The Observer, September 22, 2006
Volume XXXIX, Issue 4
Use of American language prevents progress
Letter to the Editor
Throughout American history, there has been a pervading theme of celebrating our differences yet uniting in the face of adversity. However, in our present society, it seems as if the opposite has been taking place; too often emotionally charged labels and populist phrases have seriously undercut crucial and honest dialogue on issues. These phrases help lead to the marginalization of the "other" side much in the way that racial epithets and slurs in blatant propaganda have helped fuel ethnic hatred and ultimately violence.
Elevating such language, the American media has embraced marginalizing classifications, regularly using terms such as "red and blue," and "neo-cons;" legitimizing its use into mainstream academia and intellectual circles. Although these categorizations may seem relatively harmless and inconsequential; they help further provincial attitudes particularly amongst the educated when professional journalists embrace such language in everyday usage. Especially in the political arena, language in campaign ads, debates, and other political mediums have evolved into downright propaganda.
In the Sept. 8 issue, writer Steven Pieragastini speaks of the often "mysterious and superficial" jargon that is frequently used to desensitize and confound Americans into believing the Bush Administration's policies.
In another issue, Pieragastini also goes on to mention categories such as the "religious right" in a pejorative manner. It is therefore unfortunate that today in the United States, there seems to be much less impartiality and moderation both in action and language. It seems as if political discussion will be further dominated by sound bites and emotionally charged catchphrases that will continually undermine compromise and real progress.
