As the founder and editor-in-chief of Perspectives, I'd like to thank you for reading this, the first official post on our humble blog. Please be sure to come back for daily posts by editors of this blog.
Loaded Language Leads to Shallow Opinions
As a writer and a recent college graduate, I've become increasingly aware of the fact that people often alter the language of an issue to make their side appear more appealing. There is nothing inherently evil, of course, with trying to make one's opinion look more powerful. However, it is frightening to observe how easily people are persuaded by loaded language. Listen to a debate, and the observer will hear what seem to be prepared monotone responses to an issue question when trying to discuss politics with an individual. For instance, the observer starts a discussion about capital punishment, and the loaded-language-influenced responder states; "I don't think people have the right to play God". Instead of simply nodding their heads in agreement with the responder, Americans should actually examine that statement. "Play God"? In the United States, there is a strong value on the concept of equality. If an individual were to actually "play God", it would qualify as some sort of inequality, which obviously would be upsetting to the average American. How many times people have been caught after this statement, and asked "well do you believe that the concept of punishment matching the crime is wrong, then?" The fact of the matter, is that regardless of what side an individual might be on, in the capital punishment debate, "playing God" and having a government with the right to issue punishments (up to and including death) for crime are different things. The responder should be asked; "how is it playing God to sentence to death yet not playing God to sentence to life in prison?" Of course, when the debate is made, the political novices will all hear "playing God" and will most likely agree that people don't have the right to "play God". Don't all Americans agree with that phrase? The problem is, projecting it onto an argument takes the place of the actual argument, and becomes what is agreed with. As a result, people find themselves against capital punishment, without actually ever considering what moral considerations such as "making the punishment fit the crime" along with "the possibility of executing an innocent", and "the general right of the state to protect its own welfare". Instead of considering the deep and important considerations of the issue, people close off at "play God", and make a shallow statement that settles the issue for them.
Other examples of loaded language: Pro-life/Pro-choice/Anti-choice/Anti-life.
This one of the oldest tricks in the book and it works. If a politician tells a crowd of people that he is Pro-life and Pro-choice, they don't look at each other in befuddlement, but cheer. Why? Most Americans are Pro-life. Most Americans are also Pro-choice. How is this possible? The problem lies in word usage. The aesthetics of verbatim clearly influence public policy decisions in a culture where politics have taken a little too much of a back burner. An individual should generally be able to tell the difference between the pro-life movement and the pro-choice movement. Unfortunately, there is a decent amount of people who cannot. What happens, then, is that the armchair politician reads the headlines, and sees "Anti-choice" and thinks "How could someone be against choice?" On the other side of the spectrum, the reader also sees the statement "Pro-life" in the article, and confirms to himself, saying "I'm definitely not against life, so I must be Pro-life". However, the usage of anti as a negative connotation is hardly new to the United States political scene. It is often stated that the strongest advantage the Federalists had on the Anti-Federalists was their namesake, not their ideology. People, at least psychologically, much prefer to be for something than merely against something.
Final examples: Illegal immigration/immigrants/illegal aliens.
Taken alone, none of these phrases qualify as loaded language. However, if you examine the context in which they are used, you can easily find the position of the author. In language involving the death penalty "the right to play God" easily shows that the person making the statement is against capital punishment. In language involving abortion, statements such as "Pro-Choice"... or calling opponents "Anti-Choice" clearly shows one to be on the side of the abortion argument.
In the case of illegal immigration... especially because it is fresh in all of our minds, be on guard for those writers who will refer to legislation as "hard on immigrants". Why? In actuality, what the writer is suggesting, is that legislation directed at keeping people from coming here illegally is actually directed at all immigrants. Such falsehoods influence the electorate, however. The endless protests we've been seeing on the side of illegal immigration suggest strongly that people are confused about the issue as a whole. But we'll save my rant about the entire illegal immigration debate for Friday.
Come back tomorrow!
E.J. Wood is a recent graduate from the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay. He has a BA in Political Science, as well as BS in Public Administration. He currently is authoring a book called "Closing the Book on Christianity: The Post-Modern Christian’s War Against the Bible".
Contact him at proantiundecided@hotmail.com
6 Comments:
This problem is plain to see in today's society. Whether or not it's as blatant as it was in generations past, I wouldn't know. All I know is that it worries me about where our nation is going.
Our nation was founded as a republic, which is similar to a democracy in the fact that it requires its members to be learned in at least a few basic areas and a productive member of the society for the state to continue indefinitely. In this instance, I see a majority of America not really caring about their politics, government, and current issues enough to produce the individual thinking that's needed. If the majority becomes larger and larger, we are left with a few manipulating the many. With only the few able to see this and fight it, I wonder how long it will take the majority to quit being so passive. Will it be when the next law is passed taking a freedom held dear and calling it pro-control?
I saw something similar on the Man Show (Comedy Central) once. Jimmy and Adam got hundreds of women to sign a petition calling for the end of suffrage.
gsg-9, "...if politicians know they don't care, they are cancled out, and there oppinions and voice become void."
The politicians still have to "please the beast," if you will, to a point so their actions aren't noticed.
Look at WWE as a little subculture. The wrestlers may do as they wish as long as they have the backing of the crowd.
Another example is in the movie "Gladiator" where Rome was turned against its emporer because the main character gave the crowd what they wanted so that he could get what he wanted.
Not to get off topic, but many lives are permanently affected everyday by any government, ending of lives included, even if it's not an execution. That is partially why a government is formed, so that these decisions are made on a grander scale, and our lives are more efficient. The state is just the will of the people. (Originally, it was made to reflect God's will) In enforcing the will, lives will be lost at the state's cost, and we knew this when we made our government.
All forms of national structure have always displayed a control over men's lives.
Thanks for the comments...
Ashley - That works as well for the Christian observer. I think Romans 13 also allows government usage of the death penalty. However, that logic is mostly closed to Christian reasoning. However, I'm in agreement with where you're going with that.
Shatnermosism - I hope the layout change is an improvement. As to your observations... Yes, the Clean Airs and Skies Act seemed very Orwellian. On the other hand, I'm not sure "hindered the quality of air" would be the best description. In fairness, it seemed to relax laws a bit, in the interest of business. I'd probably chalk that up to the current administration's efforts to improve the economy (the jury is out on this one... probably for another five years or so)
As to Estate Tax vs. Death Tax, definitely right on that one. I'm not exactly sure how it should be labled... Inheritance Tax seems like a happy medium.
Global warming issues are going to be full of loaded language. The accuracy behind any of the claims is in question. Eventually, either scientists or the doubters gain an upper hand in the battle, and hopefully the right side will prevail.
As to illegal immigration, you'll just have to wait until Friday for my response. :)
JCormier - Something like that. Isn't it unfortunate that issues are less investigated simply because talking points and catch phrases seem to dominate the political banter?
It is very unfortunate.
Great post/blog to get us started Eric!
Good read.
Post a Comment
<< Home