Tom Shachtman was getting warm when he blamed the decline of American
eloquence on the "marketing mentality." Instead of trying to elevate
American discourse, political consultants lower it, Rather than leading
public opinion, their candidates are told to reflect it.
The clear and concise Barry Goldwater lost his presidential election - big -
and the lesson was not lost on the country's political hucksters: Never let
'em pin you down. Now the aim of political rhetoric is called positioning or
triangulation or anything but clarity.
These days the successful political leader is told to avoid specifics and
traffic in generalities, the vaguer the better. The object of political
speech becomes a kind of glib opacity, to make a speech rather than say
anything.
The occasional, premeditated sound bite may then be added to give the
consumer the illusion of solidity, the way gravel may be added to chicken
feed.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the magisterial arbiter of American eloquence, has
noted that "leadership often requires telling the citizenry truths it does
not want to hear," and that "one test of the maturity of a people is a
willingness to act on facts requiring sacrifice."
Such a definition of leadership might strike modern political operatives as
suicidal. They know that the way to win an election is to muffle unpleasant
truths, and soften hard principles.
Besides, clarity is hard work. It's so much easier to fuzz the message, and
just write around any inconvenient facts that may disrupt the smooth flow of
currently fashionable platitudes. See the average American editorial.
This column is an updated version of one that originally
appeared November 29, 1995 in the Democrat-Gazette.