610
PARTISAN REVIEW
and their sympathizers paid a heavy price for their "incorrect" views
during the early Cold War. "Uncle Toms" - blacks seen as too eager to
win favor with their white "overlords" - are still treated like pariah
by
other blacks who greatly value racial solidarity. Jews critical of Israel or
Muslims critical of Islam may find that they "can't go home again." A
persuasive account of our current problems with PC should be broad
enough to address these related phenomena. I argue that such an account
emerges naturally from a conception of political communication which
stresses strategic considerations.
In
his fine essay, "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell
states:
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap
between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were in–
stinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish
squirting out ink.
. Thus political language has to consist largely
of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.
The skepticism is justified, for political communication - the trans–
mission of ideas and information about matters of common concern
with the intent to shape public opinion or effect policy outcomes - is,
indeed, a tricky business. Those sending and those receiving messages have
to be wary. To be effective, both parties must behave strategically. Naive
communication - where a speaker states literally all that he thinks, or an
audience accepts his representations at face value - is rare, and foolish, in
politics. Because political rhetoric engages interests, expresses values, con–
veys intent and seeks to establish commitment to certain courses of ac–
tion, the risk of manipulation is particularly great in political argument.
When someone addresses us "in the forum," we must consider what he
will do if he gets power; we must decide whether he can be trusted; we
must wonder, "What type of person is it who would speak to me in this
way?"
Strategic listeners will look behind what is spoken or written, in an
effort to discern all that is implied by the act of speaking or writing in a
given way. The sender of a public message intended to shape opinions
and influence policy may have ultimate aims which are not apparent to
his audience. And yet, because the sender's values, ideals, and intentions
will shape the strategy he adopts in the forum, a proper decoding of his
message requires knowledge of his ultimate aims. For this reason, inter–
pretation of political expression involves, in an essential way, making in–
ferences from the expressive act about the sender's motives, values, and
commitments.
