Making Political Discourse Even More Confusing

I'm an Internet political junkie. I follow commentary on the presidential campaign from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, etc. and even occasionally dip in the roiling Alt Right pro-Trump waters of Breitbart.com (Get a feel for its politics with these headlines from the tenure of Stephen Bannon, who is now the Trump campaign CEO: http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-worst-headlines/212467.) I also watch those shouting panels of pundits, partisans and journalists on television news programs. So I just have to address several language issues that are driving me crazy. The new favorite word of TV panelists is "relitigate," as in "I don't want to relitigate the issue." Now "litigate" means "to contest at law," which makes no sense for a bunch of TV talking heads. But "dispute" is an archaic meaning of "litigate," and "dispute again" is what I think these folks are trying to say. Guys, please, just admit you want to stop arguing and move on; you may actually win points in the "court of public opinion." Another term bandied about in this year's uncivil political discourse is "bigot." A bigot is someone "who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices and opinions," per Merriam-Webster. So, Donald Trump, it makes no sense to label Hillary Clinton as a bigot with an explanation that equates failure to deliver effective minority policies with prejudice. Of course, Donald's imprecise wording stirs constant debate, both important and trivial; there were arguments over whether he was saying "bigly" or "big league" in speeches, for example. Meanwhile, everyone yammers about "dog whistles" this year. For the mystified, a political dog whistle means messaging that has a general interpretation but also another intended meaning for a target group. An example would be using the president's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, while talking about Islamic terror policy to tap into those who suspect he's really Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer. "Talking point" is another term that I find popping up in media discourse this year, often with an accusatory tone. Pay attention when someone calls out a "talking point," however, because it may be spotlighting political propaganda. A talking point is a succinct, persuasive statement of one side of an issue, purposefully developed by politicos and then launched through media personalities and sympathizers' responses so that media repetition eventually frames the debate and turns the favored argument into accepted fact. That's why so many TV panel discussions degenerate into shouted "talking points." For a quick primer on more political jargon, read https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/american-political-jargon

Making Political Discourse Even More Confusing

I'm an Internet political junkie. I follow commentary on the presidential campaign from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, etc. and even occasionally dip in the roiling Alt Right pro-Trump waters of Breitbart.com (Get a feel for its politics with these headlines from the tenure of Stephen Bannon, who is now the Trump campaign CEO: http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-worst-headlines/212467.) I also watch those shouting panels of pundits, partisans and journalists on television news programs. So I just have to address several language issues that are driving me crazy. The new favorite word of TV panelists is "relitigate," as in "I don't want to relitigate the issue." Now "litigate" means "to contest at law," which makes no sense for a bunch of TV talking heads. But "dispute" is an archaic meaning of "litigate," and "dispute again" is what I think these folks are trying to say. Guys, please, just admit you want to stop arguing and move on; you may actually win points in the "court of public opinion." Another term bandied about in this year's uncivil political discourse is "bigot." A bigot is someone "who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices and opinions," per Merriam-Webster. So, Donald Trump, it makes no sense to label Hillary Clinton as a bigot with an explanation that equates failure to deliver effective minority policies with prejudice. Of course, Donald's imprecise wording stirs constant debate, both important and trivial; there were arguments over whether he was saying "bigly" or "big league" in speeches, for example. Meanwhile, everyone yammers about "dog whistles" this year. For the mystified, a political dog whistle means messaging that has a general interpretation but also another intended meaning for a target group. An example would be using the president's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, while talking about Islamic terror policy to tap into those who suspect he's really Muslim or a Muslim sympathizer. "Talking point" is another term that I find popping up in media discourse this year, often with an accusatory tone. Pay attention when someone calls out a "talking point," however, because it may be spotlighting political propaganda. A talking point is a succinct, persuasive statement of one side of an issue, purposefully developed by politicos and then launched through media personalities and sympathizers' responses so that media repetition eventually frames the debate and turns the favored argument into accepted fact. That's why so many TV panel discussions degenerate into shouted "talking points." For a quick primer on more political jargon, read https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/american-political-jargon

Peculiar Politics: Liar, Liar and Polls on Fire

In the current presidential race, charges of "liar" are being tossed back and forth by just about everyone. Journalistic fact-checkers don't seem to have much impact, probably because people distrust the media more than the politicians (a recent Pew Research Center survey found 65% of the public hold a negative view of the media). My only consolation is that by watching the endless debates and town halls, I will have a chance to hone my skills at detecting liars from a bevy of sources. I revisited lie-detection research I did back in 2014 and added some new input. My first task was to accept that I am pretty bad at deception detection; most of us have only slightly better than a 50-50 chance of spotting a liar. Second, I had to junk popular "tells" as unreliable; the nervous guy who can't make eye contact isn't necessarily a liar; liars can be glib and engage in more eye contact to sell their stories (watch those politicians ace closeups and sound bites). Researchers suggest some slightly more reliable clues to deceit: a slight shrug, usually of one shoulder, coinciding with a verbal statement of confidence is one example, or a slight head shake "no" when saying "yes." Also, beware the smile that does not include the eyes; if the eyes don't simultaneously narrow and produce crow's feet, that flash of white teeth is not an authentic expression of pleasure or good will. And it's been shown that the nose heats up while lying, so watch for a tell-tale Pinocchio nose rub! If I can detect the biggest political liar, I may even get ahead of the pundits in predicting the winner--because in this peculiar election season, there is an inverse relationship between honesty and success. For example, nonpartisan PolitiFact rated the truthfulness of presidential candidates before the Iowa caucuses, and Donald Trump led the pack in falsehoods (78% mostly false statements all the way to pants-on-fire lies), followed by Ted Cruz (68%) and Marco Rubio in third. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were running close, with Bernie at 29% false statements and Hillary at 26% untrue. Now look at the primary results, polls and projections since then. What does it mean? Is there so much anger at the political system that we prefer "authentic" emotions to "establishment" facts? Do we think the world is now a game of liar's poker, and we need to elect the best liar to win? I hope Honest Abe Lincoln and "I cannot tell a lie" George Washington wouldn't run at the bottom of the polls today! For more about political lying: http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/01/a-winning-gop-formula-lie-more-do-better/

'Tis the Season When Children Star

It's the time of year when children dominate in public media and private ceremonies, symbols of hope and innocence to be showered with gifts. We forget how recently children became "economically worthless but emotionally priceless," as sociologist Viviana Zelizer has said.  Even in early 20th century America, children were economic assets who worked in fields and factories; they were soldiers and sexual partners; they were traded in marriage by families seeking financial and social gain; and they were regularly parents themselves in their teens. In many places in the world, children still perform roles today's Americans believe should be reserved for adults--and they are still political pawns in deadly adult conflicts, as the recent headlines about the Pakistani Taliban's school massacre prove. So it seems especially apropos now to remember one of our earliest and most popular icons of the child as innocent source of joy: child star Shirley Temple, who died just this year at age 85. Some of the curly-topped moppet's 1930s-era Christmas-themed movies used to be seasonal TV fare, including Heidi, I'll Be Seeing You, Bright Eyes (with the signature song "On the Good Ship Lollipop"), and Stowaway with its final Christmas scene. Now little Shirley is the subject of a new book, The Little Girl Who Fought the Great Depression by John F. Kasson. Yes, this is one little girl who was economically priceless (to the movie studios), emotionally priceless to a nation seeking optimism in hard times, and politically priceless to leaders like President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who publicly enlisted Shirley in his "politics of cheer" to back economic revival programs. Kasson also credits Shirley's impact with a new view of the child as coddled consumer, of children cared for through the purchase of things. To borrow from her hit debut song, "Baby, Take a Bow" for the seasonal shopping frenzy, Shirley.  To see a review of Kasson's book, go to http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/judith-levine-john-kasson-shirley-temple