Political chaos and the decay of language.

Prime Minister's Question Time at Westminster

On  Wednesday lunchtime, as I munched my sandwich, I watched the mockery that is ‘Prime Minister’s Question Time’ from what was once referred to as the mother of parliaments at Westminster. Today, the House of Commons at Westminster is a pale shadow of its former self – it is largely filled with well meaning second-raters and political chancers. Each week I start with good intentions but rapidly lose faith and turn off the TV in disgust. This event is supposed to hold the Prime Minister and through him or her, the government, to account with searching questions requiring definitive answers. It does neither of these things. The questions posed by the government’s own supporters are sycophantic in the extreme and reduce the whole show to a shambling self congratulatory exercise whilst those posed by the current opposition are totally inept - usually too general or lacking focus or, worse still, worded in such a way that they are easily deflected and made a mockery of by the PM.  The main protagonists are the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Theresa May, the PM, is unwilling or, I suspect, unable to produce anything other than shallow sound bites (“Brexit means Brexit”, “We want a society where all can share”..........) whilst Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, appears totally incapable of framing a question in such a  way it puts the PM on the rack. In simple terms, if either of these two were lawyers I would not engage them to defend me should I find myself before a judge – their adversarial and rhetorical skills are sadly lacking. What we do see is two people (and so too their respective followers) who are almost unable to grasp the complexities of modern government and politics and who have little cohesive or logical thought to guide their public utterances. Well meaning they might be; effective they are not.

Across the despatch box - Theresa May & Jeremy Corbyn: political lightweights

The quality of debate, speeches, questioning and answering is at a low ebb in the political life of the nation. As I sat, my attention wondering, while the banality of the whole occasions unfolded before my eyes, I  wondered how the great parliamentarians of the past - Pitt, Disraeli, Churchill, Healey, Lloyd George, Powell, Jenkins, Gladstone, Thatcher, Foot, Bevan, Attlee, Macmillan et al  - whose soaring oratory and incisive arguments once filled this great chamber must feel as they look down from their ghostly pedestals. This is not a party political thing. It is not the preserve of any party to have the monopoly of great speakers. Enoch Powell was an extreme right wing politician whilst Michael Foot a member of the left yet  the two were great personal friends with a huge respect for each other. What united them in Parliament and was the basis of their friendship was their erudition, their ability to use words effectively to argue their case, and their ability to, with a few well chosen words backed up by undeniable evidence, not only destroy their opponent's argument but encourage the rest of us to understand and support. This is the power of language and it is why our leaders must have this quality. If it is not present then our form of government is in danger.

Two political masters: Clement Attlee & Winston Churchill

We have recently had a good illustration of the low ebb to which we have sunk with the quality of our UK elected representatives and political debate - the resignation of one of our most senior diplomats Sir Ivan Rogers. As a diplomat his very essence and currency was the careful and effective use of words and in his resignation he suggested strongly that there are  “ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking” abroad amongst our leading politicians – most notable those in charge of the Brexit campaign. When someone of Rogers’ calibre is making this sort of allegation then we should, at the very least, begin to ask questions. As I watched ‘Prime Minister’s Question Time’  I could only reflect that Rogers is correct – the mother of parliaments seems to be currently filled with second class minds unable or unwilling to verbalise a well formed argument and consequently display clear thinking.

Great political orators: Margaret Thatcher, Michael Foot

& Enoch Powell

My despair reached new depths later in the afternoon when I tuned in to hear the much vaunted first press conference given by the US president-elect Donald Trump. Oh dear! We have heard and seen so much of this man in the past year that I don’t know what I expected but I suppose I rather naively thought that now he is president-elect he would somehow prove us all wrong and look like a potential candidate for the position of most powerful and influential man in the world. How wrong I was. We had the same shallow language, the same bizarre hyperbole, the same, almost “Mrs Malapropish” misuse of words, the same paucity of logical structure in his utterances. So limited is Trump’s vocabulary and ability to use appropriate adjectives and adverbs he describes all that he approves of as “beautiful” – just as an immature teenage who uses “cool” or “wicked” at every opportunity to describe something he or she likes.  We have “beautiful deals”, a “beautiful wall”, a “beautiful funeral”, “beautiful wins”, a “beautiful, beautiful safe zone in Syria”, and so the list goes on. From start to finish Trump’s announcements and public speaking (it would be a mistake to call it rhetoric since rhetoric usually implies some skill with language) are a rag bag of ill considered words and ideas. And so it was with the news conference which was a shambles reminiscent of a bar conversation between drinkers who had consumed too much, where speech was slurred, vocabulary misused, and reason non-existent. Of course, we have got used to this; reading Trump’s Tweets belies the man’s total inadequacy and inability to string together any coherent thought or logic. “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass” he has sagely advised us, or “It’s freezing and snowing in New York – we need global warming!” or “Gitmo, we’re keeping that OPEN. And we’re gonna load it up with a lot of BAD DUDES out there” are typical of the ill thought out, badly put together and ultimately totally inappropriate utterances.

Good to know that the spirit of

Abraham Lincoln will live on in the White House - not

Of course, one might ague, with a small measure of justification, that Tweets are probably not a good reflector of mental of linguistic ability. But with Trump, this is also the way he speaks – indeed it seems to reflect his whole mental process such as it is. And the thing that really gives him away is not only his limited vocabulary and child like sentence structure but his insistence of using upper case letters to emphasis something: “Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!”  This really gives away his limited linguistic development – most children grow out of this immature use of upper case to emphasise importance by the time they get to about 10 – but not so Donald Trump. One can add to this his obvious an unawareness of very basic grammatical structures such as double negatives as in “NO NOTHING”. As someone who has taught children for most of my life I would confidently expect the vast majority 10 year olds to spot that fundamental misuse of language and error of logic immediately. The future President, however, seems unable to grasp this very simple, but very important misuse of language. But, it is not only in an inadequate and immature grasp of the requirements of basic communication in which Trump displays his unsuitability for office. Running through all his pronouncements – be they Tweets, news conferences or other public announcements is the emphasis upon himself and his perceived power and influence; they are ego centric in the extreme: “When I come to power,” or “I am gonna....” are typical. This desire to promote himself and his “power” might just be seen as boasting but it raises questions about his suitability for high office. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was spot on when she said “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t” Quite!

Oh dear - a rather unpleasant child in man's clothing

We live in very worrying times, there are many very grave problems facing mankind; it is frightening to conclude that those we have elected and thus those charged with resolving these complex and dangerous issues seem increasingly unable to think with clarity, and use language appropriately as a formidable weapon to argue a point, to question, to clarify, to inspire, to explain or to rebuff. Some eighty years ago the author George Orwell, against a back drop of rising fascism in Europe, commented “....political chaos is connected with the decay of language”. He was not wrong. Amidst the mad, bad syntax,  the repetition (“it’s gonna happen, gonna happen”), the lack of basic understanding of grammatical structure and the minimal breadth of vocabulary obvious in people like Trump one cannot but fear for the future.

George Orwell

Yesterday I watched as departing President Obama awarded Vice President, Joe Biden, the highest award America can give for his services as Vice President and for his many years in public office. The words chosen by Obama and by Biden in his emotional reply were beautifully crafted, sincere and humbling. Behind the two men as the ceremony took place in the White House was a large painting depicting Abraham Lincoln. And as I watched I mused that Lincoln would have nodded approval at the ceremony and all that underpinned it. He would have understood the solemnity and gravitas; he would have thought the words used appropriate and well judged, he would have quietly applauded.  

Lincoln, perhaps used words more powerfully than just about any other president or politician; he knew about the importance of words. It would not be a rash claim to say that it was the power of Lincoln's words as much as the cannons that won the American Civil War for him and so laid one of the foundation stones not only of modern America but indeed the rest of the world. The victory over the Confederacy and the emancipation of the black slaves was one of the major events of the time to fundamentally change our perceptions of man's relationships with each other - be we black or white, yellow or red. And, as I thought this I reflected upon what Lincoln, the man who forged the mighty words of the Gettysburg Address and a wealth of other comments and speeches that have become part of all mankind's heritage might think as he looks down on the new President Trump as he speaks in the White House; Trump, a man who seems to think that an appropriate comment for a national leader (or indeed anyone) is: “..It really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass”. Lincoln, I concluded, might quietly weep as he gazes down from the White House wall.

Lincoln looks down on Obama & Biden

It is our ability to communicate ideas through language that is the main determiner in separating us from the animal kingdom – it allows us to reason, reflect, plan, analyse, explain, empathise, understand and fulfil a million more functions that we need each and every day of our lives. In an increasingly complex world the ability to understand and use language is more important than ever. This is not about using florid phrases or extravagant vocabulary; it is not about using the Queen’s English or Received Pronunciation, it is about our thought processes when we communicate. When we think, we think in words and our words are the manifestation of the ideas that we are thinking; an inability to effectively use and understand language by definition hinders our ability to think. It is a sad truth, however, that any criticism of Donald Trump or other leader on this score is a mere reflection of a wider malaise. We live in a world where, certainly in the western hemisphere, the correct use of language is too often perceived as old fashioned, pedantry or simply unimportant. In the age of texting and email where accepted conventions have been cast aside and where the language of the popular culture of the streets seems to be as highly acclaimed and worthy as Shakespeare, Milton or Dickens our very ability not only to communicate but to think and reason effectively is in danger. But effective and considered use of language is not an unimportant and irrelevant art meant only for old fashioned pedants, brilliant lawyers and boring school teachers; in the final analysis, when a person speaks or writes carelessly or sloppily then they think and understand carelessly or sloppily; language and understanding are inseparable. 

In recent months, and especially so since the Brexit campaign and the election of the new President we have heard much about what is termed the “post truth age” in which we are now said to be living. In today’s world, we are told, objective facts (truths) are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to the emotions or prejudice or personal belief. We see this everyday as we read the headlines of tabloid newspapers (and even some broadsheet papers as well); we see it in almost its full glory on social media sites or in internet chat rooms; and sadly we see it in our political leadership. The Brexit campaign was fuelled with high octane appeals to the emotions (anti immigration, anti foreigner, anti EU) whilst at the same time senior politicians openly disparaged expert opinion or facts. In America we have see exactly the same reaction – Trump’s unwillingness to accept the facts of global warming or his disparagement of ethnic minorities such as Muslims whilst at the same time appealing to the baser instincts and prejudices abroad in his nation. We see it, too, in the emotive words used by these people; when Donald Trump describes all he approves of as “beautiful” it may on one hand show his undoubted limited and childish vocabulary but he is also using a word that is ambiguous, extremely subjective and emotive. Trump’s linguistic ability may leave much to be desired but he also knows well how to manipulate and influence unsuspecting minds. In today’s world wearing your heart on your sleeve and showing this in your communications is a worrying trend – and especially so when it is allied to the marginalisation of truth and facts.   Truth and facts are increasingly under threat and it is only by the use of language and the ability that it gives to think, analyse, argue and rebuff that these worrying trends can be shown up for what they are – dangerous and unacceptable developments.  

A.C. Grayling

Philosopher AC Grayling is openly critical of this modern trend suggesting – rightly in my view: "The whole post-truth phenomenon is about, 'My opinion is worth more than the facts.' It's about how I feel about things”. Grayling goes on to say this phenomena “[is] terribly narcissistic. It's been empowered by the fact that you can easily publish your opinion”. He is correct also on this point – this blog is a good example of that trend. In today’s world anyone with access to a smart phone or some other means of accessing the internet can make their views known with a minimum of thought. Blogs, Facebook, Twitter are the most obvious forms but there are other avenues and all provide an easy framework for easily expressing a point of view. In itself there is nothing wrong in this but the downside is that the most banal and ill considered views and comments easily become mainstream. It is easily done and too often little considered; posting a comment on Twitter or Facebook takes seconds and is instantly thrown away to all in the world who care to read it. It does not encourage thought or responsibility. The ultimate expression of this is the Tweet where, with only a very few characters, its required brevity leaves no space for nuance, explanation, or in depth argument which can be countered by other opposing arguments. The result is it is inevitably shallow, emotive and too often brutal. There are no shades of grey, no nuance – you are either with us or against us. Grayling suggests that we have moved on from the world of the political sound bite and now live in the world of the “i-bite” – a reflection of the narcissistic society that we now inhabit – where truth is whatever an individual wants it to be. It is the world of Alice in Wonderland come into being where increasing numbers of people, media and politicians follow the advice of Humpty Dumpty to Alice when he said: 'When I use a word.....it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

In this sort of world truth is sidelined and since words and ideas are inextricably linked intellectual integrity and the very basis of ethics and justice are corrupted. And as Grayling points out, when this occurs then the whole fabric of democracy is in danger. Democracy cannot survive without the careful use of language. Donald Trump seems to think he can base his presidency upon Tweets. He cannot and must not be allowed to do so. The language of government, of democracy, of life itself is necessarily complex and increasingly so; the devil is in the detail and the nuance – remove those, as does Trump, and we have the potential for tyranny.  It must also be recognised that good government will only survive if not only the leaders are aware of and able to use language and ideas effectively but so, too, are the rest of us. In a world where electorates must grapple with complex choices about economics, justice, basic human freedoms, peace and war and all the other many problems and opportunities when they cast their votes and elect their leaders we all require a basic facility to understand, to challenge and to formulate questions of those who would influence and lead us . A poorly informed public or a public that unable to understand or question the arguments, a public that cannot discriminate objective fact from prejudiced opinion is easily swayed by propaganda and much less able to resist the dark manoeuvrings of special interest groups and would be dictators  If the electorate is increasingly intellectually or linguistically unable or unwilling to grasp the issues then the snake oil salesmen like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson will hold the reins. In any democracy part of the "deal" is that those who are given the privilege of voting - the ordinary citizens, the electorate - have a clear responsibility to use that privilege wisely and to the best of their ability. And that means taking the trouble to familiarise themselves with the issues, tease out the important points, ask questions, read and listen to whatever information is required in order to make a sensible decision. Not to do so is an abdication of their responsibilities as citizens in a free society. Sadly, however, when I read today the comments of many who support Donald Trump following his news conference I am not confident. “I couldn’t form an intelligent opinion” or “I haven’t been following that or paying attention,” were typical of the comments from ordinary Americans. It is the same in the UK - in last year's referendum upon whether we should stay in Europe many didn't bother to vote and more worryingly many more confessed that they didn't know enough about the issue to vote. American business man, philanthropist and politician William E. Simon commented that "Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who didn't vote or who didn't care" - he was not wrong.  We should be very worried.

Friedrich Nietzsche

One hundred and fifty years ago German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, a man whose ideas, writing and use of language influenced the thinking of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini wrote "All I need is a sheet of paper and something to write with, and then I can turn the world upside down" – he was not wrong. If we are not prepared to be a little more thinking and a lot more challenging of the language that our leaders use when they articulate the their ideas in this increasingly complex world modern world then we will suffer the consequences. One of Donald Trump's fellow Americans, Oliver Wendell Holmes, nailed it when he said: "Language is the blood of the soul into which our thoughts run and out of which they grow". Sadly, when we read and hear the ill conceived and ill composed utterances of Trump and the rest of these modern day representatives of the post truth age we also see into their very souls. It is not a pretty sight; we should be very afraid.