The language of modern politics is unforgiving, especially for those who are unfamiliar with the abundance of lingo… but has it always been this way? After all, politics relates to governance of a country or region and its people, so shouldn’t the everyday person be entitled to understand what is going on without long-winded dribble? George Orwell certainly thought so. With the help of Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language”, let us dive into common problems with political speak and see how we can make it more appealing for the masses!
Passing the wrong baton
When a leader adopts a certain style of speech, it’s not unusual for those under him/her to follow in their stead. This is great if the leader is motivational and inspiring, but it’s a double-edged sword that can create generations of ramblers if leaders are consistently long winded. The longer it continues, the more desensitised people become to political talk.
“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuation of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus, political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness,” writes Orwell.
While Orwell’s examples have faded into history, you could replace them with just about any bit of contemporary news. People arguing over British or Chinese rule in Hong Kong, the silencing of news and entertainment networks, the bloody conflict between Israel and Palestine… same problems, different packaging.
“It is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influences of this or that individual writer,” explains Orwell. “But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely… [English] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible.”
In the past, we’ve covered Orwell’s essay briefly to identify the four common faults of modern writing. Here’s a quick recap:
1. Reject dying metaphors – sayings like “left in the dust” or “crushed by an iron fist” are overused and have lost their novelty. Orwell urges you to come up with your own creative variations (e.g. try “forgotten like the Luddites” or “a wooden raft in a tsunami”).
2. Reject operators or verbal false limbs – phrases like “render inoperable” or “serve the purpose of” are needless filler that can be replaced with more concise wording (eg. “break” or “stands as”). These operators tend to give your sentence a passive voice, which further impacts persuasion.
3. Reject pretentious diction – replace every difficult word with an easier one if possible. From scientific jargon like “phenomenon” and foreign words like “deus ex machina” to fancy adjectives like “epoch-making”, why not use “occurrence”, “divine intervention” or “historical”?
4. Reject meaningless words – many words have lost their meaning after decades of misuse. In the past, “fascism” represented dictatorship and oppression – now it’s used so willy-nilly that anytime a leader does something undesirable, they get called a fascist (like former President Trump). Instead of calling someone a fascist, be precise and identify their bad traits to show why you disapprove of them.
Fixing political writing
Let’s try applying Orwell’s lessons to some modern day examples. Here’s an excerpt from Carrie Lam's inauguration speech as Hong Kong’s Chief Executive on July 1, 2017:
"Strengthening people’s trust in the HKSAR Government is a key task of me and my team. For some time there has been a tendency to make cynical accusations, and to put personal grudges before objective facts. This has hurt the executive-legislature relationship, hindered governing effectiveness and directly dragged down our economic and social progress. During my campaign, I pledged to bring in a new style of governance to restore social harmony and rebuild public trust in the government. On the day I announced my line-up of Principal Officials, I promised to resolve problems for the people by being “Innovative”, “Interactive” and “Collaborative”. In due course, we will take forward specific measures to provide more opportunities for young people to take part in public policy discussions and implementation. By doing so, we aim not only to enhance their understanding of and trust in the government, but also to nurture future talent and leaders in society and politics.”
Word count: 156
It's a trudge to read through. We can definitely do better.
“Strengthening the people’s trust in the HKSAR Government is essential. Placing personal grudges and accusations before facts has damaged the relationship between law-making and its execution, impeding economic and social progress. My Principal Officials and I pledge to be “Innovative”, “Interactive” and “Collaborative” as we work to restore social harmony and rebuild public trust. We will provide opportunities for young people to participate in public policy discussion and implementation – enhancing their understanding and confidence in our government, while nurturing future generations of outstanding leaders.”
Word count: 84
From comparing the two, you’ll find that the original speech has instances with a passive voice. Swapping it out for the active voice boosts confidence! There are also many sentences that can be combined to reduce wordiness.
Let’s examine an example from the other side of the world. This time, a recent speech from President Biden on the right to vote (July 13, 2021):
"I’m here in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Center — the city and the place where the story of “We the People” — “We the People” began. It’s a story that’s neither simple nor straightforward. That’s because the story is the sum of our parts, and all those parts are fundamentally human. And being human is to be imperfect, driven by appetite and ambition as much as by goodness and grace. But some things in America should be simple and straightforward. Perhaps the most important of those things — the most fundamental of those things — is the right to vote. The right to vote freely. (Applause) The right to vote freely, the right — the right to vote fairly, the right to have your vote counted. The democratic threshold is liberty. With it, anything is possible. Without it, nothing — nothing. And for our democracy and the work — and to deliver our work and [for] our people, it’s up to all of us to protect that right. This is a test of our time and what I’m here to talk about today.”
Word count: 176
At a glance, President Biden’s speech is certainly more colloquial than Carrie Lam’s… but it is not without fault. Time for an edit.
“I’m here in Philadelphia at the National Constitution Centre – the city and the place where the story of “We the People” began. It’s a complicated story about unity and humanity. To be human is to be imperfect, to be driven by appetite and ambition as much as by goodness and grace, but some things in America should be simple and straightforward. The most important and basic being the right to vote. The right to vote freely, fairly and to have it counted. This is liberty and democracy at its core. With it, anything is possible. Without it, we have nothing – for our democracy, the work we do for our people – it is up to all of us to protect that right. This is our test now and what I’m here to talk about today.”
Word count: 134
President Biden’s speech has some good things going on. Although the speech does use political terminology like “liberty” or “democracy”, we believe they don’t fall under Orwell’s classification of meaningless words, as they are used correctly and without intent to deceive. There’s also use of repetition and literary devices to increase persuasion, but we feel it’s used a little too liberally. Imprecise writing like “neither simple nor straightforward” can be revised to “complicated” or “complex”, whereas a saying like “sum of our parts” is old and clichéd – “unity” or “togetherness” would be more suitable.
Politics isn’t for everyone, but whether or not we speak and write like our political leaders is up to us – just because they cloud their language doesn’t mean that we should too. “If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy,” writes Orwell. “You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark, its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself.”