(originally posted ca. 2017) <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
There is a pervasive misconception, especially on the right, that using blunt, politically incorrect or offensive language means that an argument is intrinsically valid. Part of Trump\u2019s appeal, for example, is his ability to \u2018tell it like it is\u2019, even though nearly everything he says or tweets is a half-truth or an outright lie. It\u2019s less about Trump\u2019s actual honesty than it is the appearance<\/em> of honesty through his bluntness. If Trump had expressed the same sentiments using more academic language, then he would not have become the Republican nominee two years ago: even with the same ideas, Trump wouldn\u2019t have earned the same reputation he has for being a \u2018straight shooter\u2019. I\u2019ve seen other right-wing writers and activists doing the same thing. If they can word something simply enough, people will believe it even if it\u2019s factually wrong or extremely biased. If you\u2019re being politically incorrect, you\u2019re being brave and sticking it to the Establishment, even if the ideas you\u2019re expressing are representative of the status quo or status quo ante, before white male supremacy was seriously challenged in western society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n Of course, using simple language does not make you right, any more than using more complex language makes you wrong. It should be the substantive content of your argument that matters, rather than the delivery, but that isn\u2019t how rhetoric works. This discrepancy between delivery and substance allows people like Trump to tell blatant falsehoods because they ostensibly \u2018tell it like it is\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n Relatedly, I think that liberal and leftist activists should strive for clarity when conveying ideas. It\u2019s important to distil complex interpretations of policy and advocacy into digestible chunks for the general public to understand<\/em>. Public policy is indeed full of subtle interpretations, tangled histories and intricate relationships, but that doesn\u2019t mean that explanations of these complexities must necessarily be convoluted, abstruse disquisitions on the nature of policymaking processes or political theories. In fact, it may take more skill for some political scientists, policy analysts and policy researchers to take complex ideas and make them accessible to a wider audience than it does to avoid code-switching and write solely for their fellow wonks in public-policy and political-science academic journals and websites. That said, however, I\u2019ve seen countless liberal and leftist advocates, including<\/em> disability activists, routinely framing their arguments in strictly theoretical terms that assume background knowledge that their listeners or readers may not already have. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n This entry is not a defence of anti-intellectualism or the wholesale dismissal of expertise. I usually think in theoretical and conceptual frameworks when considering the nature of different public policies and the implementation of those policies. My default thinking tends towards abstractions, words, concepts and metaphors. There\u2019s a difference, though, between the way you may see your field as an expert and the way the general public will interpret it. Unless the people you\u2019re talking to also have a policy, political-science or related background, it\u2019s unlikely that they\u2019ll know about specific ideological frameworks like neo-Marxism, Keynesianism, paleoconservatism or utilitarianism, but they will<\/em> know about how a policy will affect their ability to breathe clean air, send their children to a good school, protect them and their family from police violence, or work at a job that pays them a fair wage. You can base your explanations on deeper theoretical frameworks, but express them to the public in ways that are more immediately accessible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n Beat the far-right at its own game. Be clear. Provide solutions that are easy to understand. You don\u2019t have to insult people\u2019s intelligence and condescend to them, but it is important to make sure that the people you\u2019re talking to don\u2019t require a degree in public policy or political science to understand what you\u2019re advocating for. <\/p>\n