Guest Editorial

By Eddie Correia

During the campaign season, we are reminded daily of the power of political speech to persuade, to inspire and to mislead. It is not clear if writers are more immune to manipulation by political language than others, but at least we should be more sensitive to its uses and abuses. Let’s review some of the years’ highlights and examples of the great range in the quality of political discourse.

On rare occasions, political language is especially powerful and intellectually provocative. Senator Obama’s speech on race earlier this year is arguably an example. One can also think of historical examples that reflect the best use of political language. In honor of the current economic crisis, consider FDR’s famous line about the risk of financial panic in his inaugural address in 1933: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” What makes that statement so memorable? Like poetry, the sentence is structured to be read aloud – four introductory beats, followed by the climactic two beat conclusion, coupled with the double use of the word “fear.” The result is a sentence that is comforting and pleasant to hear at the same time. But the real magic is in the content. Substantively, it is the rough equivalent of: “Just don’t panic.” Rhetorically, however, it creates the image of fear as separate from ourselves, as if we are at one end of the room and fear is at the other. All we have to do is stand up to it, and we can defeat it.

The statement has held up well over the years, but alas, its descendants have not. During the Democratic primary campaign, Senator Clinton attacked Senator Obama for being all words and no substance. Obama countered by quoting FDR’s famous line and asking: “Are these just words?” Clinton countered by accusing Obama of plagiarism for using the “Just words?” phrase because the Governor of Massachusetts had already used it. To follow the spiral down further, one of President Bush’s responses to the current financial panic was: "If money isn't loosened up, this sucker could go down.” Among other flaws in this statement, the antecedent of “this sucker” is ambiguous. Is it the banking industry, the American economy or our entire way of life?

A unique example of the abuse of political language is a statement that is the precise opposite of the facts. This technique turns language on its head so dramatically that the listener may miss the distortion entirely, not unlike a person who hears a siren and cannot tell whether the ambulance is directly behind him or in front of him. This brings us to this week’s nomination: Senator McCain’s announcement that he is suspending his campaign to come to Washington in order to “take politics out” of the enactment of bailout legislation. Everyone in Washington, indeed everyone with a high school education, knows that that he really intends to inject politics into the debate. It is a tribute to the state of political discourse in our country that no one is shocked.

Edward Correia, a Washington D.C. lawyer and Adjunct Professor of Law at American University's Washington College of Law, is the author of The Uncertain Believer: Reconciling God and Science. As a Special Counsel to President Bill Clinton, Correia provided advice regarding constitutionally protected religious freedoms and played a major role in the development and passage of the Religious Liberties Protection Act in 2000. He was the first Distinguished Professor of Urban Law and Policy at Northeastern University Law School.

You can read more about his book and philosophy at his website, http://uncertainbeliever.com.

The views expressed in this editorial are not necessarily the views of the WritersNewsWeekly staff, its advertisers, columnists or SterlingHouse Publisher. If you have any questions or would like to submit a rebuttal, please email editor@writersnewsweekly.com. Submitted editorials and queries will automatically become the property of WritersNewsWeekly and may be used in any future publications.