Could it be that the source of our current political impasse and hyper-partisan public discourse could be summed up in a memorable line from Cool Hand Luke: “What we have here is a failure to communicate”?

I just finished reading a book by Madeleine L’Engle about christian art, Walking on Water.  This book was published in 1980 but it contains a very relevant, prescient passage:

If our vocabulary dwindles to a few shopworn words, we are setting ourselves up for takeover by a dictator. When language becomes exhausted, our freedom dwindles—we cannot think; we do not recognize danger; injustice strikes us as no more than “the way things are.”
Some … delegates [to the writers’ conference] came from countries ruled by dictators, either from the right or the left. In both cases, teachers are suspect; writers are suspect because people who use words are able to work out complex ideas, to see injustice, and perhaps even to try to do something about it.

L’Engle’s focus on dictators from other countries, or other times, is an indication that she probably wasn’t thinking about the possibility of a dictator arising in the United States in the modern era.  But today we can begin to imagine that.  The authoritarianism of our current presidential administration can easily be connected to the diminished vocabulary of the President of the United States.

The public pronouncements of the President are limited “to a few shopworn” phrases, used over and over again in very diverse situations:  “people are saying,”  “like nobody’s ever seen before,” “both sides,” “we’ll see what happens,” not to mention, “fake news,” “witch hunt,” “no collusion,” “hoax.”  (I’ll spare you the all-caps of the originals).  Another example of dwindling vocabulary is seen in the use of name-calling.  The expanse of a human life, which only a personal name can point to, is narrowed to a particular trait when using a nickname.

It is obvious Donald Trump has a deflated public vocabulary.  It is also not wild speculation to connect this diminished vocabulary with his authoritarian tendencies.  Arriving at that correlation, can we then determine a line of causation?  Is he intentionally reducing public vocabulary in order to increase his authority? or does his already diminished vocabulary lead to an admiration of dictators and their power?

Although I tend to think that the answer to this question is both, it is not the most important question.  What is more important is the correlation of our culture’s shrinking public vocabulary with a desire for authoritarian leadership.  Does the dwindling of our public vocabulary lead to an electorate which is open to authoritarianism, with a leader who dictates in a constricted vocabulary?  (Read both senses of “dictates” here.)

I am afraid that the answer to that question is yes, and that responsibility for our current state of affairs lies squarely with us and with our willingness to accept (and to use) a contracting set of words and phrases and thought patterns.  We have become lazy consumers of hazy communication.  We all too easily accept unclear, imprecise, irrelevant and inadequate language without asking for, listening for, and demanding clear, precise, relevant and adequate answers which can only be put into words using an expanded vocabulary.

There are many causes of this shrunken vocabulary and our expanding failure to communicate.  Madeleine L’Engle points to one of these causes a little further on in the same chapter when she points out the similarity of “the deliberate diminution of vocabulary by a dictator” to the practices of “an advertising copywriter” (you can read “professional brander” there if you like).

Improving the public discourse in our nation will take more than a commitment to civility and a lessening of partisan bias.  If we truly desire to improve the public discourse in our nation, and communities, and circle of friends, we will need to expand our vocabulary beyond that of admen, persuaders, salesmen, and branders.  We will need to speak more clearly, precisely, relevantly and adequately, and to gently and persistently demand that same careful use of language from others.  Words matter.  So does vocabulary.

If I have failed to communicate, you can continue this conversation by writing me at “write(dot)not(dot)right(at)gmail(dot)com.”