Sarah Zibanejadrad

September 29, 2009

Paper 1

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength,” read the political

advertisement in George Orwell’s famous fiction novel, 1984. The book described what

life would be like living under the authority of a totalitarian government, inspired by

Orwell’s years in the English army, however how far from reality was this story? Today,

people are more skeptical of their own government in Westernized countries moreso

than ever, yet as a population still buy into what Orwell would have described as

“political doublespeak.” How does a constituency differentiate between political

advertisement and political propaganda? How conscious are our political decisions and

do our actions in the polls represent the puppeteer pulling our strings? In 2007, a panel

of political pundits and scholars debated this issue and its effect on the American

people in “There You Go Again: Orwell Comes to America,” offering insight into political

rhetoric, marketing, and the psychology behind the average American’s response.

The panel begins by bringing up a necessary point when discussing media and

politics: Language is a powerful tool. Using a sound-byte of President Franklin Delano

Roosevelt’s 1935 fireside chat concerning Social Security, the question is brought up as

to whether or not the speech is propaganda or reality-based politics. This goes to show

that it depends on the framework provided by the sender, as well as how the receiver

interprets the message based on the language chosen. The FDR clip that was chosen

uses grandiose symbolism, as well as references to God’s involvement, to garner a

sense of patriotism from the listener. The clip never once directly mentions the subject
of his speech, though, which was Social Security, which according to the panel makes

the speech a textbook example of propaganda. Today, however, many politicians use

vague references in their speeches to conjure certain emotions within listeners, usually

by using specific catchphrases that are easily recognizable in the media’s vocabulary.

“The War on Terror,” “liberal,” or “economic bailout” are all phrases the media

and politicians utilize frequently, each having a specific context that the speaker means

to convey to the listener. Depending on what political party the listener identifies with,

the framework is different for each of these trigger words. For instance, “the War on

Terror” to someone who is more conservative may represent patriotism at its finest and

a means of combating those who are against American ideals. As for those who lean

towards the more liberal end of the spectrum, “the War on Terror” may signify being

pushed unwillingly into a war that is neither right nor justified.” The framework is

dependent on the schema of the listener beforehand, as well as the meaning the

speaker intended. This correlates with what the panel dubbed “the Orwell fallacy,” which

is Orwell’s belief: “Let the meaning choose the word.” However, is this statement really

a fallacy? Despite the fact that reason is unconscious 98% of the time and is based off

of emotion, the listener typically identifies with phrases negatively or positively. In other

words, if a liberal who supports government-run healthcare is watching Fox News and

they are listening to Ann Coulter talk about how horrible government-run healthcare is,

they will not misinterpret her message. Instead, they will feel that their beliefs are more

solidified and will merely use her message to fuel their belief that their argument is more

vindicated than Ann Coulter’s.

 Although the American people may not feel directly influenced by the content of

the speaker’s message, many times they are easily influenced by subconscious cues.

For instance, one of the panelists mentioned an example concerning John Edwards’

method of speech delivery: He stares at individual audience members until he receives

feedback from the listener, such as a head nod. This is a perfect example of what many

attorneys utilize in the courtroom when speaking to jurors; Look at the jury until you

force them to look at you. Listeners are not always influenced just by the speaker,

though. The panelists each mentioned the negative effects of audience members

heckling or negative responses from sources other than the speaker. Greg Luntz makes

the point that heckling by the audience during the speech is persuasive in that it is seen

as “childish and dispiriting.” In turn, this turns viewers off from the message and can

have reversing effects against the heckler’s cause. Luntz also brings to mind the

possible repercussions this can have on future generations and what sort of role-model

are the hecklers providing them with. Could this, when looking at long-term effects, turn

younger generations off from politics and cause apathy amongst young voters?

An interesting example that the panel provided was that of the sympathetic

framework. In a speech to African American women, Hillary Clinton states that their

problems would be solved if it were the problem of a rich, white woman. She uses guilt

and a declarative statement to invoke trust from the listeners and instill a sense of “I feel

your pain.” The audience cheers and the studies done on this speech reflect approval,

but this does not change the fact that she is, in fact, a rich, white woman. As if she could

possibly empathize with the plight of the disadvantaged Black woman, Clinton still

manages to persuade the audience to trust her by appealing to sympathy. This is

synonymous with the ubiquitous “blue collar working man” speech that many politicians

use, even though many of them were raised in white collar families, attended Ivy

League colleges, and were highly-paid attorneys for years before entering the political

world. This merely solidifies the notion that politicians will frame their messages

according to the demographics of their audience.

Framing also taps into “activating networks,” which coordinates one’s thought

associations with certain concepts. A psychologist on the panel illustrated this by using

word pairs to prompt the word “tide” in listeners’ minds. The same can be done with

consumers of political mass communication. The example used by the panel was

Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” ad, however more recent examples come to

mind such as Obama’s use of the word “change” in his 2008 political campaign. For the

most part, many people associate the word “change” with positive connotations, not to

mention the strong civil rights ties that the word has. Much like the “Support Our Troops”

slogan or “the War on Terror,” if you don’t support “change” it makes you look like a

heartless individual. Therefore, people are inadvertently socially forced to support these

phrases, regardless of the meaning the phrases were meant to endorse. This also ties

in with Orwell’s fallacy. The problem with using phrases such as these, as the panel

points out, is that they blur associations by incorporating two separate networks. In

regards to the phrase “Support Our Troops,” on one end of the spectrum is merely

supporting those in uniforms, whereas on the other end of the spectrum is supporting

the idea of sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Those who do not necessarily

support the idea of sending troops to attack another country in the name of democracy

are forced into saying they “support the troops” to avoid looking heartless.
 Words that once had other associations amongst politicians and constituents are

now being shied away from. For instance, the term “liberal” was merely synonymous

with the label of “Democrat” and it was non-polarized. In the past 40 years, though, the

term “liberal” has taken on a new association and framework and is now seen as a

negative label for those running for office. The panel points out that the last person to

run for office and openly labeled themselves as a Liberal was Lyndon B. Johnson. Since

then, candidates such as Dukakis and Clinton shied away from the label and tried to

portray themselves as more moderate. The panel fails to mention, though, that the label

of “conservative” is not necessarily openly used by the GOP either. For instance, when

watching CNN, typically the term “conservative” is used almost as if they are calling

someone a bad name, whereas on Fox News the same is equally true for the term

“liberal.” As much as the visualization of a liberal is a sushi-eating, Volvo-driving atheist,

“conservative” conjures up the stereotype of American-flag waiving, money-loving

Christian. There is no double standard for labels when it comes to political

communication, given that in a two-party system, most people summarize politics as “us

versus them.”

Overall, political propaganda runs far deeper than the messages the speaker,

otherwise known as the politician, conveys. In fact, it’s this political “doublespeak,” as

Orwell would call it, that drives the people and the ballots. Unfortunately, it’s the

fragmentation of the people and the “us versus them” mentality that prevents the

population as a whole from addressing the issue of being manipulated by the press and

the political machine. Perhaps it’s the political elite that is perpetuating the “us versus

them” mentality in an attempt to make the population easier to control? After all, it is
much easier to solidify beliefs when you have a common enemy: The other side of the

political spectrum.