Cliche crammers "hear what you're saying, but with all due respect..."

[shereads]

From the Washington Post

Words Of Mass Infuriation
Tuesday, June 19

"Eager to preserve the English language against a rising tide of nonsense," a British newspaper {Telegraph} asked readers last week to compose a piece of prose "crammed with as many infuriating phrases as possible." The results make entertaining reading.

"I hear what you're saying but, with all due respect, it's not exactly rocket science," begins one excellent example. "The bottom line is you wear your heart on your sleeve and, when all is said and done, this is all part and parcel of the ongoing bigger picture." Another declared, "let's face facts here, this could be my conduit to a whole new ball game. Awesome, or what?"

Some of the entries mocked bureaucratese: "Our own cost-benefit analysis of the ongoing target shortfall is that this predicament needs to be addressed proactively." Others celebrated slang, either American ("chill to the max") or British ("I was gobsmacked") in origin. And all of them suggested an explanation for why it seems so difficult to follow the ludicrously early American presidential campaign: Too many of the candidates speak in prose crammed with as many infuriating phrases as possible.

The worst offender -- and this week's column is officially apolitical -- is Hillary Clinton, who is "running for president because I believe if we set big goals and we work together to achieve them, we can restore the American dream today and for the next generation." Clinton also believes that"we can give people the education and opportunities they need to fulfill their God-given potential," and that "the foundation of a strong economy is the investments we make in each other." Who could possibly disagree?

But maybe that's what it takes to lead the opinion polls, at least at this stage. "Folks, we're a bit down politically right now, but I think we're on the comeback trail, and it's going to start right here," Fred Thompson said recently, speaking to an audience of apparently enthusiastic Virginia Republicans. And no wonder they liked him: This is a man who believes that "it's time to take stock and be honest with ourselves. We're going to have to do a lot of things better," and who tells audiences that "I know we're here for the same reasons: Love of our country and concern for our future."

Well, I, too, feel love of our country and concern for our future, which is why I worry when Mitt Romney says that "it's time for innovation and transformation in Washington" (was it ever not?) or that "America can also overcome the challenges and seize our abundant opportunities here at home" (does any candidate think otherwise?). Or when Rudy Giuliani promises a "mission of reform and change" (as opposed, presumably, to a mission of entropy and stasis).

Political campaigns only get interesting when the candidates stop speaking in ringing generalities and infuriating phrases -- which doesn't mean that they become successful, or even good for the country. John McCain's campaign in 2000 appealed precisely because he eschewed prepared gobbledygook -- though that wasn't enough even to win the Republican nomination. I am also still convinced that voters initially liked George W. Bush's inarticulacy: At least he didn't sound quite as smooth, and ultimately meaningless, as everyone else. Only with time did his natural-born inability to speak English begin to produce infuriating phrases of unique pointlessness: "These are big achievements for this country, and the people of Bulgaria ought to be proud of the achievements that they have achieved" was a recent classic.

At the moment, the brightest new hope for the English language is Barack Obama, a fact I didn't fully appreciate until I inattentively picked up what I thought was his best-selling new book, " Dreams From My Father." Expecting a dull political tract, I discovered an engaging story of his enigmatic father and his eccentric childhood, full of unexpected observations about race and identity in America and Africa, written with real elegance: ("Miscegenation," he writes at one point: "The word is humpbacked, ugly, portending a monstrous outcome: like antebellum or octoroon, it evokes images of another era.") Then I discovered that I'd read the wrong book: Obama wrote "Dreams From My Father" 15 years ago, before becoming a political candidate of any kind. Though his recent "elect-me-president" book, " The Audacity of Hope," has been praised for its prose, the jacket blurb describes it as "Senator Obama's vision of how we can move beyond our divisions" to create a "radically hopeful consensus."

I hear what they're saying, but, with all due respect, I'm putting off reading it, afraid the deterioration might already have begun. Let's face it, guys: No good writer, however eloquent, can possibly survive a two-year presidential campaign.

 

[jomar]

Well, at the end of the day the synergistic effect is such that it creates a new paradigm.

 

[rgraham666]

Uhm, hello?

Any candidate who was forthcoming about their policies and spoke about it in plain language would not win any public office, not even dogcatcher.

Such a politician would force us to think about what we want and why, if such a thing is reasonable or achievable and above all make us aware of how much it costs.

That's something very few people want to do.

(Wanders off humming Money For Nothing)

 

[BlackShanglan]

And all of them suggested an explanation for why it seems so difficult to follow the ludicrously early American presidential campaign: Too many of the candidates speak in prose crammed with as many infuriating phrases as possible.

The worst offender -- and this week's column is officially apolitical -- is Hillary Clinton, who is "running for president because I believe if we set big goals and we work together to achieve them, we can restore the American dream today and for the next generation." Clinton also believes that"we can give people the education and opportunities they need to fulfill their God-given potential," and that "the foundation of a strong economy is the investments we make in each other." Who could possibly disagree?

This is why I firmly believe that every citizen of voting age should be required to read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" once per year, and twice on election years. This is precisely the problem he identified - the tendency of politicians to speak in vague blobs of pre-assembled phrases which ultimately convey nothing other than a fuzzy, confused emotional impression. It's impossible to disagree with them because they don't actually say anything.

Worse, Orwell reminds us, is the effect that such speech has on thought. The less effort we make to communicate precisely, the less we press ourselves to think clearly. Gumming together a series of prefabricated phrases requires so little effort that even the speaker may never develop a clear idea of what he or she is saying. Thought and language can elevate and ornament each other beautifully, but if we allow ourselves to become too lazy, they can also destroy us.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Uhm, hello?

Any candidate who was forthcoming about their policies and spoke about it in plain language would not win any public office, not even dogcatcher.

Such a politician would force us to think about what we want and why, if such a thing is reasonable or achievable and above all make us aware of how much it costs.

That's something very few people want to do.

(Wanders off humming Money For Nothing)

Tch. I'm ashamed of you, Rob. Don't you realize that the foundation of all real human freedom is the right to never be asked to do anything for anyone else?

 

[neonlyte]

Tch. I'm ashamed of you, Rob. Don't you realize that the foundation of all real human freedom is the right to never be asked to do anything for anyone else?

You're cruel... reminding us of that just as we are about to lose Blair.

Hey - now we have an unelected leader in the UK, maybe we really are free.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You're cruel... reminding us of that just as we are about to lose Blair.

That's all right. I won't ask you to do anything about it.

 

[rgraham666]

This is why I firmly believe that every citizen of voting age should be required to read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" once per year, and twice on election years. This is precisely the problem he identified - the tendency of politicians to speak in vague blobs of pre-assembled phrases which ultimately convey nothing other than a fuzzy, confused emotional impression. It's impossible to disagree with them because they don't actually say anything.

Worse, Orwell reminds us, is the effect that such speech has on thought. The less effort we make to communicate precisely, the less we press ourselves to think clearly. Gumming together a series of prefabricated phrases requires so little effort that even the speaker may never develop a clear idea of what he or she is saying. Thought and language can elevate and ornament each other beautifully, but if we allow ourselves to become too lazy, they can also destroy us.

Shanglan

That's what my favourite author often goes on about. That language is less and less about communication and thought every day.

 

[NoJo]

That's what my favourite author often goes on about. That language is less and less about communication and thought every day.

Don't forget singing, chanting, speaking in tongues, nattering, crowing, whinging, and general glossolalia. They're important, neigh vital usages of language. It's not just about words, yannow

 

[Vermilion]

You're cruel... reminding us of that just as we are about to lose Blair.

Hey - now we have an unelected leader in the UK, maybe we really are free.

But neonlyte.... we've never elected a *leader*, just the party...
That people think we are electing the leader is how New Labour got in and why everything is arse over tit at the moment.
You know what I mean? <--- Vermilion's personal irritating phrase bugbear
x
V

 

[TE999]

Regarding the alternatively cleche'-ridden and inarticulate speeches of most politicians; they fall somewhere between George Orwell's 'Newspeak' in "1984" and a cloud of squid ink. The latter serving to mask the movements of the creature when confronted.

Watch what a politician does now, not what he/she says they will do in the future. That can be most telling.

And a healthy dose of cynicism regarding their 'promises' never hurt either.

 

[shereads]

This is why I firmly believe that every citizen of voting age should be required to read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" once per year, and twice on election years.

I'd be happy if reading was required, period. But an entire book? Twice? In a single year?! Are you insane?

Seriously, Shanglan. If we ask voters to read a book, won't candidates for high office have to read one too?

 

[shereads]

And a healthy dose of cynicism regarding their 'promises' never hurt either.

"Hello," he lied.

 

[shereads]

Don't forget singing, chanting, speaking in tongues, nattering, crowing, whinging, and general glossolalia. They're important, neigh vital usages of language. It's not just about words, yannow

My paternal grandmother suffered from Glossolalia. It's not a genetic condition, is it? Her doctors said not, but they wouldn't look me in the eye.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'd be happy if reading was required, period. But an entire book? Twice? In a single year?! Are you insane?

Seriously, Shanglan. If we ask voters to read a book, won't candidates for high office have to read one too?

There, there. It's only an essay. We'll only require the particularly forward ones to read the novel "1984," and they'll have to sign a sworn promise never to enter into any public office. Otherwise they'll just use it as a "how to" text.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I particularly dislike the phrase "with all due respect." It is nearly always followed by a statement that demonstrates anything but respect. It's one of those phrases that - as my friend observed of the phrase "I'm not a racist, but ..." - is always immediately shown to be false by whatever follows.

And then there are phrases that signal other special meanings. The phrase "I pay my taxes!" inevitably really means "I'm a self-righteous asshole." The variation "My taxes pay your salary!" is even more poisonous; it should be read to mean simply "Please slap me repeatedly." I loved the South Park episode that provided a series of examples of the meaning of the phrase "I thought this was America"; that, of course, means "People stopped me from doing something asinine/dangerous/suicidal." "Most scientists/people/people informed about the situation agree that X is true" naturally means "I think X is true," and if you're speaking with my father, at least, the phrase "I just think that" can be read to mean "In defiance of all known facts and reasoning, none of which I can supply or refute, I choose to continue to believe that ..."

Really, when you get down to it, those little cliches can pack a remarkable amount of meaning.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

Don't you just love how slippery the English language is?

 

[neonlyte]

I particularly dislike the phrase "with all due respect." It is nearly always followed by a statement that demonstrates anything but respect. It's one of those phrases that - as my friend observed of the phrase "I'm not a racist, but ..." - is always immediately shown to be false by whatever follows.

And then there are phrases that signal other special meanings. The phrase "I pay my taxes!" inevitably really means "I'm a self-righteous asshole." The variation "My taxes pay your salary!" is even more poisonous; it should be read to mean simply "Please slap me repeatedly." I loved the South Park episode that provided a series of examples of the meaning of the phrase "I thought this was America"; that, of course, means "People stopped me from doing something asinine/dangerous/suicidal." "Most scientists/people/people informed about the situation agree that X is true" naturally means "I think X is true," and if you're speaking with my father, at least, the phrase "I just think that" can be read to mean "In defiance of all known facts and reasoning, none of which I can supply or refute, I choose to continue to believe that ..."

Really, when you get down to it, those little cliches can pack a remarkable amount of meaning.

Shanglan

The thing is, cliches are overdone, they've become the bread and butter of the common man, dropped into everyday conversation like... confetti If the "proles" would get off their arses and actually, yeh know... do something with their lives instead of sponging off the state, the library would be able to afford new books instead of relying on stuff written in 1984.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Let's not forget that without cliches, there would be a terrible wastage of one of my favorite rhetorical flourishes: the mixed metaphor. Cut out cliches and we would lose such gems as "When shall the lion of tyranny walk hand in hand with the floodgates of freedom?" and "We're going to find a real hornet's nest at the bottom of this can of worms." You don't find creative imagery like that every day. Let not the acid pen of the censor spew its venom in the mother's milk of the child of destiny, or something to that effect.

 

[Vermilion]

No offence, but....

- you're an arsehole
- you're fat
- you smell
- you're stupid

I *hate* people who preface the rudest thing they can think of to say with 'no offence but...' If you have something horrible to say, just fucking say it, don;t try and pretend you don;t want to offend.

x
V

 

[BlackShanglan]

No offence, but....

- you're an arsehole
- you're fat
- you smell
- you're stupid

I *hate* people who preface the rudest thing they can think of to say with 'no offence but...' If you have something horrible to say, just fucking say it, don;t try and pretend you don;t want to offend.

x
V

Yes! I wholly concur. It's as if they are trying both to be offensive and to require you to pretend that they aren't. It's right up there with being deliberately offensive and then saying "I was only kidding" in that particular "Goodness, you're so sensitive" tone of voice on my list of "Ways cowards choose to be unpleasant."

 

[Vermilion]

Yes! I wholly concur. It's as if they are trying both to be offensive and to require you to pretend that they aren't. It's right up there with being deliberately offensive and then saying "I was only kidding" in that particular "Goodness, you're so sensitive" tone of voice on my list of "Ways cowards choose to be unpleasant."

Damn straight. Have a Polo mint.
x
V

 

[shereads]

There are no bad ideas. Only bad people with ideas.