Exercises in Persuasion: What the SJ council candidates’ statements tell us about political language
Let’s say you decided to run for San Jose City Council. You would have to submit a written statement of your qualifications. That’s all the official document asks for: qualifications. What can you say to convince voters that you’re “qualified”? The answer can take many forms, as professional linguist Dr. Alan Perlman discovered when we provided him with .pdf versions of the Candidate Statements for Public Examination, per Elec. Code § 13313. There were 21 statements of qualification and Perlman's analysis, an Opp Now exclusive, is below.
As an academically trained linguist, I’m fascinated by language, and here’s a decent-sized sample, all of it spontaneously composed in response to the question “Why should I vote for you?”
There is information in these answers. What do they tell us about politics and political communication? Here’s an apolitical, detached, linguistic view:
The document asks for “qualifications.” That would mean an accounting of your relevant talents and abilities, each exemplified by accomplishments.
Instead, most of the students misunderstood the assignment and produced: (i) autobiographical statements; (ii) redundant recitations of the city’s problems (who doesn’t know what they are?); (iii) lists of past accomplishments; (iv) endorsements by others; (v) evidence of particular personal qualities; (vi) fulfillment of box-checking “diversity” criteria; or (vii) mini-campaign speeches about what the candidate would do in office.
The disconnect between “accomplishments” and “qualifications” is easily blurred by writer and reader, but it should not be. Whatever you did in the past, how does it qualify you for office today? Do you have the relevant talents and skills to help solve the city’s problems going forward? Only one candidate statement actually answers these questions.
Thus, most of the material provided is irrelevant. But the statements do tell us a lot about political speech. Here are my practical takeaways:
(1) Note that politicians use feel-good and sound-good words that are highly abstract and have impossibly broad or indeterminate meaning: "less political talk and more leadership" (is this person advocating dictatorship?); "deliver the solutions our families and small businesses deserve"; "find common ground to advance our priorities"; "has the values, energy and expertise"; and similar examples occur throughout. They sound as if they’re saying something, but they’re not.
Just as numerous are vague feel-good words used as “pre-emptive claims”: pat yourself on the back for advocating what anyone else would, e.g., improve the quality of life for all residents (who wouldn’t?), restore honest and open government, bring more common sense to our city government, I’ll demand the results we expect, and many other examples.
(2) Regard all politicians’ promises and policy statements as provisional, depending on the opposition, the budget, other factors, and, ultimately, the individual’s effectiveness at making the high-sounding promises actually happen. I note how often they say, “I will…” and “We must,” and I think, “Oh, right, you and who else?” And who’s “we”?
(3) Be cynical about the use of the verb 'fight.' Politicians love it. It implies ferocity. Many of the statements promise to fight for this or that. It’s especially ridiculous when a politician pledges to fight for something that anybody would want.
Not one writer said he/she would work with anyone to implement his/her policies. But that’s what it takes: work. You work with someone. If you “fight with” them, you’re both still fighting.
The statements, with one exception, do not speak of the applicant’s proficiency at the all-important processes of negotiation, compromise, and collaboration, without which nothing gets done.
All of the writers present themselves earnestly and enthusiastically. It’s unfortunate that they do so in such predictable, ineffective, and misleading ways.
Perlman is a forensic linguist based in Rindge NH. More info can be found here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity