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

Narcissists in Headlines and Fiction

The current presidential race has spawned numerous articles, by real and amateur psychologists, about whether a particular candidate (guess which one) is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. People with this disorder have an exaggerated sense of self-importance, uniqueness and superiority. They engage in grandiose exaggeration of achievements and talents, have an insatiable need for admiration and attention, and express a sense of entitlement, expecting favors and unquestioning compliance. They are preoccupied with a self image of success, brilliance, power and attractiveness. They can be superficially charming but are also manipulative, arrogant, thin-skinned and lacking in empathy--unable or unwilling to recognize the needs and feeling of others. If they are criticized or fail to receive the special treatment/attention they feel is their due, they react with rage, contempt and belittling of others. Needless to say, these are favorite personality traits for fictional villains, ranging from selfish vanity to full-blown psychopathy (when narcissism is ramped up by antisocial aggression and sadism, you get someone really scary). Some well-known fictional narcissists include Miranda Priestly in Lauren Weisberger's The Devil Wears Prada, Ingrid Magnussen in Janet Fitch's White Oleander, and Dorian Gray in Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray. Since this post refers to speculative articles inspired by the presidential race, it is also somewhat interesting that one of GOP candidate Donald Trump's favorite films, per multiple interviews, is "Citizen Kane," the story of a wealthy and powerful narcissist. For more details, including Trump comments, read the Politico article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/donald-trump-2016-citizen-kane-213943. And for more fictional narcissists in novels and films, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Narcissism_in_fiction

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/

Mr. and Mrs. Malaprop on the Campaign Trail

I've noticed that American presidential campaigns generate a bumper crop of malapropisms, verbal mistakes named for Mrs. Malaprop, a comedic 18th century play character who tended to use an incorrect word in place of one with a similar sound. Mrs. Malaprop would urge "illiterate him, I say, quite from your memory" when she meant "obliterate," for example, and compared someone to "an allegory on the banks of the Nile" instead of an alligator. The malapropism tendency is fairly common and certainly has not been cured by 21st century sophistication. Examples include using "for all intensive purposes" in place of "for all intents and purposes," and "he supposably said" instead of the correct "he supposedly said." I heard a recent passionate declaration that "his claim doesn't jive with the facts," which would mean his claim can't engage in hip dance or talk but not the intended "his claim doesn't jibe with the facts," meaning a claim not agreeing with the facts. The famous and powerful are not immune. Former President George W. Bush was Mr. Malaprop, delivering gems such as "We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile." I wince when I hear malapropisms continue to fly from the mouths of today's presidential hopefuls and TV commentators. Social media is especially littered with these faux pas. For example, GOP candidate Ben Carson called Sharia Law "a central tenant of Islam" when he meant "tenet," and Republican contender Marco Rubio repeated the debate phrase “Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing,” when he probably meant to use "dispense with." GOP hopeful Jeb Bush may have inherited a bit of brother George's language tangling, saying in his kick-off foreign policy speech that immigration should be “a catalytic converter for sustained economic growth" (meaning "catalyst," Jeb?), and explaining to an interviewer the difficulties of criticizing brother George when “I have to do the Heisman on my brother"--likely a reference to the throat-clearing Heimlich not the football trophy. For amusing malapropisms, see: http://www.fun-with-words.com/malapropisms.html

Need Presidency Bidder Insight? See Their Books

One way to gain insight into the 2016 presidential hopefuls is to read their own words. A surprising number of Democrat and Republican primary candidates are authors, some even with best sellers. Granted there is often an excess of one-sided opinion and manipulated fact, but politicians' books still reveal their core values, goals and leadership style. So let's start with the most prolific writer: Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton. Besides scholarly articles and innumerable columns, she is the author of five books, starting with It Takes a Village in 1996 to Hard Choices in 2014 (although I'd discount political revelations from her book of kids' letters to the First Pets). The recently published Hard Choices is a memoir of her years as Secretary of State, but most reviewers agree that while it is "serious, sober and substantive" (NY Times) on policy issues, the book disappoints by failing to reveal much about Hillary herself. Sales have been disappointing as well. The crowded GOP field has been more successful with publishing. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson scored the New York Times best seller list in 2014 with One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America's Future, touting individual responsibility and bashing Obamacare. Marco Rubio also had a best seller with his memoir An American Son, but it was followed this year by the low-sales American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone. As an example of how presidential ambition impacts an author's tone, consider Rand Paul's 2012 book Government Bullies: How Everyday Americans Are Being Harassed, Abused, and Imprisoned by the Feds versus this year's Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America. In 2015, Texas Tea Party icon Ted Cruz joined the conservative fray with A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America, expressing views that "have made him a political lightning rod and the most googled man in Washington," per Amazon's blurb. And presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee this year debuted God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy, which posits a struggle between the "Bubbaville" American heartland and the "Bubbleville" coastal big cities, including D.C. Regardless of sales, the anti-Washington stance of Paul, Huckabee and Cruz doesn't mean a party win as Texas Republican Rick Perry can attest; he published Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington in 2010 before his unsuccessful try for GOP nomination. What about Jeb Bush? With embarrassingly puny readership, Jeb Bush penned Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution back in 2013, espousing a demand-driven system. There are more presidential hopefuls (Bernie Sanders, Bobby Jindal, Elizabeth Warren, etc.) who've written books, but I've run out of space! For more GOP authors, see http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/2016-book-race-gop/2015/01/30/id/621851/