A World Where Everything Can Be Called Anything Else

A
World
Where
Everything
Can
Be
Called
Anything
Else

Mark
Olson

Honor’s
Thesis

Professor
McGuffey

2014/15

2

Introduction

All
words
like
Peace
and
Love,

All
sane
affirmative
speech,

Had
been
soiled,
profaned,
debased

To
a
horrid
mechanical
screech.

-‐W.H.
Auden1

It
seems
to
go
without
saying
that
our
ability
to
use
language
to
communicate

with
people
is
a
human
faculty
of
the
utmost
importance.

Speech
is,
after
all,
what

distinguishes
us
from
other
species,
and
was
a
key
reason
for
human
development.

However,
if
one
impartially
observes
everyday
mainstream
political
discourse,
or

the
speeches
of
politicians,
it
becomes
apparent
that
something
is
amiss.

The

marketplace
of
ideas
seems
to
be
functioning
as
the
theory
suggests;
ideas
are
being

freely
exchanged
at
a
dizzying
speed
on
the
relatively
unrestricted
Internet
and

elsewhere.

But
a
cursory
glance
at
the
various
political
ideas
being
exchanged

reveals
that
certain
political
words
have
various
meanings,
depending
on
who
is

using
them,
and
these
various
meanings
often
“cannot
be
reconciled
with
one

another.”2

How
does
this
happen?

And
would
it
be
appropriate
to
say
that
some

people
are
abusing,
or
misusing,
political
words?

Or
is
using
political
words

however
one
pleases
just
the
“natural”
result
of
a
democratic
society
that
cherishes

freedom
of
speech?

1
W.H.
Auden,
“We
Too
Had
Known
Golden
Hours.”
Quoted
from
Hannah
Arendt’s

speech
that
was
delivered
upon
receiving
Denmark’s
Sonning
Prize
in
1975,
and

published
in
Responsibility
and
Judgment.
Page
10.

2
Orwell,
George.
George
Orwell
Essays.
“Politics
and
the
English
Language.”
page
959

3

The
issue
of
words
having
irreconcilable
meanings
does
not
seem
to
be
a

problem,
for
example,
in
the
physical
sciences.

It
would
be
strange
for
a
physicist
to

adopt
a
new
meaning
for
the
word
gravity
without
any
kind
of
coherent
reasoning;

this
would
go
against
the
standards
that
are
put
in
place
in
the
physical
sciences.

Thus
controversy
surrounding
the
meanings
of
the
words
in
the
physical
sciences

rarely
happens,
and
attention
is
mainly
focused
on
the
competing
theories
within

the
given
field
of
science.

However,
this
issue
is
not
always
the
case
in
the
political

world.

For
example,
the
socialist
literature
of
the
19th
and
20th
century
expressed

socialism
to
mean
a
system
in
which
the
workers
own
and
control
the
means
of

production,
consumption,
and
distribution.
Yet
it
is
common
to
hear
people
in
right-‐
wing
circles
say
that
President
Obama
and
the
Democrats
are
implementing

socialism
in
America.

Has
the
meaning
of
socialism
changed?

It
would
be
difficult
to

justify
a
claim
that
President
Obama
is
creating
policies
that
hand
over
ownership

and
control
of
America’s
businesses
to
the
workers.

What
makes
it
even
stranger
is

that
those
who
consider
themselves
socialist
are
saying
that
President
Obama
and

the
Democrats
are
implementing
policies
that
are
anything
but
socialism.3

How
can

there
be
such
a
stark
difference
between
the
two
points
of
view
on
the
meaning
of

one
word?

The
partial
answer
is
that
many
political
ideas
are
still
contested
within
the

political
world
and
have
not
reached
a
consensus
that
is
shared
by
all,
unlike
how

the
concept
of
gravity,
or
other
aspects
in
the
physical
sciences,
eventually
reached
a

3
The
“World
Socialist
Website”
is
a
place
where
today’s
socialists
publish
their

perspectives.

A
quick
glance
at
the
various
articles
quickly
reveals
a
starkly

different
picture
of
President
Obama
and
the
Democrats.

www.wsws.org

4

consensus
and
became
scientific
law.

And
because
of
the
contested
nature
of
these

political
ideas
they
remain
in
competition
in
the
marketplace
of
ideas;
that
is,
a

person
or
an
institution
can
argue
that
socialism
is
X,
Y
and
Z,
while
another
set
of

people
can
argue
that
socialism
is
actually
A,
B
and
C.

The
theory
of
the
marketplace

of
ideas
suggests
that
the
truth
will
emerge
from
a
free
and
fair
competition.

But

what
kinds
of
standards
exist
within
this
marketplace
of
ideas?

And
would
it
be
fair

if
a
group
of
people
with
greater
resources
and
access
to
mass
communications

could
attempt
to
undermine
the
meaning
of
a
political
idea
so
that
their
idea
will

gain
an
advantage
in
the
marketplace
of
ideas?

What
begins
to
become
apparent
is
that
the
standards
in
the
political
world

are
much
looser
than
the
standards
used
in
the
physical
sciences.

In
other
words,

there
is
no
permanent
committee
that
regulates
and
approves
of
the
meanings
of

important
words
used
in
mainstream
political
discourse.4

But
neither
is
there
in
the

physical
sciences.

This
seems
to
suggest
that
the
contested
nature
of
political
ideas

might
be
more
of
an
issue
because
politics
mainly
deals
with
the
unsettled,
and

often
turbulent,
question
of
Who
rules
Whom?

The
important
question
of
who
rules
whom
thus
may
reveal
why
political,

economic,
and
religious
ideas
seem
to
be
in
a
continuous
competition.

The

proponents
of
various
political,
economic,
and
religious
ideas
seek
to
offer
their

adherents
the
best
explanation
of
a
complex,
diverse,
and
continuously
changing

world,
and
also
believe
their
ideas
offer
the
best
strategy
for
the
future.

But
why
do

the
meanings
of
certain
political
words
also
have
to
fall
prey
to
the
continuously

4
Point
of
clarification:
when
I
speak
of
the
standards
in
mainstream
political

discourse
I
am
excluding
the
standards
that
exist
in
academia.

5

changing
world?

Why
can’t
we
just
create
new
political
words
to
represent
the
new

ideas,
or
evolving
ideas?

It
would
be
one
thing
if
the
contested
meaning
of
a
political

word
were
a
new
concept,
but
many
political
words
have
been
around
for
over
a

century,
some
much
longer.

Thus
one
of
the
consequences
of
the
contested
nature

of
political
ideas
is
that
the
meaning
of
the
words
used
to
describe
them,
like

socialism,
are
abused
and
become
victims,
so
to
speak,
in
the
struggle
over
how
the

world
should
be
ruled.

This
problem
then
creates
a
situation
in
which
words

become
ambiguous
and
indeterminate.

How
do
political
words
become
indeterminate?

Was
this
a
problem
in
pre-‐
modern
times,
or
is
it
just
a
problem
that
arose
during
modernity?

In
this
essay
I

will
explore
these
questions
and
argue
that
the
abuse
and
misuse
of
political
words

by
various
political
actors
are
creating
indeterminate
political
words,
which
leads
to

the
degradation
of
political
discourse.

An
example
of
the
abuse
of
political
words

would
be
people’s
using
them
more
as
pejoratives
to
attack
political
opponents.

The

use
of
pejoratives
in
speech
is
often
used
to
conceal
facts
and
divert
attention
away

from
much
needed
arguments,
rather
than
to
explain
and
understand
the
various

issues.

And
an
example
of
the
misuse
of
political
words
would
be
ordinary
people’s

inappropriately
using
words
through
lack
of
understanding
and/or
mimicking
the

talking
points
of
their
trusted
sources
for
understanding
politics.

This
is
a
problem

because
it
causes
confusion
throughout
society
and
hinders
our
ability
to
find

common
ground.

I
am
not
going
to
suggest
that
I
have
the
solutions
to
the
problem;

rather
this
essay
will
explore
the
various
causes
of
the
misuse
and
abuse
of
political

language
by
highlighting
the
insights
of
four
prominent
political
thinkers
on

6

language:
Plato,
Alexis
de
Tocqueville,
George
Orwell,
and
Hannah
Arendt.

My
hope

is
that
this
exploration
will
help
contribute
to,
and
deepen,
the
discussion
regarding

the
degradation
of
political
discourse.

In
the
first
part
of
this
paper
I
will
be
using
the
insights
found
in
Hannah

Arendt’s
work
to
discuss
the
importance
of
speech
for
political
life,
and
how
words

are
something
that
we
use
to
appropriate
nature
and
the
various
things
we
produce

in
this
world.

Arendt
argued
that
not
only
was
language
common
to
us
all,
but
that

nature
and
the
innumerable
amount
of
things
in
this
world
were
common
to
us
all

as
well
–
even
though
our
relations
towards
these
things
varies
from
person
to

person.

Arendt
also
believed
that
speech
and
action
are
the
single
most
important

conditions
of
human
life,
so
much
so
that
life
without
them
would
not
be
life
at
all.5

The
second
part
of
the
essay
will
then
explore
how
the
degradation
of

language
happens
in
the
political
world.

To
do
this
I
will
again
use
the
insights
of

Arendt
on
what
she
saw
as
people
failing
to
make
important
distinctions
when

engaging
in
political
discourse,
and
a
phenomenon
that
she
called
“the

functionalization
of
all
concepts
and
ideas.”

The
functionalization
of
concepts
is

when
a
person
starts
labeling
a
distinct
concept
by
using
another
distinct
concept’s

name
because
they
believe
the
two
different
concepts
serves
the
same
function
in

society.

For
example,
people
sometimes
call
communism
a
religion
because
the

adherents
of
communism
supposedly
worship
the
idea
of
communism
like
religious

adherents
worship
their
respective
religious
dogmas.

Arendt
believed
that
this

5
Arendt,
Hannah.
The
Human
Condition.
Page
176.

7

leads
to
confusing
the
issues
because
people
no
longer
make
the
important

distinctions
between
the
concepts
and
ideas.

The
second
part
of
looking
at
the
degradation
of
language
will
then
use
the

insights
of
George
Orwell
and
his
observations
on
the
abuse
and
misuse
of
language

in
society.

Orwell
observed
that
society
appeared
to
be
moving
away
from
the
use

of
concrete
language
and
toward
the
use
of
abstract
language.

He
also
saw
how
the

use
of
indeterminate
political
words
and
vague
language
had
a
special
ramification

for
the
political
world
by
highlighting
how
partisans
used
these
words.

And
the
third
part
of
the
essay
will
then
explore
possible
reasons
for
the

degradation
of
language
by
looking
at
the
insights
of
Plato,
and
also
of
Alexis
de

Tocqueville.

Both
of
their
observations
seem
to
complement
Arendt
and
Orwell’s

observation
on
language,
and
might
even
suggest
that
the
degradation
of
political

discourse
may
be
a
permanent,
and
unfortunate,
feature
found
in
democratic

countries.

And
the
final
part
of
the
essay
will
be
a
case
study
that
uses
the
insights

of
the
four
political
thinkers
to
show
how
today’s
media
play
a
prominent
role
in
the

debasement
of
political
discourse.

The
case
study
will
focus
on
how
the
word

socialism
has
come
to
have
two
starkly
different
meanings
throughout
society.

Also,

throughout
the
paper
I
hope
to
show
how
the
degenerative
state
of
political

discourse
is
not
the
result
of
a
handful
of
actors,
but
is
a
problem
to
which
we
all

contribute.

8

Political
Life
and
the
Importance
of
Language

It
can
safely
be
argued
that
the
whole
process
of
creating
words
and
using

them
in
speech
is
what
distinguishes
us
from
other
species.

Language
is
what

allows
us
to
understand
and
make
sense
of
our
world.

Hannah
Arendt
saw
words
as

“carriers
of
meaning”
and
believed
that
“the
creation
of
words”
is
how
the
human

world
appropriates
and
identifies
nature
and
the
things
of
this
world.6

It
is

important
to
point
out
that
what
Arendt
meant
by
the
things
of
this
world
is
related

“to
the
human
artifact”
and
the
“affairs
which
go
on
among”
the
people
who
inhabit

this
planet.7

An
example
of
the
human
artifact
would
be
books
and
buildings,
and
an

example
of
human
affairs
would
be
the
ideas
we
share
through
human
discourse

and
historical
events
that
happen
between
people.

The
creation
of
words
to
designate
and
identify
objects
(both
of
nature
and

the
things
of
this
world)
helps
dis-‐alienate
each
new
generation
from
the
world
and

each
other.8

What
Arendt
meant
by
being
dis-‐alienated
from
the
world
is
that
the

words
we
use
to
give
meaning
to
the
things
of
this
world
help
us
create
a
common

understanding
of
them.

We
are
all
unique
beings
with
differing
perspectives,
but

through
socialization
and
education
each
of
us
comes
to
know,
for
example,
what
a

book,
or
a
tree,
or
water
is
when
we
see
them.

And
even
complete
strangers
will
at

least
have
the
accepted
meanings
of
the
things
of
this
world
in
common.

This
point

6
Arendt,
Hannah.
The
Life
of
the
Mind,
page
99.

7
Arendt,
Hannah.
The
Human
Condition,
page
52.

8
Arendt,
Hannah.
The
Life
of
the
Mind,
page
100.

9

may
seem
trivial
to
even
bring
up
because
it
would
be
almost
unfathomable
for
a

person,
or
a
group
of
people,
to
decide
to
start
calling
books,
trees,
or
water
by
other

names.

And
one
could
image
how
difficult
it
would
be
to
go
to
a
foreign
country

without
knowing
a
single
word
of
the
foreign
language;
it
would
no
doubt
leave
you

feeling
alienated
from
them.

This
example
also
shows
us
how
the
appropriation
of

words,
and
people’s
adherence
to
the
most
basic
meanings
of
these
words,
create
a

commonality
between
all
those
who
understand
the
given
language.

Language
and
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
things
of
this
world
were

given
names
a
long
time
ago.

The
process
of
how
each
of
us
acquired
our
language

as
children
is
a
complex
study
that
linguists
are
still
debating,
and
is
not
something

that
needs
to
be
examined
in
depth
for
our
purposes.

But
we
do
know
that
every

person
is
socialized
through
a
language
that
came
into
existence
long
before
we

were
born.

Children
usually
learn
the
basics
of
language
and
can
communicate
even

before
they
enter
school.

The
beginning
process
of
learning
what
the
things
of
this

world
are
for
children
is
often
done
through
a
simple
method,
like
pointing
to
a
dog

in
amazement
the
first
time
they
see
one.

The
parent
will
then
say,
“Yes,
that
is
a

dog.

Can
you
say,
dog?”

Language
socialization
does
not
stop
after
children
learn
to
talk,
and

continues
on
as
they
learn
to
use
language
in
new
ways
through
their
education
and

other
various
social
interactions.

During
primary
education
children
begin
to
learn

about
math,
science,
and
English
composition,
and
later
will
get
exposed
to
some

sort
of
basic
civics
lesson
on
government
and
politics.

All
of
this
helps
children

expand
their
understanding
of
the
things
of
this
world.

10

Arendt
would
go
one
step
further
than
just
the
idea
of
people
sharing
a

language
with
common
meanings.

She
argued
that
the
things
of
this
world,
in

themselves,
are
common
to
us
all.

We
may
each
have
differing
perspectives
and

relations
toward
the
things
of
this
world,
but
they
will
always
be
something
each
of

us
has
in
common.

For
example:
the
beautiful
state
capitol
I
pass
by
everyday
in
my

city
is
something
that
is
common
to
every
person
who
passes
by
it
as
well.

But
my

relation
to
it,
or
my
perspective
about
it,
is
likely
different
from,
say,
those
of
the

politician
who
works
in
the
building,
or
somebody
who
might
hold
different
political

views
about
the
government.

Arendt
noted
that
the
world
is
like
“a
table
[that]
is

located
between
those
who
sit
around
it.”

The
table
gathers
us
together
and
creates

a
commonality
among
strangers,
but
it
also
separates
and
“prevents
our
falling
over

each
other,
so
to
speak.”

Thus
the
things
of
this
world
are
located
between
us
and

create
a
two-‐fold
nature
because
they
both
relate
and
separate
us.9

The
two-‐fold
nature
of
the
things
of
this
world
partially
reveals
why
humans

organize
and
create
states,
laws,
contracts,
and
other
institutions.

This
two-‐fold

nature
is
also
why
Arendt
believed
“politics
arises
in
what
lies
between
men
and
is

established
as
relationships.”10

In
other
words,
the
innumerable
number
of
things

in
this
world
and
the
almost
infinite
ways
in
which
they
relate
and
separate
us

create
the
necessity
to
establish
rules,
or
laws,
and
institutions
to
help
humans
come

together
in
an
orderly
way.

In
private
life,
or
family
life,
the
things
of
this
world

often
do
not
separate
us
from
family
members
as
much
as
they
might
between

complete
strangers.

But
the
fact
of
life
is
that
we
all
must
venture
out
beyond
our

9
Arendt.
The
Human
Condition,
page
52.

10
Arendt,
Hannah.
The
Promise
of
Politics.
“Introduction
into
Politics.”
Page
95.

11

four
private
walls
and
engage
with
the
social
realm,
or
the
political
realm,
in
one

way
or
another.11

This
is
because
we
are
not
self-‐sufficient
and
must
enter
into
the

world
to
survive.

Thus
we
can
see
the
importance
of
using
speech
as
we
eventually

journey
out
from
our
four
private
walls
and
into
the
world
to
engage
in

relationships
with
others.

With
language
we
then
use
our
ability
to
communicate
with
others
through

speech.

And
communicating
with
others
is
how
we
come
to
understand
the
world,

including
our
own
lives
and
experiences.

As
Arendt
noted,
“[M]en
in
so
far
as
they

live
and
move
and
act
in
this
world,
can
experience
meaningfulness
only
because

they
can
talk
with
and
make
sense
to
each
other
and
to
themselves.”12

What
Arendt

meant
by
“act
in
this
world”
can
best
be
understood
as
human
agency;
or
rather,
the

fact
that
we
all
have
the
ability
“to
take
the
initiative,
to
begin…
[or]
to
set
something

into
motion”
through
our
actions.13

Each
person
that
enters
into
this
world
is
a

unique
being,
and
it
is
only
through
the
process
of
speech
and
action
that
we
can

actively
reveal
who
we
are
to
the
human
world.14

In
The
Human
Condition,
Arendt
expounded
on
the
concept
known
as
the
Vita

Activa
–
which
contains
the
three
fundamental
human
activities:
labor,
work
and

action.

She
argued
that
“labor
is
the
activity
which
corresponds
to
the
biological

process”
that
is
necessary
for
the
survival
of
the
human
species.

Work
is
the
human

activity
that
creates
the
things
of
this
world.

And,
“action
is
the
only
activity
that

11
Arendt,
Hannah.
Responsibility
and
Judgment.
“Reflections
on
Little
Rock.”

Paraphrased
from
Arendt’s
point
on
making
the
distinction
between
“the
three

realms
of
human
life
–
the
political,
the
social
and
the
private.”

12
Arendt,
The
Human
Condition,
page
4.

13
Ibid.,
page
177.

14
Ibid.,
page
179.

12

goes
on
directly
between
men…
and
corresponds
to
the
human
condition
of

plurality.”

For
Arendt,
the
condition
of
human
plurality
–
“the
fact
that
men,
not

Man,
live
on
this
earth”
–
is
the
essential
ingredient
for
“all
political
life”
because
if

we
were
all
identical
beings
there
would
be
no
need
for
political
life.15

A
person’s
actions
can
be
understood
without
the
use
of
verbal
explanations.

Arendt
argued,
however,
it
is
mostly
through
speech
that
a
person’s
actions
become

clear
to
others.16

In
other
words,
speech
is
what
allows
people
to
explain
their

actions.

For
example,
people
would
be
left
in
confusion
if
disempowered
citizens

decided
to
take
action
against
a
policy
they
disliked
by
chaining
themselves
to
the

front
door
of
the
state
capitol
without
using
the
spoken
word
to
explain
their

actions.

Politicians,
and
any
news
that
might
cover
this
protest,
would
understand

that
people
were
chained
to
the
front
door
of
the
capitol,
but
without
the
spoken

word
they
would
not
know
why
the
protesters
decided
to
do
so.

However,
only

through
speech
would
these
people
be
able
to
reveal
the
reason
why
they
chained

themselves
to
the
door.

Thus
with
this
simple
example
of
speech
and
action
we
can

see
why
language
is
so
important
in
politics
because
with
“word
and
deed
we
insert

ourselves
into
the
human
world.”17

However,
if
the
protesters
used
speech
that
contained
political
words
that

did
not
accurately
express
their
reason
why
they
disliked
the
politician,
and
his
or

her
policy,
it
would
create
misunderstanding
and
possible
confusion
as
to
why
they

were
protesting.

So,
for
example,
if
the
protesters
were
holding
signs
that
stated,

15
Arendt,
The
Human
Condition.
Page
7.

16
Ibid.,
page
179.

17
Ibid.,
page
176.

13

“Stop
the
Marxist
politicians
from
implementing
communism
in
America,”
but
the

politicians
were
consistent
liberals,
or
progressives,
simply
implementing
a
policy

that
had
nothing
to
do
with
communism,
those
who
understand
the
distinctions

between
liberalism
and
communism
would
simply
write
the
protesters
off
as
people

who
are
confused
about
the
issues,
or
may
have
been
misled
into
believing
that
the

politicians
were
Marxists
by
other
sources.

This
hypothetical
shows
us
a
simple

way
in
which
people
can
misuse
political
words
(a
point
we
will
discuss
more

below).

The
misuse
of
words
is
much
less
of
a
problem
when
we
speak
to
others

about
the
everyday
actions,
such
as
in
“I
walked
the
dog
this
morning.”

But

everyday
life
is
not
always
simple,
and
we
are
often
confronted
by
a
diverse
and

complex
world
that
requires
explanation
and
understanding.

Furthermore,
we
are

faced
with
the
fact
that
we
are
all
born
into
a
world
that
has
“an
already
existing

web
of
human
relationships.”18

This
web
consists
of
the
various
social,
economic,

familial,
cultural,
legal,
linguistic
and
political
institutions
into
which
we
are
born.

Thus
a
person’s
actions
will
always
have
to
confront
an
“innumerable
[number
of]

conflicting
wills
and
intentions”
that
exist
within
the
web
of
human
relationships.19

In
other
words,
the
disempowered
citizens
who
chained
themselves
to
the
front

door
of
the
capitol
might
seriously
dislike
the
policy
they
are
protesting,
but
there

are
likely
many
people
who
support
the
intentions
and
reasons
for
the
policy.

But
not
only
do
we
confront
an
innumerable
number
of
conflicting
wills
and

intentions
in
this
world
when
we
attempt
to
take
action
against,
or
for,
something,

18
Ibid.,
page
184.

19
Ibid.

14

but
we
also
confront
the
overwhelming
enormity
of
the
web
of
relationships,
and

the
massive
diversity
and
variety
of
things
(objects,
ideas,
institutions,
etc.)
in
the

world.

This
increases
the
likelihood
that
we
might
struggle
to
find
the
right
words

to
describe
something
that
is
unfamiliar
to
us,
or
fall
prey
to
and
believe
a
so-‐called

expert
who
feeds
us
inaccurate
information.

The
enormity
and
complexity
of
the
things
of
this
world
are
one
of
“the

reason[s]
why
all
our
definitions
are
distinctions
[and]
why
we
are
unable
to
say

what
anything
is
without
distinguishing
it
from
something
else.”20

In
other
words,
if

I
were
to
explain
to
a
person
who
had
only
a
basic
understanding
of
the
American

political
system
about
a
foreign
political
system
that
was
unknown
to
him
or
her,
I

would
have
to
distinguish
the
known
from
the
unknown
political
systems.

Making

distinctions
is
such
an
important
aspect
of
speech
because
without
it
we
would
not

be
able
to
explain
the
things
of
this
world
to
others.

Arendt
believed
that
speech
in
the
modern
world
was
losing
its
power.21

She

argued
that
this
loss
was
partially
the
result
of
politicians
and
political
writers

misusing
political
words
because
they
were
failing
to
make
distinctions
when

discussing
complex
political
concepts.

A
modern
example
of
this
loss
of
distinction

is
how
many
right-‐wing
political
writers
in
America
often
use
the
word
socialism
to

denote
something
undesirable,
or
to
castigate
their
opponents.

However,
when
they

do
so
they
fail
to
make
any
kind
of
distinctions
between
the
various
types
of
socialist

regimes
that
existed
in
the
world.

Is
the
socialism
they
denounce
Norway’s

democratic-‐socialism,
or
Russian
socialism,
or
Chinese
socialism?

These
three

20
Idid.,
page
176.

21
Hannah
Arendt,
The
Human
Condition,
page
4.

15

examples
of
socialist
regimes
have
very
distinct
differences.

Thus
we
can
see
an

example
of
how
speech
can
lose
its
power
to
accurately
explain
political
concepts

when
people
fail
to
make
important
distinctions.

Arendt
believed
that
the
lack
of
making
distinctions
was
also
connected
to

what
she
saw
as
the
“functionalization
of
all
concepts
and
ideas.”22

This
occurs

when
people
concern
themselves
only
with
the
functions
of
certain
concepts
and

ideas,
rather
than
understanding
the
intricate
details
of
the
ideas.

Arendt
used
an

example
that
showed
how
some
people
often
called
communism
a
“new
religion,

despite
its
avowed
atheism,
because
it
[supposedly]
fulfills
socially,
psychologically,

and
emotionally
the
same
function
traditional
religion
fulfilled.”23

However,
she

believed
that
this
functionalizing
leads
people
to
confusing
the
political
issues

because
people
who
suggest
that
communism
is
a
religion
will
then
not
concern

themselves
with
what
bolshevism
actually
is
as
an
“ideology
or
as
[a]
form
of

government,
nor
in
what
its
spokesmen
have
to
say
for
themselves”,
but
only

concern
themselves
with
the
function
of
communism
(i.e.,
that
it
provides
the
same

function
of
worshiping
some
higher
deity).

As
she
said,
“it
is
as
though
I
had
the

right
to
call
the
heel
of
my
shoe
a
hammer
because,
I,
like
most
women,
use
it
to

drive
nails
into
the
wall.”24

Another
problem
with
the
functionalization
of
ideas
is

that
people
can
then
use
their
analysis
to
“draw
quite
different
conclusions
from

such
equations.”25

For
example,
Arendt
argued
that
a
conservative
could
then
draw

the
conclusion
that
because
“communism
can
fulfill
the
same
function
as
religion”

22
Hannah
Arendt.
Between
Past
and
Future.
“What
is
Authority?”
page
101.

23
Ibid.,
page
102.

24
Ibid.

25
Ibid.

16

that
this
analysis
is
“the
best
proof
that
religion
is
necessary.”26

Or,
on
the
contrary,

liberals
could
draw
the
conclusion
that
this
analysis
proves
why
only
“true

secularism
[could]
cure
us”
of
the
influence
of
religion
on
politics.27

The
issue
of
functionalization
that
Arendt
wrote
about
in
the
late
1960s
is

still
very
much
alive
and
well
today.

In
some
circles
of
leftist
political
writings
we

can
see
examples
of
people
suggesting
that
sports,
or
war,
are
the
“new
religion”
in

America.

A
leftist
social
critic,
Chris
Hedges,
makes
exactly
this
claim
in
an
article

called
“Kneeling
in
Fenway
Park
to
the
Gods
of
War.”28

The
thesis
of
his
article

suggests
that
the
U.S.
military
and
sports
are
the
“new
religion”
in
America,
and
that

they
are
as
“unassailable
as
Jesus.”

However,
in
order
to
make
his
point
he
provides

a
perfect
example
of
blurring
the
distinctions
between
religion,
militarism,
and

sports
when
he
suggests
that
the
military
is
fulfilling
the
same
function
as
not
only

religion,
but
also
sports.

Hedges
establishes
the
idea
that
the
military
and
sports
are
America’s
new

religion
with
his
very
first
sentence
“On
Saturday
I
went
to
one
of
the
massive

temples
across
the
country
where
we
celebrate
our
state
religion.”

The
temples
are

sports
stadiums,
and
the
religion
is
war
and
sports.

And
while
visiting
these

stadiums
we
see
“religious
reverie…
used
to
justify
our
bloated
war
budget
and

endless
wars.”

There
can
be
no
doubt
that
over
the
past
few
decades
there
has
been

a
steady
increase
in
the
display
of
militarism
at
sporting
events;
however,
as
a
long-‐
time
fan
of
sports
I
can
remember
the
days
when
this
linkage
was
not
the
case.

But,

26
Ibid.

27
Ibid.

28
Hedges,
Chris.
“Kneeling
in
Fenway
Park
to
the
Gods
of
War.”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/08-‐1

17

Hedges
doesn’t
make
this
distinction;
on
the
contrary,
he
actually
suggests
that
“the

heroes
of
war
and
the
heroes
of
sports
are
indistinguishable
in
militarized

societies.”

And
to
show
Arendt’s
point
about
how
people
will
then
“draw
quite
different

conclusions
from
[the]
equations”
that
are
put
forth
by
those
who
functionalize

concepts
and
ideas
we
can
simply
look
at
the
public
comment
sections
of
websites

that
published
Hedges’
article.

The
examples
I
read
through
are
from
people
on
a

progressive
website,
commondreams.org,
and
in
them
we
see
people
draw
various

conclusions
(and
I
paraphrase):
“sports
are
competitive
and
are
part
of
the
essential

human
urge
to
dominate
all
others
and
therefore
they
should
all
eventually
be

abolished”
and
“sports
trump
everything
else
in
society,
and
it
is
the
reason
why
the

uphill
battle
for
societal
change
is
so
difficult.”

At
any
rate,
Hedges’
article
clearly
shows
how
the
functionalization
process

produces
confusion
by
“blurring
the
distinctive
lines.”29

A
person
who
understands

this
process
is
left
with:
what
exactly
is
the
political
problem
here?

Is
it
the

Pentagon
that
uses
sporting
events
to
promote
militarism?

Are
sports
the
problem?

Are
both
of
them
the
problem?

Do
war
and
sports
really
provide
the
same
function

as
religion?

Hedges,
no
doubt,
is
bringing
up
an
important
point
about
the
rise
of

U.S.
militarism,
but
in
his
functionalizing
of
key
concepts
we
see
him
ignoring
the

intricacies
of
these
three
distinct
institutions
for
the
purpose
of
charging
the
secular

two
of
serving
the
same
“worshipping”
function
as
religion.

As
Orwell
once
stated,

“people
who
write
in
this
manner
usually
have
a
general
emotional
meaning
–
they

29
Arendt.
“What
is
Authority.”
Page
103.

18

dislike
one
thing
and
want
to
express
solidarity
with
another
–
but
they
are
not

interested
in
the
detail
of
what
they
are
saying.”30

Thus
in
the
process
people
who

functionalize
key
concepts
and
ideas
unfortunately
fail
to
bring
any
clarity
to
the

issues.

Arendt
was
not
the
only
political
thinker
to
recognize
the
degradation
of

political
discourse
during
her
time.

George
Orwell
was
another
political
thinker

who
recognized
the
role
that
the
abuse
and
misuse
of
political
words,
and
the
decay

of
language
as
a
whole,
would
play
during
1930s
and
40s.

Orwell’s
experience
of

this
temporal
phenomenon
was
quite
different
from
Arendt’s
experience,
and
he

offers
us
unique
insights
into
the
abuse
and
misuse
of
language.

In
his
essay
“Politics
and
the
English
Language”
Orwell
argued
that
the

“political
chaos”
[of
the
thirties
was]
connected
with
the
decay
of
language.”31

It
is

also
likely
that
his
observation
of
the
decay
of
language
prompted
his
now
famous

formulation
in
1984:
“War
is
Peace.

Freedom
is
Slavery.

Ignorance
is
Strength.”

Orwell
observed
the
overall
debasement
of
language
in
all
areas
of
modern
prose.

But
he
argued
that
the
problem
was
not
“due
simply
to
the
bad
influence
of
this
or

that
writer,”
but
rather
was
the
result
of
the
overall
decline
of
language
in
society.32

He
argued
that
one
aspect
of
this
decline
was
related
to
a
trend
in
“modern
prose

[that
was
moving]
away
from
concreteness”
and
towards
the
use
of
abstract
and

vague
phraseology.33

30
Orwell,
“Politics
and
the
English
Language.”
George
Orwell
Essays.
Page
962.

31
Ibid.,
Page
966.

32
Ibid.,
Page
954.

33
Ibid.,
page
960.

19

Orwell
used
a
verse
from
Ecclesiastes
as
an
example
of
concrete
language

versus
abstract
language.

The
verse
states,
“I
returned,
and
saw
under
the
sun,
that

the
race
is
not
to
the
swift,
nor
the
battle
to
the
strong.”

He
stated
that
the
words

race
and
battle
are
examples
of
“concrete
illustrations”
because
they
produce

concrete-‐like
images
in
our
minds
when
we
read
them.

Orwell
wrote
that
a
modern

writer
would
be
more
likely
to
write
these
same
lines
as:
“Objective
consideration
of

contemporary
phenomena
compels
the
conclusion
that
success
or
failure
in

competitive
activities
exhibits
no
tendency
to
be
commensurate
with
innate

capacity.”34

He
suggests
that
this
phrasing
is
abstract
and
vague
because
it
fails
to

usher
in
a
concrete
image
in
the
reader’s
mind
of
what
the
author
is
really
trying
to

describe.

Orwell
also
saw
how
the
use
of
abstract
and
vague
language
is
worsened
by

the
use
of
indeterminate
political
words,
and
that
this
misuse
was
especially

problematic
in
the
political
world.

He
argued
that
many
important
political
words

have
become
indeterminate
because
people
cannot
agree
on
a
given
meaning,
and

that
they
use
words
to
bring
emotive
responses
out
in
people.

The
capitalist

propaganda
says,
“Communism
is
godless
and
evil!”

And
the
communist

propaganda
says,
“Capitalism
is
slavery
and
exploitation!”

Orwell
showed
how

words
like
democracy,
socialism,
and
freedom
have
“several
different
meanings.”

He
then
went
on
to
give
an
example
when
he
wrote,
“it
is
almost
universally
felt
that

when
we
call
a
country
democratic
we
are
praising
it:
consequently
the
defenders
of

every
kind
of
regime
claim
that
it
is
a
democracy,
and
fear
that
they
might
have
to

34
Ibid.

20

stop
using
the
word
if
it
were
tied
down
to
any
one
meaning.”35

The
endless
praise

by
American
politicians
and
media
pundits
claiming
America
as
the
greatest

democracy
in
the
world
certainly
comes
to
mind
here
–
especially
given
the
recent

studies
by
political
scientists
that
show
America
does
not
actually
resemble
a

democracy.36

Orwell
argued
that
the
other
major
issue
of
political
writings
and
speeches,

which
contributes
to
the
degradation
of
political
discourse,
is
that
they
often

promote
the
“defense
of
the
indefensible.”

Such
issues
that
often
involve
extremely

difficult
choices.

For
example,
the
life
or
death
choices
that
states
often
have
to

make
in
times
of
war.

As
Orwell
noted,
“the
dropping
of
the
atom
bombs
on
Japan,

can
indeed
be
defended,
but
only
by
arguments
which
are
too
brutal
for
most
people

to
face.”

Therefore,
political
writers,
journalists
and
politicians
will
instead
use

language
that
“consist[s]
largely
of
euphemism,
question-‐begging
and
sheer
cloudy

vagueness.”37

This
ploy
is
used
to
conceal
the
brutal
aspects
of
politics,
rather
than

to
bring
the
argument
fully
into
the
light
of
public
discourse.

The
Bush

administration’s
use
of
torture
and
calling
it
“enhanced
interrogation”
would
be
a

perfect
modern
example.

Orwell
argued
that
the
abuse
of
political
words,
or
the
use
of
vague
language,

then
gets
amplified
through
the
use
of
propaganda
and
imitation.

Political
writers

and
politicians
are
mostly
attached
to
a
particular
political
party,
or
political

ideology.

Orwell
stated
that
their
manifestos
and
speeches
are
all
highly
similar
in

35
Ibid.,
Page
959.

36
Gilens,
Martin.
“Testing
Theories
of
American
Politics:
Elites,
Interest
Groups
and

Average
Citizens.”

37
Orwell,
“Politics
and
the
English
Language.”
Page
963.

21

that
one
never
finds
“a
fresh,
vivid,
home-‐made
turn
of
speech.”38

In
other
words,

politicians
use
hackneyed
words
and
vague
language
in
their
writings
and
speeches.

This
tendency,
Orwell
believed,
recurs
because
partisanship
“seems
to
demand
a

lifeless,
imitative
style”39
leading
faithful
followers
of
parties,
or
ideologies,
to
repeat

the
same
lifeless
talking
points
throughout
society.

Orwell’s
point
can
certainly
be

observed
in
today’s
world.

For
example,
if
one
influential
partisan
starts
claiming

that
President
Obama
is
a
Marxist,
faithful
partisan
followers
are
likely
to
repeat
the

claim.

Both
Orwell’s
and
Arendt’s
insights
into
some
of
the
causes
of
the

degradation
of
political
language
can
still
be
observed
in
today’s
political
discourse.

However,
before
we
move
forward
to
look
at
the
degradation
in
today’s
political

discourse
we
need
to
see
if
the
abuse
and
misuse
of
language
were
a
problem
during

any
other
time
periods.

In
other
words,
were
the
abuse
and
misuse
of
political

language
something
that
started
to
appear
only
during
the
early
20th
Century,
and

have
they
continued
up
to
today?

Or
does
this
problem
have
much
deeper
origins?

To
understand
these
questions
we
will
explore
the
use
of
political
language
in

Ancient
Greece,
and
then
examine
the
use
of
political
language
during
early
19th

century
America.

38
Ibid.,
page
962.

39
Ibid.

22

Plato
and
Tocqueville:
Language
in
Democracy

The
most
obvious
place
to
start
researching
whether
or
not
political
language

was
ever
debased
during
earlier
time
periods,
similar
to
what
Arendt
and
Orwell

observed,
would
be
to
read
the
ancient
works
of
the
Greek
political
philosophers.

And
by
doing
so
one
would
eventually
discover
Plato’s
views
on
the
debasement
of

language
during
his
time.

In
the
Republic,
Plato
envisioned
his
ideal
utopian
state,

and
throughout
the
book
he
went
into
great
detail
about
the
problems
that
arise
in

the
various
types
of
political
systems.

The
ideal
state
that
Plato
wanted
to
build
was
a
republic
that
would
be
ruled

by
the
elder
philosophers.

It
would
be
similar
to
an
aristocracy,
though
it
is

important
to
note
that
Plato’s
aristocrats,
or
the
philosopher
rulers,
would
be
people

who
were
selfless
and
without
property.

His
viewpoints
on
why
the
ideal
state

would
be
a
republic
ruled
by
a
selfless
aristocracy
was
likely
influenced
by
the
fact

that
it
was
the
Athenian
democracy
that
had
put
his
friend,
Socrates,
to
death
based

on
trumped
up
charges.

Thus
in
the
Republic
we
see
Plato’s
criticism
of
democracy

come
to
the
fore.

Plato
wrote
that
democracies
have
some
of
the
“most
beautiful

constitutions,”
and
that
the
“free
men”
living
within
the
city
would
be
“full
of

freedom
and
liberty
of
speech”
allowing
men
to
do
whatever
pleases
them.40

Freedom
and
liberty
of
speech
is
quite
the
familiar
concept
to
the
American,
and

would
seem
like
the
only
way
to
live.

But
to
Plato
such
was
not
the
case.

He
argued

that
whenever
there
is
too
much
regard
for
the
“liberty
of
action”
that
man
would

40
Plato.
Great
Dialogues
of
Plato:
“Republic.”

Page
419.

23

then
“arrange
his
own
private
life
[in
this
democracy]
just
as
it
pleased
him”
and

that
this
mentality
amongst
all
its
citizens
would
eventually
destroy
the
city.41

Plato

argued
that
this
“do
whatever
one
pleases”
mentality
would
result
in
people’s

mainly
pursuing
the
unnecessary
desires
and
pleasures
in
life,
rather
than
pursuing

the
four
cardinal
virtues
that
lead
people
to
truth
and
reason,
to
right
living
and
the

good
life,
which
he
believed
was
necessary
for
an
ideal
state.

Plato
argued
that
the
young
children
growing
up
in
a
democratic
state
of

affairs
would
become
socialized
in
“parsimony
and
ignorance”
through
their

parents’
“lack
of
knowledge
of
right
upbringing.”42

As
he
stated,
many
of
the
people

would
be
“empty
of
learning
and
beautiful
practices
and
without
words
of
truth,

which
are
indeed
the
best
sentinels
and
guardians
in
the
minds
of
men.”43

And
this

lack
of
a
proper
education
and
of
adherence
to
the
four
virtues
for
right
living
would

leave
people
susceptible
to
being
manipulated
by
“liars
and
imposters”
who
use

“false
words
and
opinions”
to
propagate
their
interests
throughout
society.44

Plato

argued
that
many
of
these
liars
and
imposters
would
eventually
win
over
the
people

as
they
pushed
their
false
words
and
opinions,
and
by
doing
so
they
would
begin
to

debase
all
truthful
speech.

Plato
wrote,
“Shame
they
dub
Silliness…
Temperance

they
dub
Cowardice”
and
they
would
then
glorify
their
“licentiousness
and

immodesty”
and
“call
them
by
soft
names
–
Violence
is
now
Good
Breeding,
Anarchy

is
Liberty,
Licentiousness
is
Magnificence,
Immodesty
is
Courage.”45

41
Ibid.

42
Ibid.,
page
422-‐23.

43
Ibid.,
page
423.

44
Ibid.

45
Ibid.,
page
423-‐24.

24

One
cannot
help
but
see
that
what
Plato
is
describing
could
plausibly
be
what

led
Orwell
to
write
“War
is
Peace,
Freedom
is
Slavery,
and
Ignorance
is
Strength.”

But
the
important
point
is
the
effect
that
he
saw
democracy
had
on
language
during

his
time.

Plato
was
living
during
a
time
that
saw
the
demise
of
Athenian
democracy.

There
were
certainly
many
factors
that
led
to
this
demise;
however,
through
Plato’s

insights
we
can
see
how
language
was
misused
and
abused
during
the
ancient

struggles
of
who
should
rule
whom.

Thus
we
also
see
why
Plato
would
argue

against
democracy,
and
for
a
republic
that
had
aristocratic
rulers
who
would

implement
a
strict
censorship
of
ideas
and
education
throughout
society.

In
other

words,
Plato’s
work
shows
us
an
example
of
a
person
living
during
a
time
that
was

experiencing
the
ill
effects
and
disintegration
of
democratic
rule,
prompting
him
to

argue
for
the
necessity
of
aristocratic
rule.

So
the
next
question
to
ask
is:
did
any
other
political
thinker
write
about
the

effect
that
democracy
had
on
language?

The
answer
to
this
question
will
now
take

us
to
the
work
of
Tocqueville
and
to
America
during
the
early
19th
Century.

However,
it
is
important
that
I
first
point
out
the
obvious
difference
between
Plato’s

observations
on
language
in
democracies
compared
to
Tocqueville’s;
namely,

Tocqueville
was
living
during
a
time
when
aristocratic
rule
was
disintegrating,
and

democratic
rule
was
re-‐emerging
from
its
long
slumber.

Plato,
on
the
contrary,
was

experiencing
the
disintegration
of
democratic
rule
and
arguing
for
aristocratic
rule.

Thus
the
difference
between
these
two
thinkers
gives
us
an
interesting
opportunity

to
look
at
the
issue
of
language
in
democracies
from
two
different
angles.

25

In
1831
Alexis
de
Tocqueville
came
to
America
to
study
its
prisons
and

penitentiaries.

But
he
would
end
up
observing
and
studying
all
of
America’s

institutions
as
well
as
its
customs
and
manners,
and
later
turned
his
two-‐year
study

into
his
famous
book
Democracy
in
America.

His
study
would
also
briefly
focus
on

the
use
of
language
in
democracies
compared
to
aristocracies.

Tocqueville

explained
that
“few
new
words
are
coined”
in
aristocratic
countries
because
things

rarely
changed,
and
even
when
new
things
came
into
existence
the
words
given
to

them
would
“be
designated
by
known
words
whose
meaning
has
been
determined

by
tradition.”46

In
democratic
countries
new
ideas
and
things
are
constantly
coming
into

existence.

Tocqueville
argued
that
the
constant
change
in
democratic
countries

ends
up
“changing
the
character
of
the
language.”

He
thought
that
this
change

happens
because
the
new
words
that
come
into
existence
to
explain
new
ideas,
or

things,
are
generally
created
by
a
“majority
[that]
is
more
engaged
in…
political
and

commercial
interests,”47
rather
than
by
the
people
who
are
engaged
in
the
study
of

languages,
philosophy,
etc.,
and
who
understand
the
etymological
roots
of
language

(i.e.,
the
dead
languages
of
Latin,
Greek
and
Hebrew).

And
since
the
people
who

generally
create
new
words
often
do
not
understand
the
etymological
roots
of
their

language,
they
will
borrow
words
from
the
living
languages
and
give
new
meaning

to
a
word
or
expression
that
is
already
in
use.

This
act
creates
words
with
double

meanings
and
begins
to
render
them
ambiguous
and
indeterminate.

I
will
now
skip

forward
in
time
to
show
a
modern
example
of
what
Tocqueville
was
explaining.

46
Tocqueville.
Democracy
in
America.
Volume
II,
Chapter
XVI.

Page
582.

47
Ibid.,
page
583.

26

A
representative
modern
example
of
the
process
of
how
words
end
up
with

double
meanings
is
the
word
libertarian.

In
the
mid-‐twentieth
century
Murray

Rothbard
“coined”
the
term
libertarian
to
describe
his
anarcho-‐capitalist
economic

theories.

However,
the
term
libertarian
had
been
in
use
since
around
the
1870s
in

Europe
by
the
French
anarchists
who
began
to
call
themselves
libertarians
to
get

around
the
harsh
anti-‐anarchist
French
laws.

To
this
day
libertarianism
in
most
of

Europe
is
understood
as
anarchism,
an
anti-‐capitalist
and
anti-‐socialist
ideology.48

However,
in
America,
and
thanks
to
Rothbard
borrowing
a
word
and
adopting
a
new

meaning,
libertarianism
is
understood
as
an
ideology
that
is
staunchly
pro-‐capitalist.

With
this
example
we
can
see
how
two
very
different
ideologies
are
now
in
a

sort
of
competition
against
each
other
over
the
meaning
of
libertarianism.

We
can

also
see
how
the
words
in
democratic
countries
that
are
“coined
and
adopted
for”

political
and
commercial
uses
will
mainly
“serve
to
express
the
wants
of
business

[and]
the
passions
of
party.”49

In
other
words,
the
word
libertarian
in
America
is

now
often
used
to
express
the
wants
of
business
(getting
rid
of
burdensome

government
regulation)
and
has
also
turned
into
the
rallying
cry
of
the
Tea
Party.

Thus
the
word,
with
its
new
double
meaning,
has
a
tendency
to
cause
confusion.50

48
Noam
Chomsky’s
interview
on
libertarian-‐socialism,
and
ways
the
meaning
of

libertarianism
in
America
is
an
anomaly.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-‐
liberties/noam-‐chomsky-‐kind-‐anarchism-‐i-‐believe-‐and-‐whats-‐wrong-‐libertarians

49
Tocqueville,
page
583.

50
A
good
example
of
the
confusion
can
be
seen
when
a
person
calls
themselves
a

“libertarian-‐socialist.”

This
is
a
strand
of
anarchism.

However,
a
person
who

understands
libertarianism
to
be
a
staunchly
pro-‐capitalist
ideology
will
believe
that

libertarian-‐socialism
is
an
oxymoron.

How
could
a
hard-‐core
capitalist
also
be
a

socialist,
they
ask?

However,
the
reason
that
people
call
themselves
libertarian-‐
socialists
is
because
they
adhere
to
the
much
longer
held
tradition
that
understands

27

Tocqueville
thought
that
this
outcome
was
one
of
the
more
“deplorable

consequence[s]
of
democracy”51
because
it
creates
just
as
“much
confusion
in

language
as
there
is
in
society.”52

He
believed
that
“harmony
and
uniformity”
in

language
were
an
important
aspect
of
clear
communication.

However,
what
was

happening
with
language
in
democratic
countries
was
beginning
to
create
prose

usages
that
“obscure[d]
the
thoughts
they
[were]
intended
to
convey”53
because
the

thoughts
were
surrounded
by
ambiguous
and
indeterminate
words.

Tocqueville
would
also
study
the
press
and
observed
how
journalists
greatly

affected
public
opinion.

He
argued
that
the
problem
of
the
abuse
and
misuse
of

language
in
America
were
amplified
through
the
freedom
of
the
press.

When

writing
about
journalists
he
noted
that
they
had
a
tendency
“to
assail
the
characters

of
[political]
individuals”
rather
than
engaging
in
any
kind
of
reasoned
political

argument.

Tocqueville
thought
that
this
choice
was
“deplorable”
because
of
the

media’s
immense
influence
on
public
opinion.

He
also
wrote
that
individuals
who
were
held
in
“high
esteem
of
their
fellow-‐
citizens
[were]
afraid
to
write
in
the
newspapers.”

Though
he
doesn’t
specify,

Tocqueville
is
most
likely
describing
American
intellectuals,
academics,
and
highly

regarded
politicians.

He
does
not
address
the
exact
reasons
why
they
are
afraid,
but

he
does
write
that
the
highly
esteemed
people
in
society
would
generally
“only
write

in
the
papers
when
they
choose
to
address
the
people
in
their
own
name;
as,
for

libertarianism
as
a
form
of
anarchism.

There
is
a
variety
of
anarchist
literature
that

writes
of
this
problem.

51
Tocqueville,
page
584.

52
Ibid.,
page
586.

53
Ibid.,
page
587.

28

instance,
when
they
are
called
upon
to
repel
calumnious
imputations,
and
to
correct

a
misstatement
of
facts.”54

The
absence
of
intellectuals
and
academics
writing
in
the

press
created
an
intellectual
vacuum
and
allowed
journalists
and
editors
to
fill
the

vacuum
by
publishing
“knowledge
of
certain
facts,”
but
often
doing
so
in
a
way
that

“alter[ed]
and
distort[ed]
those
facts
[so]
that
a
journalist
[could]
contribute
to
the

support
of
his
own
views,”
rather
than
writing
an
objective
analysis.55

Furthermore,

the
vacuum
was
filled
with
a
large
variety
of
newspapers
and
publications
that

circulated
throughout
America.

Thus
the
harmony
and
uniformity
of
language
that

Tocqueville
believed
were
so
important
for
clear
communication
was
basically
non-‐
existent
in
America.

To
make
matters
worse,
Tocqueville
observed
an
American
public
that
had
a

propensity
to
adopt
the
media’s
“propositions
without
inquiry”
and
that
the
public

would
then
“cling
to
their
opinions
from
pride”
and
also
“because
they
exercise
their

own
free-‐will
in
choosing
them.”56

In
other
words,
the
press
had
a
tendency
to
push

personal
views
in
order
to
appease
the
populace
or
sell
subscriptions;
and
the

populace
had
a
tendency
to
cling
to
these
opinions,
rather
than
investigate
the

media’s
claims.

The
people’s
repeating
what
they
hear
without
inquiry
certainly

complements
the
point
Plato
was
making
in
regard
to
some
people’s
being
won
over

by
the
“liars
and
imposters”
who
spread
their
“false
words
and
opinions”

throughout
society.

Furthermore,
it
complements
Orwell’s
insights
into
how
the

faithful
followers
of
political
parties
and
ideologies
will
repeat
the
same
lifeless

54
Ibid.

55
Ibid.

56
Ibid.

29

talking
points
of
their
respective
parties
or
ideologies.

Thus
we
can
see
an
example

of
how
the
press
and
political
propaganda
amplify
the
degradation
of
political

discourse.

Tocqueville
doubted
that
there
was
anything
that
could
be
done
to
reverse

what
was
happening
to
language
in
democratic
countries,
but
he
still
felt
it
was

necessary
to
highlight
the
effects
of
democracy
on
language.

So
it
would
seem

appropriate
to
ask:
was
Tocqueville
against
democracy,
like
Plato?

Or
were
there

any
redeeming
qualities
to
be
found
in
democracy?

And
how
do
Arendt’s
and

Orwell’s
insights
into
the
degradation
of
political
language
relate
to
Plato
and

Tocqueville’s
views
on
the
issues
of
language
in
democracy?

The
answer
to
Tocqueville’s
position
on
democracy
is
probably
similar
to

Plato’s
position:
they
both
observed
that
democracy
had
positive
and
negative

aspects.

However,
the
purpose
of
Tocqueville’s
work
was
not
to
praise
democracy

in
America,
nor
to
build
an
ideal
utopian
state,
like
Plato,
but
was
to
observe
and

study
democracy
in
action.

In
her
work
on
Tocqueville,
Arendt
pointed
out
that
his

studies
in
America,
and
his
experience
during
the
turbulent
times
of
the
French

revolution,
might
have
ended
in
his
despair
for
the
new
emerging
world.

Arendt

wrote,
“For
what
else
but
despair
could
have
inspired
Tocqueville’s
assertion
that

‘since
the
past
has
ceased
to
throw
its
light
upon
the
future
the
mind
of
man

wanders
in
obscurity?’”57

Arendt
argued
that
this
despair
is
likely
why
Tocqueville

went
on
to
suggest
that
“a
new
science
of
politics
is
needed
for
a
new
world.”58

In

other
words,
the
emerging
new
world
of
democracy
was
severing
the
hold
that
the

57
Arendt,
Hannah.
Between
Past
and
Future.
“The
Concept
of
History.”
Page
77.

58
Tocqueville,
quoted
by
Arendt
in
“The
Concept
of
History.”
Page
77.

30

aristocratic
and
monarchical
traditions
–
the
very
traditions
that
had
guided

humanity
through
so
many
centuries
–
had
previously
enjoyed,
and
a
new
science
of

politics
was
needed
to
understand
the
new
and
rapidly
changing
world.

Arendt’s
work
would
also
suggest
that
she
might
have
been
in
agreement

with
Tocqueville
about
the
loss
of
tradition
and
the
need
to
find
a
new
science
of

politics
that
anchored
us
into
something
more
stable.

Arendt
wrote
that
“with
the

loss
of
tradition
we
have
lost
the
thread
which
safely
guided
us
through
the
vast

realms
of
the
past,
but
this
thread
was
also
the
chain
fettering
each
successive

generation
to
the
predetermined
aspect
of
the
past.”59

This
insight
by
Arendt
seems

to
create
a
paradox,
and
one
that
Tocqueville
may
have
been
struggling
with
too

when
he
argued
for
the
need
of
a
new
science
for
politics.

However,
for
Arendt,
the
paradox
lessens
if
we
understand
that
she
was

mainly
concerned
about
the
loss
of
tradition
because
she
felt
that
it
endangered
“the

whole
dimension
of
the
past.”60

The
reason
that
Arendt
was
concerned
about
saving

the
past,
rather
than
tradition
per
se,
was
that
she
believed
that
“[f]or
human
beings

thinking
of
past
matters
means
moving
in
the
dimension
of
depth,
striking
roots
and

thus
stabilizing
themselves,
so
as
not
to
be
swept
away
by
whatever
may
occur.”61

This
point
complements
Plato’s
argument
on
how
people
in
democracies
can

become
ignorant
and
easily
manipulated
by
the
liars
and
imposters,
who
push
false

words
and
opinions
in
society,
because
the
people
had
failed
to
properly
learn
how

to
reason
and
understand
the
greater
truths
–
an
understanding
that
requires

59
Arendt,
“What
is
Authority?”
page
94.

60
Ibid.

61
Arendt,
as
quoted
in
Young-‐Bruehl,
Elizabeth,
“Hannah
Arendt:
For
the
Love
of
the

World.”

31

thinking
of
past
matters.

Arendt’s
point
also
complements
Orwell’s
main
reasoning

for
writing
about
the
decay
of
language:
to
raise
awareness
about
the
degradation
of

language
in
the
hopes
that
people
would
free
themselves
“from
the
worst
follies
of

orthodoxy”62
that
spread
by
imitation,
and
would
thus
begin
the
“necessary
first

step
towards
political
regeneration.”63

Arendt
also
recognized
that
tradition
often
passed
down
the
lessons
of
the

past
to
each
successive
generation.

However
she
was
not
suggesting
that

democracy
did
not
work,
or
that
we
should
go
back
to
aristocratic
rule,
or
that

saving
tradition
would
inform
us
how
we
should
live;
rather,
she
meant
that

understanding
the
past
would
offer
insights
and
ways
for
us
to
think
through
the

modern
political
questions
that
continually
seem
to
perplex
us.

Furthermore,

Arendt
argued
that
one
of
the
most
important
things
that
we
can
do
when
we
gather

around
the
political
table
to
discuss
these
complex
issues
is
to
remember
to
make

distinctions.

If
there
was
one
tradition
that
Arendt
likely
wished
to
save,
it
was

probably
traditional
political
thought
because,
in
her
opinion,
it
still
offered
many

insights
useful
for
understanding
today’s
political
problems.

Are
Plato’s
and

Tocqueville’s
views
of
what
happened
to
language
in
democracies
not
parallel?

Case
Study:
Modern
Media
and
the
Parroting
Effect

Now
that
we
understand
a
little
more
about
the
importance
of
language
for

political
life,
and
the
effect
that
democracy
has
on
language,
I
would
like
to
move
to

the
final
part
of
the
essay
to
show
the
role
that
the
modern
media
play
in
amplifying

62
Orwell.
Page
967.

63
Ibid.,
page
955.

32

the
debasement
of
political
discourse.

There
are
plenty
of
current
examples
to
show

how
political
language
is
abused
and
becomes
degraded
on
a
large
scale
through
the

amplification
by
the
press
in
America.

On
a
daily
basis
media
pundits
can
be
seen

habitually
distorting
and
altering
facts
to
support
their
ideological
views,
and
in

some
cases
attempting
to
give
new
meaning
to
political
words
already
in
use,
rather

than
giving
any
sort
of
reasoned
and
balanced
analysis.

A
great
source
to
observe

the
parroting
effect
this
distortion
has
on
average
people
can
easily
be
observed
in

the
public-‐comment
sections
of
online
news
sources
and
other
social
media
sites.

A
specific
example
will
bring
us
back
to
the
original
question
of
how
the

word
socialism
has
come
to
have
starkly
different
definitions
throughout
society.

In

the
past
few
years,
right-‐wing
media
pundits
frequently
have
called
the
Democrats

socialists,
or
claim
that
President
Obama
is
a
Marxist.

In
fact,
if
we
take
a
quick

glance
at
the
websites
of
people
like
Glenn
Beck
and
Rush
Limbaugh,
we
see
article

after
article
that
instructs
their
audience
that
President
Obama
and
the
Democrats

are
socialists.

And
if
we
look
at
the
comment
sections
of
online
news
sources
there

is
example
after
example
of
people
parroting
the
talking
points
of
Beck
and

Limbaugh.64

The
assertions
that
President
Obama
is
a
Marxist
are
clearly
not

coming
from
academia
because
this
claim
would
not
be
considered
as
serious.

So

where
else
could
people
possibly
be
getting
these
assertions?

Glenn
Beck
has
dedicated
numerous
shows
to
attempting
to
prove
why

President
Obama
is
a
Marxist.

In
one,
he
gives
us
an
excellent
example
of

64
To
prove
this
point
about
people
parroting
the
idea
that
the
Democrats
are

socialist
one
only
needs
to
visit
websites
like
www.foxnews.com,
or

www.breitbart.com,
and
read
through
the
comments
sections
of
the
various
news

columns
that
are
critical
of
President
Obama,
and
the
Democrats.

33

Tocqueville’s
point
about
the
press.

Within
the
first
minutes
of
his
show
Beck
starts

to
“track
[President
Obama]
into
private
life
[in
an
attempt
to]
disclose
all
[his]

weaknesses
and
errors.”65

Beck
believes
that
in
order
to
understand
the
“political

structure”
of
President
Obama
we
need
to
take
a
look
at
his
“foundation”
(i.e.,
his

family
and
his
upbringing).

Beck
suggests
that
if
we
do
so
we
will
be
left
wondering

how
President
Obama
did
“not
become
anything
but
a
Marxist
with
[his]

childhood.”66

In
other
words,
there
are
so
many
early
life
connections
to
supposed

Marxists
that
one
should
believe
it
would
be
strange
for
President
Obama
not
to
be
a

Marxist.

Immediately
after
Beck
tracks
President
Obama
into
his
private
life,
he

proceeds
to
give
us
another
example
of
Tocqueville’s
insight
by
“altering
and

distorting”
facts
to
“contribute
to
the
support
of
his
own
views.”67

One
of
the
facts

that
Beck
attempts
to
distort
is
the
sound
bite
of
President
Obama
telling
Joe
the

plumber
that
“when
you
spread
the
wealth
around,
it’s
good
for
everybody.”

Beck

then
tells
his
audience,
“Marx
said
that.

Madison
never
said
that.

Our
founders
all

warned
against
that.”68

It
is
a
fact
that
President
Obama
has
suggested
on
numerous
occasions
that

spreading
the
wealth
around
is
good
for
society.

However,
Beck
distorts
this
fact
by

simply
removing
the
context.

The
context
is
that
President
Obama
is
speaking
of

65
Tocqueville
quote
from
above.

66
Ibid.
Glen
Beck,
transcript
printed
on
Foxnews.com:

The
first
part
is
Beck

showing
“Obama’s
Foundation”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/04/06/barack-‐obama-‐foundation/.

67
Tocqueville,
same
quote
from
above.

68
Glenn
Beck,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/04/07/glenn-‐beck-‐barack-‐
obama-‐socialist/

34

spreading
the
wealth
around
by
reintroducing
a
progressive
taxation
system.

And,

yes,
as
Beck
and
other
critics
have
mentioned
elsewhere,
it
is
also
a
fact
that
Marx

and
Engels
wrote
in
The
Communist
Manifesto
that
one
of
the
“generally
applicable”

measures
for
a
communist
revolution
would
include
implementing
“a
heavy

progressive
or
graduated
income
tax.”69

However,
is
the
progressive
taxation

system
found
only
in
Marxism
and
communist
ideology?

Or
can
it
be
found
in
other

political
ideologies
and
political
systems,
indeed
in
capitalist
ones
such
as
in

Europe?

The
short
answer
to
the
last
question
is
yes.

In
fact,
the
progressive
taxation

system
was
first
introduced
in
America
by
the
United
States
Congress
in
1862,
and

signed
into
law
by
President
Lincoln,
in
order
to
raise
money
for
the
Union.

Over
a

half
a
century
later
President
Roosevelt
implemented
a
steep
progressive
taxation

system
as
part
of
the
New
Deal
measures.

Thus
the
logic
of
Beck
would
also
mean

that
he
would
have
to
denounce
President
Lincoln
and
President
Roosevelt
as

Marxists.

Of
course,
that
claim
would
reveal
the
absurdity
of
Beck’s
argument,

which
is
simply
the
result
of
his
failing
to
make
relevant
distinctions
and
falsely

portraying
that
the
progressive
taxation
system
provides
the
same
function
as

communism.

69
Marx
and
Engels.
“Manifesto
of
the
Communist
Party,”
found
in
The
Marx-‐Engels

Reader.
page
490.

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
ten
steps
that
are
frequently
cited

by
people
like
Beck
were
steps
that
would
“be
different
for
different
countries”
and

that
they
were
temporary
measures
that
would
be
used
to
bring
about
the
end
goal:

the
dissolution
of
classes
and
class
antagonisms,
and
a
utopian
communist
world

“where
the
free
development
of
each
is
the
condition
for
the
free
development
of

all.”

35

Furthermore,
through
Tocqueville’s
perceptiveness
we
can
see
a
clear

example
of
how
a
popular
media
pundit
abuses
political
words
and
degrades

political
discourse
by
trying
to
give
new
meaning
to
the
word
socialism
(i.e.,

socialism
is
what
President
Obama
and
the
Democrats
are
doing).

And
because
the

populace
has
a
propensity
to
cling
to
a
favored
journalist’s
opinion,
rather
than

investigate
the
claims,
we
see
how
political
discourse
gets
degraded
on
a
large
scale;

possibly
millions
of
people
now
believe
that
the
policies
of
President
Obama
and
the

Democrats
are
“socialist.”70

And,
sadly,
we
can
also
see
how
this
false
claim
diverts

people
from
having
honest
conversations
about
why
things
like
the
progressive

taxation
system
were
introduced
in
America
by
the
New
Deal
Liberals,
and
not

Marxists,
during
the
Great
Depression.

So
why
do
Beck
and
other
pundits
make

false
claims?

The
answer
to
the
last
question
is
not
something
that
we
can
concretely

answer.

But
we
can
safely
assume
that
Beck
plays
a
role
in
the
competing
nature
of

the
various
narratives
found
in
party
agendas
and
the
antagonistic
ideologies
found

throughout
society.

Beck
openly
speaks
of
his
“free
market”
position
and
his

support
for
the
Republican
Party.

Thus
Beck’s
interest
is
to
denounce
the

Democrats
and
any
ideologies
that
are
in
a
sort
of
competition
with
his
ideology
and

party
agenda.

In
other
words,
Beck
is
part
of
the
same
phenomenon
that
Arendt
and

Orwell
observed
that
led
to
speech
becoming
degraded
during
their
time.

Thus
the

next
question
would
be:
does
he
know
the
depiction
to
be
false
but
uses
it
anyway?

70
Again,
the
proof
of
this
can
easily
be
observed
by
checking
out
the
comment

sections
of
right-‐wing
online
news
sources.

36

When
Orwell
made
his
point
about
euphemisms
as
well
as
words
used
as

pejoratives,
he
suggested
that
these
were
“often
used
in
a
consciously
dishonest

way”
by
politicians
and
political
pundits.

He
wrote
that
“the
person
who
uses

[euphemisms
and
vague
language]
has
his
own
private
definition,
but
allows
his

hearer
to
think
he
means
something
quite
different.”71

Orwell’s
view
also

complements
the
point
Plato
made
about
the
“liars
and
imposters”
who
pushed

their
“false
words
and
opinions”
in
society
in
order
to
win
people
to
their
side.

In

other
words,
does
Beck
use
the
term
Marxist
and
socialist
in
a
consciously
dishonest

way
to
demonize
his
opponents?

Or
is
he
unconsciously
helping
to
degrade
political

discourse
through
the
bad
habits
and
imitative
style
of
political
partisans?

At
this
point
the
only
way
to
answer
the
first
question
would
be
to
speculate

because
there
is
no
hard
evidence
to
prove
that
Beck
is
being
consciously
dishonest.

Suggesting
that
Beck
is
a
liar,
or
an
imposter,
might
not
be
an
appropriate

accusation
to
make
without
the
proper
evidence.

However,
there
is
no
need
to

understand
Beck’s
personal
motives,
or
to
make
accusations
about
his
character,
to

show
how
he
abuses
political
language
and
helps
degrade
political
discourse.
The

fact
is
that
he
is
spreading
false
words
and
opinions
throughout
society
in
order
to

win
people
over
to
his
side.

It
is
no
coincidence
that
Marxists
and
socialists

uniformly
disown
and
harshly
criticize
President
Obama,
calling
him
such
things
as

“a
toady
of
capitalism”
and
“political
front
man
for
the
imperialist
war
machine.”72

These
caricatures
are
arguably
equally
misleading.

Most
political
scientists
reject

71
Orwell.
“Politics
and
the
English
Language.”
Page
959.

72
World
Socialist
Web
Site.
“Obama’s
Drone
Warfare:
Assassination
Made
Routine.”

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/04/25/pers-‐a25.html

37

the
ideology-‐inspired
depictions
of
both
sides.

In
other
words,
the
people
who
have

spent
years
objectively
reading
and
studying
Marx,
Marxism
and
other
socialist

literature,
and
who
understand
the
world
that
Marx
wanted
to
create
through
his

work,
reject
the
ideological
motives
of
Beck.

It
really
is
as
simple
as
reading
and

understanding
Marx’s
work
to
see
why
Beck
is
spreading
false
words
and
opinions.

Conclusion

So
can
anything
be
done
to
stop
media
pundits
and
politicians
from
abusing

political
words
and
degrading
political
discourse?

Plato
would
likely
respond
that

only
censorship
and
a
world
ruled
by
the
philosopher
rulers
provide
the
answer
to

this
problem.

And,
unfortunately,
as
Tocqueville
wrote,
“in
order
to
enjoy
the

inestimable
benefits
which
the
liberty
of
the
press
ensures,
it
is
necessary
to
submit

to
the
inevitable
evils
which
it
engenders.”73

In
other
words,
the
freedom
of
the

press
is
too
beneficial
to
alter
because
of
the
abuses
by
a
relative,
though
influential,

few.

The
main
reason
Orwell
wrote
his
essay
was
that
he
believed
the
problem
was

reversible
and
that
people
could
rid
themselves
of
the
“bad
habits
[that]
spread
by

imitation.”74

If
people
took
care
to
correct
these
bad
habits
it
would
be
possible
for

a
person
to
“think
more
clearly.”75

And
if
people
could
think
more
clearly,
they

would
likely
put
people
like
Beck
out
of
business
because
they
would
stop
listening

to
his
false
words
and
opinions.

73
Tocqueville,
page
211.

74
Ibid.,
page
955.

75
Ibid.

38

Arendt
argued
that
one
possible
way
to
correct
these
bad
habits
would
be
to

remember
the
importance
of
spoken
words,
and
the
meanings
that
we
have
given

them.

When
encountering
the
variety
and
complexities
of
the
things
of
this
world

we
can
at
least
remember
to
make
distinctions
while
trying
to
understand
the

various
political
concepts
and
political
systems
in
the
world.

It
is
only
through

making
these
distinctions
that
we
will
be
begin
to
understand
the
world
in
a
clearer

and
more
accurate
way.

Political
words
should
be
common
to
us
all,
like
how
the

word
water,
or
tree,
is
common
to
us
all.

Words
do
not
care
about
our
personal
bias,

ideologies,
or
the
political
parties
that
we
support;
they
are
simply
the
tools
we
use

to
understand
each
other
and
the
things
of
this
world.

It
certainly
is
possible
for
us
to
reach
agreements
on
the
meanings
of
words

we
use
to
understand
the
political
world
without
giving
up
our
partisanship.

This

practice,
in
fact,
is
common
in
academia.

And
I’d
argue
that
we
would
all
be
the

better
for
it
because
we
could
finally
have
meaningful
conversations
about
our

diverse
and
complex
world.

The
diversity
of
our
world
can
be
a
wonderful
thing.

But
believing
that
a
world
where
everything
can
be
called
anything
else
will
only

lead
to
confusion
and
the
prolongation
of
the
debasement
of
political
language.

39

Bibliography

Arendt,
Hannah.
Between
Past
and
Future.
“The
Concept
of
History.”
New
York:
The

Viking
Press.
1961.

Arendt,
Hannah.
Between
Past
and
Future.
“What
is
Authority?”
New
York:
The

Viking
Press.
1961.

Arendt,
Hannah.
The
Human
Condition.
Chicago:
The
University
of
Chicago
Press.

1958.

Arendt,
Hannah.
The
Life
of
the
Mind.
New
York:
Harcourt
Brace
Jovanovich.
1971.

Arendt,
Hannah.
The
Promise
of
Politics.
“Introduction
into
Politics.”
New
York:

Schocken
Books.
2005.

Arendt,
Hanah.
Responsibility
and
Judgement.
“Prologue:
Arendt’s
speech
at

Denmark’s
Sonning
Prize
in
1975.”
New
York:
Schocken
Books.
2003.

Beck,
Glenn.
“Obama’s
Foundation.”
www.foxnews.com

Chomsky,
Noam.
“Interview
on
Libertarian-‐Socialism.”
www.alternet.org

Gilens,
Martin.
“Testing
Theories
of
American
Politics:
Elites,
Interest
Groups,
and

Average
Citizens.”
Perspectives
on
Politics,
Volume
12,
Issue
3,
2014.

Hedges,
Chris.
“Kneeling
at
Fenway
Park
to
the
Gods
of
War.”

www.commondreams.org

Marx
and
Engels.
The
Marx-‐Engels
Reader.
“Manifesto
of
the
Communist
Party.”
New

York:
W.W.
Norton
&
Company.
1978.

Orwell,
George.
George
Orwell
Essays.
“Politics
and
the
English
Language.”
New
York:

Alfred
A.
Knopf.
2002.

Plato.
Great
Dialogues
of
Plato.
“The
Republic.”
New
York:
New
American
Library.

2008.

40

Tocqueville,
Alexis
de.
Democracy
in
America.
New
York:
A
Bantam
Classic.
2000.

Young-‐Bruehl,
Elizabeth.
Hannah
Arendt:
For
the
Love
of
the
World.
Yale
University

Press.
2004.

World
Socialist
Website.
www.wsws.org

A World Where Everything Can Be Called Anything Else

More Related Content

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to A World Where Everything Can Be Called Anything Else (11)

A World Where Everything Can Be Called Anything Else