Politics and the Dirty Language
George Orwell delivered arguments on how to write well in his classic 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language.” Among his clearer points, Orwell tied the usage of language to politics: “All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”1 Without a doubt, language is suffering in the 21st century. Using Orwell's definition of politics, the current generation of politicians has checked all the aforementioned boxes.
Orwell, born Eric Arthur Blair (1903-1950), was an English novelist, essayist, journalist, and critic. He studied under Aldous Huxley at a boarding school. Over time, he became a literary and political rebel against British imperialism. Two of his greatest works, Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949), made him famous for his political views. Animal Farm offered a political fable about the Russian Revolution where barnyard animals stage a revolt against exploitative human masters to establish an egalitarian society. In 1984, three totalitarian police states are depicted. The themes of distorting truth and rewriting history are on full display. Lead character Winston Smith longs for truth and decency but is imprisoned, tortured, and reeducated until his loss of spiritual dignity leads him to submit to Big Brother. Omnipresent dishonesty and perpetual surveillance slowly extinguish individual human virtue.
In light of those heavy themes, for this essay, we take a tight look at political language, not to consider how to write well, but to consider how to speak and behave well in the political game.
If Orwell could witness the current Big Media presentations of politics in America, perhaps he would write a biting essay on the rules of good politics, noting that bad politics is too commonly found everywhere.
His essay might begin with this line: “Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the [American political system] is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it.”2
Have we been lulled into the belief that the political system of our day can only evolve through the natural growth of pre-existing conditions (the Edmund Burke philosophy on incremental change and institutional preservation)? Have we not the power to reshape our own system similar to the redrafting of an important document that seeks to be republished for the common good (a bit of revolutionary change as proposed by Thomas Paine)?3 Why can’t we choose moderation in political behavior and revolutionary reform at the same time?
Let's imagine where Orwell would take his argument. Surely the decline of a two-party political system must have social, economic, and structural causes: it would not simply fall to the bad influence of individual politicians.
But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks.4
Can we see that this is happening to the American two-party political system? The political system is becoming ugly and distorted because our discourse is becoming foolish and threatening. The hardening of political platforms and the sorting of American citizens into those parties by in-group/out-group identity leads to polarization. Social media and media analytics fuel tribal divisiveness. The system becomes corrupt and entrenched as bureaucracy grows ever larger and less controlled by voters or elected officials. Capitalism brings monetary success, division, and new forms of aristocratic corporate power that interact with election cycles, public policy, and regulatory agencies in powerful, yet disturbing, ways. Intuition would lead us to believe that the process is reversible, but how? I hope to answer that question in The Common Sense Papers.
Our current two-party system is full of bad habits that are spread by imitation. These include breaking soft norms of political forbearance and using media time to provoke outrage among party bases. If we take steps to remove the bad habits, then we have a shot at political regeneration. As Orwell might say: “so that the fight against bad [political systems] is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional [politicians].”5 The people must organize the answer - not the richest, the most powerful, the most privileged, the most entrenched, but a mix of all individuals among us.
Again, in the spirit of Orwell, here are 6 pieces of political discourse worthy of reconsideration.
DONALD TRUMP — About Covid-19 on January 22, 2020: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.”6
MADISON CAWTHORN — “It’s time for the rise of the new right, it’s time for Dark MAGA to truly take command.”7
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE — “The government totally wants to provide surveillance on every part of your life…. They want to know when you’re eating. They want to know if you’re eating a cheeseburger, which is very bad because Bill Gates wants you to eat his fake meat, which is grown in a peach tree dish.”8
NANCY PELOSI — Speaking about unemployment benefits: “It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.”9
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ — Speaking to the context of young people asking if it’s okay to have children: “Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don’t turn this ship around and so it’s basically like, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult.”10
ELIZABETH WARREN — While running for president in 2019, her campaign tweeted: “Thank you, @BlackWomxnFor! Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I don’t take this endorsement lightly.”11
Let’s keep this critique portion short. As for President Donald Trump having Covid-19 totally under control, it was a mess of information, a mess of actions, a mess of misinformation, etc. As for Rep. Cawthorn’s statement, a call for a dark movement to reclaim nostalgia is certainly bad political language, since dark usually means sinister, threatening, or pessimistic. Rep. Greene may be concerned about surveillance, which is a perfectly worthy topic of discussion, but linking surveillance to an irrelevant Bill Gates comment about fake food is a non sequitur.
Speaker Pelosi gets a little counterintuitive, not to mention simply wrong, with the idea that paying individuals while they are out of work creates jobs. Unemployment benefits obviously support a time of transition for people looking for work (that makes sense and is good within reason), but the claim is absurd. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez uses some fearmongering (hyperbole, exaggeration) to leave young people wondering if it’s okay to exercise their freedom to have children. Calling anything a “scientific consensus” these days is becoming a political trope. Using a call to “science” to claim that a social science concern about childhood quality is predetermined is just babble. And who makes up the backbone of our democracy? I think it’s everyone who participates, but Senator Warren leaves out a lot of us who contribute.
Even high school students are learning from George Orwell about the difficulties of political language. Ben Murton, a student at Corner Canyon High School in Utah, published an op-ed in the Deseret News with this message:
Instead of running down an exhaustive list of all the “right” or “left” attributes a person or policy might have, why not just explain their specific positions?
Political disagreements over definitions are also far from new. In the mid-1940s, when the “ism” rocking across the world was fascism, George Orwell published “Politics and the English Language,” arguing how “meaningless” words had been hijacking otherwise useful discussion and had boiled functional language down to simple smears. To Orwell, the word fascism had “no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”
It would be hard to argue that the word “socialism” has become much less than the same, or even that seemingly positive words like democracy, justice and truth have become nothing more than filler. China brands itself democratic, Vladimir Putin purports the justice of his regime and, in my favorite example, Pravda, the name of the Soviet propaganda machine, translates to “truth.”
The point is not that we should abandon words like right, left, democracy, justice and truth — that would be absurd. Instead, we need to consciously understand or explain precisely what these words mean each time they are used and empathize with the definitions other groups tend to choose, lest we continue to be trapped in the speculative pitfalls these words inspire.
As for “socialism” and “fascism,” just as Orwell argued, purely ideological, meaningless words like these can and should simply be thrown out.12
Near the end of Orwell’s message on politics and language, he offered six rules for writers (see picture).
What if we came up with six rules to reboot more virtuous conduct in a broken political system? I’m not sure exactly which rules would be most effective for the outcomes that we desire, but imagine how the political sphere would be different if these rules were driving behavioral norms.
Never attack members of other political parties (or your own) on a personal basis, other than corrupt conduct in office; rather, focus on deliberating upon policy and programs as the proper method of political discourse.
Don’t use “fear tactics” to falsely motivate voters.
Don’t buy votes by promising voters achievements that the system can’t deliver.
Never seek office to exert control over citizens.
If you win elected office, seek to take into consideration the concerns of all your constituents, not just those who subscribe to a particular political party.
Never do or say anything that promotes violence as the vehicle for political dissent. Regardless of how hard it is to keep rules 1-5 (aspirational rules), rule 6 is imperative.
There are noted times and exceptions when these rules might not apply, but once a democracy has been established and continues to function in a pluralistic way, these rules might keep the self-government experiment safely on the playing field rather than constantly drifting out of bounds.
It’s worth noting that Montesquieu, the writer who inspired the founders to adopt the separation of powers in the Constitution, said: “The deterioration of a government begins almost always by the decay of its principles.”13 Principles are fundamental truths that guide behavior toward good outcomes—they are thoughtful rules based on lessons learned and applied. But Orwell made it clear that thought and language are reflexive, they interact back and forth with each other. The language we hear in politics today, and especially through Big Media narratives full of political jeering, is harmful to maintaining good principles. So, bad language mixes with bad principles, and the result is bad government.
Back to Orwell’s cynical take:
Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits.14
And from time to time voters can, if they press hard enough, change the political party balance that controls the reins of power in the legislative offices of this country. Voters can demand better language, better principles, and renewed virtue regardless of party affiliation.
In this essay and in Common Sense Paper No. 2, we have examined virtue in behavior and language at the individual level and the political level. Language, action, and principles mix together in ways that weaken or strengthen our institutional and social bonds. Having looked at virtue, we will turn our attention to structural factors affecting the political system in the next essay.
Final thought: We can use common sense, better political language, and better habits (virtue) to change the current behavior within our democratic system of representative government.
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," in Essays and Other Works, ed. The Orwell Foundation, Orwell Foundation website, https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ (accessed July 11, 2023).
Ibid.
The contrast in political thinking during the American Revolution and especially the French Revolution is captured by reviewing the writings of Edmund Burke (Anglo-Irish politician) and Thomas Paine (English-born American political activist). The recommended source for comparison is: Yuval Levin, The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left (New York: Basic Books, 2014).
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language.”
Ibid.
Harry Brent, “Donald Trump's craziest quotes as US President,” The Irish Post, (January 20, 2021), https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/donald-trumps-craziest-quotes-as-us-president-201911 (accessed July 11, 2023).
Brie Stimson, “Madison Cawthorn says it’s time for ‘Dark MAGA,’ ‘new right’ to take over after scandal-propelled primary loss," Fox News, (May 20, 2022), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/madison-cawthorn-dark-maga-right-scandal-primary-loss (accessed July 11, 2023).
Trudy Ring, “11 Times Marjorie Taylor Greene Was the Worst," The Advocate, August 12, 2022, https://www.advocate.com/politics/2022/8/12/11-times-marjorie-taylor-green-was-worst#rebelltitem1 (accessed July 11, 2023).
David Freddoso, "Pelosi: Unemployment benefits create more jobs than any other initiative," Washington Examiner, (June 30, 2010), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pelosi-unemployment-benefits-create-more-jobs-than-any-other-initiative (accessed July 11, 2023).
Bob Fredericks, "Ocasio-Cortez asks if climate change means we should stop having kids," New York Post, February 25, 2019, https://nypost.com/2019/02/25/ocasio-cortez-asks-if-climate-change-means-we-should-stop-having-kids/ (accessed July 11, 2023).
Becket Adams, "Elizabeth Warren's top 9 worst panders," Washington Examiner, (March 3, 2020), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elizabeth-warrens-top-9-worst-panders (accessed July 11, 2023).
Ben Murton, "Opinion: The Meaning of Socialism and Its Political Alignment," Deseret News, October 5, 2022, https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2022/10/5/23385577/opinion-socialism-meaning-political-alignment-left-right (accessed July 11, 2023).
Charles De Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Book VIII, Ch 1, see footnote source for translation: https://www.conservapedia.com/Montesquieu#cite_note-2 (accessed July 11, 2023).
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language.”