January 16 marked the beginning of the election season. Or, as Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch called the first day to formally file for office, the unofficial holiday for state politics.
Over the next few months, men and women will travel our vast state and glad-hand me, you and everyone else. We may even get a visit from a presidential candidate, or two. They will all have a lot to say and much of it will be meaningless.
It’s easier to make broad proclamations than explain specific policy. Telling a crowd that you’re going to make everything better fires them up. Detailing trade policies that may, actually, impact the businesses you own puts people to sleep.
So here we are, with promises of hope and change and to make America great again. Announcing his candidacy for Montana governor, Republican Bozeman businessman Greg Gianforte alleged Democratic sitting Gov. Steve Bullock “takes (his) cue from Washington” and “is too chicken to stand up to them.” That same day, Bullock’s campaign said “New Jersey millionaire” Greg Gianforte “wants to impose an out-of-touch agenda to benefit people like him while ignoring Montana values.”
Early in the campaign season, candidates can be forgiven for espousing bland talking points. What happens, and what is more unfortunate, is that political language infects everything else. In his often-cited essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell wrote: “Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
It’s true. And, anymore, it’s on purpose. There are political consultants who make a living testing language for its impact instead of accuracy. That messaging is given to political candidates, and those candidates repeat it verbatim for the rest of us, and those words fire us up.
To me, the “values” line is abused most of all, as if pitting “Wall Street values” versus “Main Street values” explains anything. Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz recently accused frontrunner Donald Trump of having “New York values.” A few days later, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed Trump and those New York values in Iowa. And during her speech, Palin, like everyone else, talked about “values” she and Trump shared.
There’s nothing wrong with talking about values if you tell us what you mean by them, how those will affect my pocketbook and the laws that govern the country. That rarely happens.
Political jargon has become so perverse that often it must be translated. Bloomberg News actually provides this service. On its website you can find the definition of words like “astroturf” and “grass roots” in political terms. Hint: they have nothing to with the ground. Grass roots is a “political movement that starts with local activists,” whereas astroturf is “supported by big-money interests.” If you hear either of these words during the campaign, you should probably ignore them. They don’t really mean anything.
The less specific a candidate is about his or her intentions, the more likely he or she is to use political language. Or, as Orwell wrote: “As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract.”
With the U.S. economy still on fragile footing, a reeling energy sector and turmoil in the Middle East, the electorate is largely divided on which direction to point the country. Candidates should explain where they’re going to take us and how. It may be dull, but there’s a lot of value in that.