Full Version: The power of language in an election year
Yesterday I had a business meeting off-site some distance away, so I spent most of my time in the car, listening to the radio. I like to listen to speech radio, so I got lots of news reports updating me on the Iraq power handover, with many interviews from American actors (I mean this in the sense of participants, rather than people who play roles) and commentators in Iraq and in Washington giving their view on what it meant.
Every last US government or military spokesperson, and most of the US pundits and critics, talked of how important or effective yesterdays events in Bagdhad and Istanbul were for the "democrItization" of Iraq.
Republicans talked of how positive this was, and Democratic critics talked of the weaknesses in he strategy. But they both used "I"-sounds rather than "A"-sounds. Presumably the Democrats also used it so they could criticise the process without sounding like they were criticising their own party?
I haven't read any press coverage yet, so I don't know if this is a new word, or just a new pronunciation, but surely the process that began yesterday is "democrAtization" - the transformation of the country into democrAcy and the people into democrAts. The obvious downside to this for domestic US politics is that is makes it sound as though Iraq is going to become a bunch of Kerry fans. Hence "democrItization"?
So, my questions for debate are:
Is this a common US pronunciation, or just a Republican one?
Is the purpose to remove associations with the Democratic Party, and if so, is this just a simple matter of making necessary distinctions, or is it a more proactive (if rather jarring and clumsy) attempt to prevent sending out any positive message that might reflect well on the opposition?
Are there other examples anywhere else on the political spectrum to avoid positive associations of neutral events for ones political opponents?
Every last US government or military spokesperson, and most of the US pundits and critics, talked of how important or effective yesterdays events in Bagdhad and Istanbul were for the "democrItization" of Iraq.
Republicans talked of how positive this was, and Democratic critics talked of the weaknesses in he strategy. But they both used "I"-sounds rather than "A"-sounds. Presumably the Democrats also used it so they could criticise the process without sounding like they were criticising their own party?
I haven't read any press coverage yet, so I don't know if this is a new word, or just a new pronunciation, but surely the process that began yesterday is "democrAtization" - the transformation of the country into democrAcy and the people into democrAts. The obvious downside to this for domestic US politics is that is makes it sound as though Iraq is going to become a bunch of Kerry fans. Hence "democrItization"?
So, my questions for debate are:
Is this a common US pronunciation, or just a Republican one?
Is the purpose to remove associations with the Democratic Party, and if so, is this just a simple matter of making necessary distinctions, or is it a more proactive (if rather jarring and clumsy) attempt to prevent sending out any positive message that might reflect well on the opposition?
Are there other examples anywhere else on the political spectrum to avoid positive associations of neutral events for ones political opponents?
Is this a common US pronunciation, or just a Republican one?
Is the purpose to remove associations with the Democratic Party, and if so, is this just a simple matter of making necessary distinctions, or is it a more proactive (if rather jarring and clumsy) attempt to prevent sending out any positive message that might reflect well on the opposition?
Are there other examples anywhere else on the political spectrum to avoid positive associations of neutral events for ones political opponents?
Personally, I just think it's p-poor English on the part of the speakers involved. I am appalled at the horrible pronunciation (usually spoken as proNOUNciation
) and the made-up words (irregardless, irrespecitve, incentivize, misunderestimate 
) so prevalent among so-called educated public figures and media talking heads. Drives the tech writer in me absolutely crazy.
Edited to fix typo!
that'll teach me....
Is the purpose to remove associations with the Democratic Party, and if so, is this just a simple matter of making necessary distinctions, or is it a more proactive (if rather jarring and clumsy) attempt to prevent sending out any positive message that might reflect well on the opposition?
Are there other examples anywhere else on the political spectrum to avoid positive associations of neutral events for ones political opponents?
Personally, I just think it's p-poor English on the part of the speakers involved. I am appalled at the horrible pronunciation (usually spoken as proNOUNciation
) and the made-up words (irregardless, irrespecitve, incentivize, misunderestimate ) so prevalent among so-called educated public figures and media talking heads. Drives the tech writer in me absolutely crazy.Edited to fix typo!
that'll teach me....
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.