Words, Words, Words

 

It is hardly a revelation to say that words have power. They can delight, inform, edify, inspire and destroy. Unfortunately, it is the the latter effect that we see all too frequently today. One only has to look at the various cesspools to be found on social media to see this in action, and the tragic results of depraved online bullying. No one is immune.

And what is true about the misuse of language by individuals is also true of countries. In her most recent column, Shree Paradkar points out how the Israel's insidious misuse seems designed to obscure its atrocities in Gaza.

Who are Palestinians in Gaza? The Israeli government and its supporters would have us believe they are anything but innocent civilians. 

This is important. Denying the innocence of the thousands killed during Israel’s onslaught allows its leaders to justify civilian deaths or to proffer a rationalization that “they brought it on themselves,” while blaming everything on Hamas. 

Conflating all Palestinians with the evil of Hamas allows for the dehumanization of all Gazans, essentially equating the citizens with terrorism.

Former Mossad chief Rami Igra told CNN's Anderson Cooper last month that “The ‘non-combatant population in the Gaza Strip’ is really a non-existent term. Because all of the Gazans voted for Hamas. And as we have seen on the 7th of October, most of the population on the Gaza Strip are Hamas.” 

Cooper didn’t push back, but this is blatantly untrue. There have been no elections in Gaza since 2006, when Hamas won with 44 per cent of the vote, and in no district did it win a majority. Today, nearly half the population of Gaza is under 18; they were either not born when Hamas came into power or not eligible to cast a ballot then. It means only a fraction of today's Gazans ever voted for Hamas. 

Such a tact means that Israel can justify all manner of war crimes.

It allowed for Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant to refer to Palestinians and Hamas militants as “human animals.” And for Israel’s ambassador to Berlin, Ron Prosor, to double down on those comments and say the western world must stand with Israel as it fights the “bloodthirsty animals” of Hamas, who are used interchangeably with Gazans.

Accepting that premise means that we should not care what happens to Gazans, thereby justifying

attacks on targets such as hospitals and schools that are protected by humanitarian law by claiming that they are in fact “military infrastructure.” Israeli evidence of Hamas using hospitals and schools as hideouts and bases has not been independently corroborated and remains contentious. But whatever the truth, Israel and its supporters use these claims to absolve themselves of any responsibility for civilian casualties.

All who accept such premises really become complicit in the ongoing slaughter, and no clever linguistic nuances or semantics can change that fact.

George Orwell many years ago warned us about the political use of language. Sadly, it would seem that whatever lessons he tried to impart are long forgotten today.

 

On Demagogues Debasing Language

“[The English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts... if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

― George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

The language sins of politicians are many, but there is surely a special place in hell for those whose distortions, lies and hyperbole ultimately render words meaningless. Such are the sins of demagogues like Donald Trump and Doug Ford.

While a single post cannot hope to address all the complexities of language abuse, I'd like to offer a very limited exploration of why language is so regularly debased today, especially by the aforementioned culprits:

1 - Neither Donald Trump nor Doug Ford is very bright. As Orwell said, our language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish. The truth of this is readily apparent if, for example, one notes the fondness with which Donald Trump abuses the mother tongue.

Trump uses a pretty small working vocabulary. This doesn’t seem to be a conscious strategy, though it works as well as if it had been. Much was made during primary season of the way in which reading-level algorithms (unreliable though they are) found his speeches pitched at fourth-grade level, ie the comprehension of an average nine-year-old.

The workhorses of his rhetoric are charged but empty adjectives and adverbs. Things are “great”, “wonderful”, “amazing”, “the best”, or they’re “crooked”, “fake”, “unfair”, “failing”. He sprinkles intensifiers liberally: “a very, very, very amazing man, a great, great developer”.

Concisely put, the simple language mirrors a simple mind or, as the NYT succinctly put it, Trump has the intellectual depth of a coat of paint.

Like Donald Trump, Doug Ford's language reveals a paucity of intellectual heft, a fact reflected in his use of hyperboles, absolutes and superlatives. Consider his statement about chum Ron Taverner (found at the two-minute mark on the linked video):

"There's never been a more popular police officer in this province than Ron Taverner..."

"The front-line police officers, the OPP, are more excited than anyone. They're looking forward to actually having a commissioner that actually cares about the front-line people."

He will be the best commissioner that the OPP has ever seen."

And then there is this whopper:

He also praised Taverner as “a cop’s cop” and insisted OPP officers have been ringing his phone off the hook.

Sadly, people like Ford and Trump, as I wrote in a recent post, are oblivious to their limitations, instead fancying themselves to be the smartest person in the room. This delusion prompts them to make the kinds of statements that invite only ridicule and dismissal from discerning minds, while having a totally different effect on their base of supporters.

2 - A coincident fact is that supporters of demagogues tend to like language that is simple and direct. It helps to solidify their world as one of absolutes, either good or bad, black or white. Real thinking entails hard work, but because we tend to be a rather lazy species, when a politician offers the 'answers' without requiring any cerebration, many will readily swallow the Kool-Aid. A world of absolutes can be very comforting, and helps to demonstrate that the demagogue is 'a man of the people.'

Consider the above examples in this light: "great",“amazing”, “the best”. "He will be the best commissioner that the OPP has ever seen." There is no room for doubt in such language, is there?

And unfortunately, it can be very effective. In his 2016 book, “Enough Said: What’s Gone Wrong with the Language of Politics?”, Mark Thompson examined effect of Donald Trump's fractured pronouncements:

“Trump’s appeal as a presidential candidate depends significantly on the belief that he is a truth-teller who will have nothing to do with the conventional language of politics,” warning that:

“We shouldn’t confuse anti-rhetorical ‘truth telling’ with actually telling the truth. One of the advantages of this positioning is that once listeners are convinced that you’re not trying to deceive them in the manner of a regular politician, they may switch off the critical faculties they usually apply to political speech and forgive you any amount of exaggeration, contradiction, or offensiveness. And if establishment rivals or the media criticize you, your supporters may dismiss that as spin.”

Without doubt, this analysis is equally applicable to Mr. Ford's acolytes, who show cult-like to their man, despite his manifest incompetence, an incompetence that Martin Regg Cohn addresses at some length in his column today:

Our embattled premier is uniquely accursed because he is so often the author of his own misfortune. At year-end, Ford keeps running the ball into his own end zone — colliding with allies, trampling on teammates, fumbling at every turn, blinded by hubris.

Unquestionably, my post barely scratches the surface of how demagogues abuse language. Clearly, however, an informed awareness is the best defence against such debasement succeeding, but that awareness can only come with an engaged and thinking electorate, the greatest enemy of people like Doug Ford and Donald Trump.