Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: For voters, what Harris or Trump say may matter less than how they say it

Published

on

Opinion: For voters, what Harris or Trump say may matter less than how they say it

Imagine someone needs to convince you of a surprising fact — say, that your partner is cheating on you. Your best friend might be direct: “They’re cheating on you!” They might even exaggerate a little to get you extra worked up: “It’s been going on for ages! They’re parading around all over town!” But a stranger would need to be more circumspect and subtle: “I’m surprised to hear you’re a couple, because I saw …”

There are essentially two different ways to communicate persuasively, and the differences have everything to do with the communicator’s social authority. We’re seeing it play out on the campaign trail: Donald Trump is regularly characterized as forward and bombastic, while Kamala Harris is often criticized for being too indirect or obtuse. Both styles can be effective, but it’s helpful to consider who uses these different approaches and why.

People we see as trustworthy — either because they are familiar to us or because they are members of a race, class or gender our society treats as authoritative — can use direct and unambiguous language to push others into their way of thinking. If you trust someone, they can convince you of something by speaking straightforwardly about it — and they can be even more effective by taking advantage of their authority and exaggerating the truth. This manner of speech has been historically linked to dictators and fascists, but it’s also something you might see in your day-to-day life from someone in a position of power over you — like your boss — or someone you’re in a close relationship with, like your significant other.

On the other hand, those who are not in positions of authority must be much more subtle and measured. If you are not already inclined to take someone’s word for something, that person doesn’t have the luxury of simply stating the facts as they see them. They have to be more circumspect and make their points implicitly.

One way to be implicitly persuasive is to presuppose something rather than state it outright. One of the differences between the English articles “a” and “the” is that “the” often presupposes uniqueness, i.e., that there is only one. So a politician could bill herself as “an honest politician,” or include a presupposition by claiming she is “the honest politician.” This second option packs a bigger semantic punch but is notably less direct than explicitly saying something like “I am an honest politician, and my rival is not.”

Advertisement

Striving for plausible deniability is another way to be implicitly persuasive. If the point you need to communicate is controversial and potentially socially dangerous and you aren’t in a position of power, it’s a good idea to speak as noncommittally as possible. This is achievable using distancing language or hedging, for example: “If pressed, I might feel that it’s appropriate to suppose your partner might be cheating on you.” Another way to gain plausible deniability is by using oblique language, such as so-called dog whistles, which signal meaning to one group without alerting others. These techniques rely on a distinction between lying outright and being misleading. Misleading styles are used extensively in persuasion, both by people who can’t afford to be direct and by those with ulterior motives, such as advertisers and public relations experts.

On a day-to-day basis, it’s better to think of indirect language as a natural reflex based on our fluid roles in society, not a sign of weakness to be stamped out. If we had a better understanding of these linguistic power dynamics, we might have, for instance, different legal precedents. One unfortunate court ruling held that saying, “I think I would like to talk to a lawyer” to a police officer does not legally qualify as a request for a lawyer. But stating, “I think I would like a salad” would uncontroversially be seen by a restaurant server as an order — in a context in which the power imbalance is flipped.

Understanding the real motivations for indirect communication also would help us work to avoid gender and racial bias: While Harris is almost always characterized as more indirect than Trump, conversation analysis has shown that Trump used more hedging and uncertain language in their presidential debate. This is consistent with findings that women are disproportionately criticized for using indirect language, when it is more or less equally used by all genders. This is true for tag questions (statements ending with an interrogative question, such as “You watched the debate, didn’t you?”) and vocal fry (a creakiness or raspiness in one’s voice that some assume is an affectation.) Both have been disproportionately associated with women and incorrectly characterized as signaling weakness in the speaker.

It’s important to remember that generally we do not have the luxury of choosing between these two approaches to persuasive communication. The fact that those with power can afford to speak directly, while those without it cannot, means that more than anything, our communication styles reflect the inequities already established in our society.

Jessica Rett is a professor of linguistics at UCLA. Her research investigates the meaning of words and how they contribute to the meanings of sentences, either in isolation or in broader contexts.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

In Congress, a Push for Proxy Voting for New Parents Draws Bipartisan Support

Published

on

In Congress, a Push for Proxy Voting for New Parents Draws Bipartisan Support

Representative Brittany Pettersen, a second-term Colorado Democrat, was not planning to have a second child at the age of 43.

“As if our life wasn’t complicated enough!” she said with a laugh as she arranged herself on a couch in her office on Capitol Hill earlier this week, staring down at her pregnant belly just weeks from her due date. She blamed the “mistake” on the confusion of working in two time zones. “It can make things hard with consistent birth control,” she said. “It was not part of the plan.”

Congress has existed for 236 years, but somehow Ms. Pettersen is about to become only the 13th voting member to give birth while in office, and the first from her home state. As Ms. Pettersen tries to plan the next phase of her life, the reality is setting in that this job was not created with someone like her in mind.

There is no maternity leave for members of Congress. While they can take time away from the office without sacrificing their pay, they cannot vote if they are not present at the Capitol. So Ms. Pettersen has taken a lead role in a new push by a bipartisan group of younger lawmakers and new parents in Congress to change the rules to allow them to vote remotely while they take up to 12 weeks of parental leave.

“This job is not made for young women, for working families, and it’s definitely not made for regular people,” said Ms. Pettersen. “It’s historically been wealthy individuals who are not of childbearing age who do this work.”

Advertisement

Before boarding her plane on Thursday to return to Lakewood, Colo., where she planned to remain until after she gives birth, Ms. Pettersen introduced the “Proxy Voting for New Parents Resolution.” It would change House rules to allow new mothers and fathers in Congress to stay away from Washington immediately after the birth of a child and designate a colleague to cast votes on their behalf.

“I feel really torn,” Ms. Pettersen said, “because I’m going to choose to be home to make sure that my newborn is taken care of, but I feel that it’s unfair that I’m unable to have my constituents represented at that time.”

The resolution, she said, “is common sense. It’s about modernizing Congress.”

The idea has been percolating on Capitol Hill for some time, but has become all the more pressing for the new Congress, its proponents argue, because the House is now so closely divided, with Republicans holding the majority by just one vote.

Republicans savaged former Speaker Nancy Pelosi for breaking with centuries of history and House rules by instituting proxy voting during the coronavirus pandemic. Former Representative Kevin McCarthy, as the minority leader, filed a lawsuit arguing that allowing a member of Congress to deputize a colleague to cast a vote on their behalf when they were not present was unconstitutional.

Advertisement

House Republicans also argued that allowing proxy voting would have a negative effect on member “collegiality.” Ms. Luna’s resolution never came to the floor for a vote.

Now, the bipartisan group is trying again. Ms. Pettersen’s resolution was one of the first introduced in the opening days of the 119th Congress. It is slightly broader than Ms. Luna’s original proposal, written to include proxy voting for new fathers.

“I’m not in favor of proxy voting; I think it should be very rare,” said Representative Mike Lawler, a New York Republican who welcomed his second child eight days before the election. “But I don’t think any member should be precluded from doing the job they were elected to do simply because they become a parent.”

Mr. Lawler, a leader of the new effort whose baby is 2 months old, cannot afford to be away from the Capitol while his party holds a one-seat majority.

“I understand the impact when you are given a choice between being home or coming and doing your job,” he said. “It’s not a great choice.”

Advertisement

Mr. Lawler dismissed concerns from House leaders about creating a bad precedent, saying the existing protocols no longer fit the Congress of the modern era.

“You have younger people getting elected to public office at a much higher rate than when these rules were established,” he said. “If we talk about being pro-family, you have to at least recognize that giving birth to a child or becoming a parent should not be an impediment to doing your job.”

Ms. Pettersen said she had considered having her baby in Washington so she could continue voting, but ultimately decided against it.

“It’s unfair to my family and unfair to my newborn if we’re not at home where all of our support and my doctor and support system is,” she said.

Ms. Pettersen is still relatively new to Washington and to motherhood — her son is still in prekindergarten — but the disconnect between her situation and the job of an elected official has been painfully obvious to her ever since she was pregnant with her first child and serving in the Colorado legislature.

Advertisement

Back then, she was the first member of that body ever to go on maternity leave. The only way to get paid while on leave was to categorize her situation as a “chronic illness.”

When she returned, Ms. Petterson successfully pressed to change the law to ensure that future state lawmakers would be given up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave.

Even before she walked the halls of Congress as the rare pregnant member, Ms. Pettersen said she felt like an odd fit for the Capitol.

When she was 6 years old, her mother was prescribed opioids after hurting her back and became addicted to heroine and then fentanyl. She overdosed more than 20 times. Growing up, Ms. Pettersen said, nobody even kept track of whether or not she came home at night.

“I saw Phish shows when I was 12 years old in Kansas and other places,” she said. “Still got straight A’s, though.”

Advertisement

(Her mother recently celebrated her 70th birthday and seven years in recovery.)

Because her parents were behind on taxes, she didn’t qualify for student loans, so Ms. Pettersen paid her way through school in cash, waiting tables, cleaning houses and working various odd jobs. She was the first person in her family to graduate from high school or college.

Beating the odds has made Ms. Pettersen even more determined to try to change her current workplace to make it feasible for more people like her.

“Being pregnant and being a member of Congress, people ask, ‘How are you doing this with your family?’ — all these questions I know my male colleagues don’t get,” she said. “It’s such a double standard.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

'Space coast' congressman sets bold goal for American moon missions

Published

on

'Space coast' congressman sets bold goal for American moon missions

The Space Coast’s new congressman wants the U.S. to set bold goals for exploration beyond our Earth, believing the country’s potential will take Americans sky-high – literally.

“We need to do everything we can to make sure it’s safe, but it’s done in a way that removes some of the superfluous red tape so that we can get out there, compete and beat China and beat any other nation,” Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital in an interview.

“Because the moon and beyond is not a cliché from a Disney movie. It is the future.”

Haridopolos said he would “love” to see the U.S. return to the moon in the next four years of the Trump administration. The Florida Republican was careful not to speak in absolutes, noting, “We can’t guarantee anything,” but credited billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos with revitalizing the science and space sector to make such conversations possible.

JOHNSON BLASTS DEM ACCUSATIONS HE VOWED TO END OBAMACARE AS ‘DISHONEST’

Advertisement

Rep. Mike Haridopolos is the newest congressman representing Florida’s Space Coast. (Getty Images)

“It’s a stepping stone,” he said. “For example, as we’re starting to move towards [nuclear power], with the need for more and more energy here in the United States…There’s particles that are on the moon that they would bring back because they’re very scarce here in America [and] around the world.”

Helium-3 is a highly coveted resource found on the moon known to be key in nuclear fusion processes.

“From that point, you settle the moon, and then you go on to Mars, which has been, of course, Elon Musk’s vision,” Haridopolos said. “When he thought of things like SpaceX, it was, how do I get to Mars? And then how do you pay to get to Mars? That was the inspiration behind a lot of the new technologies he helped create. And now he’s got a fellow zillionaire in Jeff Bezos dreaming of the same type of things. It’s really exciting”

DANIEL PENNY TO BE TAPPED FOR CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL BY HOUSE GOP LAWMAKER

Advertisement
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos

Haridopolos credited Elon Musk (left) and Jeff Bezos for their investment in commercial space flight. (AP Images)

In Congress, the first-term lawmaker represents part of the country that’s famous for being home to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

The Space Coast broke its all-time annual record with 93 orbital launches last year, according to Florida Today.

Just this week it’s scheduled to host launches by both Musk’s SpaceX Falcon 9 and Bezos’ Blue Origin rocket.

He lauded both President-elect Trump’s vision for space as well as new House Space Science and Technology Chairman Brian Babin, R-Texas.

NASA’S MARTIAN HELICOPTER PROMISES UNPRECEDENTED VIEWS OF THE RED PLANET

Advertisement
Texas Rep. Brian Babin, a Republican

Haridopolos also praised Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, the new chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.  (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

“Donald Trump has proven day-one and officially in 2019 that he loves space,” he said, referring to Trump’s creation of the Space Force.

He suggested that the U.S. approach to the final frontier may not be dissimilar to the optimism and pride seen in 1969, when Americans landed a team of astronauts on the moon.

“It was an inspiration for my parents’ generation,” Haridopolos said. “Now, of course, Elon Musk gave us this whole new vision of landing potentially, in our lifetime, on Mars. It’s remarkable. And so the president said this is the future.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom invites Trump to California to see L.A. fire damage

Published

on

Newsom invites Trump to California to see L.A. fire damage

Gov. Gavin Newsom sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump on Friday inviting the incoming leader to California to meet with fire victims, survey the devastation in Los Angeles County and join him in thanking first responders.

The invitation, which the governor’s office said was emailed to Trump’s team, marks a change in tone in the political battle between Newsom and Trump.

“In the spirit of this great country, we must not politicize human tragedy or spread disinformation from the sidelines,” Newsom said. “Hundreds of thousands of Americans — displaced from their homes and fearful for the future — deserve to see all of us working in their best interests to ensure a fast recovery and rebuild.”

Trump has been a vocal critic of Newsom since the fires began and blamed the governor and “his Los Angeles crew” for the disaster, though the Republican’s claim that a lack of water in Southern California led to a shortage for firefighters have been widely debunked.

In a briefing earlier in the day with President Biden, Newsom spoke out against the misinformation and lies.

Advertisement

“It breaks my heart, as people are suffering and struggling, that we’re up against those hurricane forces as well,” Newsom said. “It affects real people.”

Trump previously traveled to California as president to survey fire damage after the Paradise fire in 2018 and a spate of wildfires in 2020.

The governor on Friday also called for an investigation into the water supply problems that left fire hydrants dry and hampered firefighting efforts in Pacific Palisades.

Staff writer Faith Pinho contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending