Language used by politicians is often vague, contradictory and elusive. Students of language have much to learn from examining sentence structure and word usage in political speech. As a short example, lets examine a quote from James Connaughton, Bush's senior environmental adviser, that ran in many newspapers in August 2007: "The emerging consensus is that the solution to climate change is the advancement of technology. And there is also consensus that you need growing economies to pay for that technology."
Let's start with a word we see twice. "Consensus" means an opinion held by the majority, or an opinion about which everyone in the group agrees. In which group does Connaughton think consensus has emerged? He could mean anything -- all Americans, the total population of the Earth, experts, people that previously had diverse opinions, or just the people in the White House. He could even argue that while a consensus is still emerging, it could be held by only a small minority, as long as it is on the rise.
Then there is the phrase "the solution to climate change is the advancement of technology." This is a new take on a story we have heard over the last century, that science will save us from whatever mess we make. Just as an English teacher might be upset about misusing words, science teachers can become concerned when science takes on a mythic role. When politicians talk of science coming to the rescue, it is incompatible with the idea of science as a methodology for evaluating and analyzing. Just as scientific analysis shouldn't be ignored or spun to suit political needs, the idea of science as savior shouldn't be used to justify increasing pollution.
Connaughton is contradicting the theory about climate change held by many scientists, that use of fossil fuels contributes to the problem of global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many others not only agree about it, but also, they use the word "consensus" to refer to their agreement. By swapping out the idea about which scientists have consensed with its opposite, Connaughton equates the solution with the problem itself. This is something that politicians and the "spin-masters" who write their speeches often seek to do.
When things are equated with their opposites, logical thought becomes impossible. In 1984, George Orwell wrote of the logic of the totalitarian government "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it."
According to Connaughton, we will need rapidly growing economies to save us from the damage of rapidly growing economies. Further, a new consensus about this is emerging despite the fact that a consensus had already emerged to the contrary.
The danger of climate change is real, and those of us who can ask questions about language and analyze it have a responsibility to examine the words that are used to talk about it. If we don't hold political speech up to high standards, we add to a risk that our politicians will get away with using language as a weapon against enemies, dissidents, the environment, or human rights.
