This honors thesis examines how political words have taken on different and sometimes irreconcilable meanings depending on who uses them. The document provides examples like how socialism is defined differently by those on the right versus those who consider themselves socialists. It argues that political ideas remain contested in a way that concepts in the physical sciences do not, allowing different meanings of words to coexist in competition within the marketplace of ideas.

1.
A
World
Where
Everything
Can
Be
Called
Anything
Else
Mark
Olson
Honor’s
Thesis
Professor
McGuffey
2014/15

2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.