Every day, we are bombarded with political rhetoric. Political parties, with their polished messaging, carefully craft their words to grab our attention. These messages generally fall into two categories: reinforcing their existing support base or attracting new supporters. The language used by political parties in this messaging is a fascinating study in linguistics. Through the use of loaded words, the rhetoric is both clever in its ability to persuade and somewhat insulting to our intelligence.
There are many common words and phrases that politicians use to manipulate the reader and garner support. Many of these words are not exclusive to either left- or right-leaning parties. In fact, some of these words are used by both sides to describe the other.
For example, take the phrase “common sense.” This phrase is often trotted out in jingoistic chants by one party and dismissed by the elites of another. Saying something is common sense implies that it is logical and universally agreed upon. However, as the French philosopher Voltaire noted, common sense is not so common. It’s a relative term. The political writer crafting a message cannot know what you or I consider to be “common sense.”
Another overused term is “radical.” Radical implies an idea or policy is extreme. While there are certainly examples of extreme ideologies in history, such as Nazism and Communism, Canadian politics has historically been more moderate. The phrase “Canada governs from the centre” reflects this. However, politicians are now using the word “radical” to describe policies that are not truly extreme. This is misleading, as many people equate “radical” with those historical extremes, not with someone who holds slightly left- or right-leaning views. Supporting a moderate left-of-centre party is no more radical than supporting a moderate right-of-centre party. It makes one wonder if either side truly understands the meaning of the word “radical.”
Some words are exclusively used by one side of the political spectrum. For example, those on the left often use the term “systemic” to describe entrenched problems, such as systemic racism. On the other hand, those on the right often use the term “traditional” to evoke a sense of nostalgia and stability. Both words can be used in a manipulative way, as one person’s tradition may be another person’s systemic issue.
The reason this matters is simple – within a year we are going to have not one, but two elections in Ontario. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been dropping election-campaign style announcements in riding-after-riding. Meanwhile, by October 2025, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must call a federal election. That is, if he can stay in office that long. Both elections are going to be nasty partisan slug-fests. Ford is riding high in opinion polls, and he wants to ride those numbers into a third term. It will likely work for Ford, as his opposition lacks candidates in many ridings. Trudeau’s only chance – as it stands – is hoping his opponents trip up, or people equate his main rival, Pierre Poilievre to incoming American President Donald Trump. In both cases, politicians are going to be battling for that 10 per cent of the electorate that could move from one candidate to the other.
If you see a candidate resorting to calling opponents a radical or any of the other words out there, what does that say about the candidate using those words? More often than not, the poor use of language reflects poorly on the speaker, rather than on the object or person being spoken of.
In the world of politics, every word has meaning and intent. By paying close attention to the rhetoric used by politicians, we can better understand their true intentions. In the coming year, it will be entertaining at least to analyze the words used by politicians and the underlying messages they convey.
This column was originally published in the November 27, 2024 print edition of the Morrisburg Leader.
Discover more from Wandering with Phil
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.