communicate with your dupes, I mean audience, is that new. Palin is only the last in a long line that includes Fr. Coughlin and other demagogues.

Eliciting emotion with buzz words is not leading, it is just manipulating.

Wow, my first sentence was a double negative... typing on the fly and hitting "submit", not a good idea.

Then go back and erase it, Anna. Or "edit" it, if the notion of rewriting history bothers you.

You know, sometimes when I listen to pop music, I hear phrases used in the same evocative way as the "buzz words" Anna referred to. Bob Dylan (sorry about that Gene), the Doors, the Stones ... The use of words (and images) to get into one's mind, naively thought (by such as us good guys) to be confined to advertising, is in fact the way of the world nowadays, except for those with a stern conscience who refuse to go that way, though they might well be influential too if they chose to trigger the conditioned responses of others.

more on buzz words:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/21/conservative-labour-study-of-spee...

from the General Election campaign in the UK.