Exegetical one-upmanship trumps substance
« previous post | next post »
It isn't unusual for a political controversy to turn on the interpretation of what someone on one side said. Indeed, I discussed a couple of cases of this type the other day. What is peculiar about the most recent incident in the Presidential election is that the side whose exegesis is superior appears to have won a Pyrrhic victory.
On Thursday, September 11, Sarah Palin gave a speech at the deployment of a brigade of soldiers including her son to Iraq. In it, she said that they would:
defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced
in the death of thousands of Americans.
Writing in the Washington Post, Anne Kornblut interpreted this as evidence that Palin believes that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks on the US, a view now almost universally discredited. Conservatives have picked up on this and claimed that it is a gross distortion of what Palin said. Neo-con pundit Bill Kristol, for example, described Kornblut's interpretation as "either stupid or malicious". His interpretation is that Palin is saying nothing about Saddam Hussein's regime but rather that the forces from whom Iraqi civilians presently need protection are the same as the forces responsible for the 9/11 attacks, namely al-Qaeda.
Kristol is correct. Palin clearly regards the current conflict in Iraq as an extension of the al-Qaeda attacks of September 11th, 2001. Elsewhere in the speech she talks about the conflict as having begun seven years ago. Palin nowhere refers to the Saddam Hussein regime. So, Kornblut got this wrong; Kristol got it right. If the game is who is better at the exegesis of political speeches, Kristol has scored a point. But if the game is whether Palin has the kind of understanding of foreign affairs that one might desire in a potential President, Kristol's interpretation is no improvement.
On Kristol's interpretation, Palin believes that that the principal enemy of Iraqi civilians as well as of the US forces is al-Qaeda in Iraq. This is a ludicrous view. Virtually all sources agree that there are two main bodies of belligerents in Iraq. One of them is the Mahdi Army, the armed force controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, estimated at a strength of about 60,000 men. Muqtada al-Sadr and his Army are Shiites and as such are enemies of al-Qaeda. The other group, estimated at a strength of 70,000 men, are the various Sunni insurgents. Al-Qeda in Iraq is salient because of its use of suicide bombing and is regarded as very well organized, but is nonetheless a relatively minor player, with a force of only about 1,300 men. If Palin thinks that al-Qaeda in Iraq is the principal enemy of both the US forces and Iraqi civilians, she holds a view regarded as seriously mistaken by most observers.
The upshot is that regardless of which interpretation of Palin's speech is correct, she comes off as ignorant, either about Saddam Hussein's regime or about the current situation. Making a fuss about this, as Kristol and other conservatives are doing, merely draws further attention to Palin's ignorance. The only way that I can make sense of the behavior of Kristol and other conservatives is to assume that for them proving that they are better at interpreting Palin's speeches outweighs drawing attention to their candidate's ignorance of foreign affairs. Has American politics reached the point that people actually care more about linguistic one-upmanship than about the knowledge and views of the candidates?
Joe said,
September 14, 2008 @ 2:14 am
> Has American politics reached the point that people actually care more about linguistic one-upmanship than about the knowledge and views of the candidates?
I would answer that, but the news right now is filled with stories questioning why one of the candidates persists in putting forth utterly discredited statements and blaming the media for "bias" in mentioning that the statements are false and misleading.
So I'm going to assume that question was rhetorical while I wonder just how long this entry will remain open to comments…
Lotophagos said,
September 14, 2008 @ 3:21 am
Gesturing towards some idyllic time when American politics (or any politics, for that matter) was free of this kind of ridiculous posturing seems a bit naive to me. And yet, the depths to which politicians (of both parties) will stoop never fails to surprise me, each and every election cycle.
That said, it strikes me as unfair to blame the politicians for their disappointing behavior. That would be like blaming athletes competing in the Olympics for running fast. The only reward function that exists for politicians is victory in elections, and victory in elections is determined by the voting habits of the general populace. Political dishonesty and sensationalism is therefore a symptom of the underlying problem (a feckless electorate) rather than the cause of that problem.
As regards Sarah Palin, I would not take her speeches as strong evidence of either her knowledge or her ignorance about the Iraq War. After all, she has to say something, so why not score a political point? Even if she knows the exact number of Al-Qaeda operatives (a dubious concept in itself, given the structure of Al-Qaeda) in Iraq, it would still make political sense for her to throw the crowd a sound bite, particularly when the crowd is undoubtedly ignorant of any facts that could refute her statements. A linguistic interpretation of her remarks is pointless precisely because the facts that would make varying interpretations important are not known by the listeners.
Knowledge is orthogonal to politics.
Steve said,
September 14, 2008 @ 3:30 am
>Has American politics reached the point that people actually care more about linguistic one-upmanship than about the knowledge and views of the candidates?
Perhaps, but apparently American linguistics (at least, as represented by Mr. Poser) has reached the point that people care more about political one-upmanship than scholarship. As a non-linguist, I read Language Log because I have a hobbyist's interest in linguistics. But lately, it has become difficult to find any posts that actually deal with linguistics as opposed to unwanted and underhanded political bashing. I'm sure Mr. Poser is a talented linguist, but frankly, the political commentary is becoming tiresome. If he wants to post such matter, perhaps he can start his own blog. He could call it, "the 'Obama is the Messiah' Log".
RobWeaver said,
September 14, 2008 @ 5:09 am
Oh, I dunno – this seems more like Kristol's error than Palin's. After all, as long as there are some Al Qaeda fighters attacking innocents in Iraq and (if) the US forces there are defending the innocents from such attacks, it doesn't really matter if AQ are the majority component of the "insurgency". (An assessment like Kristol's would also depend on the amount of occasions the Sunni insurgents, and the competing sectarian and factional militias, attack "innocents" in comparison with how frequently AQII does. If the non-AQII spend most of their time attacking Coalition troops or other militias, Kristol's and Palin's implied assessment of who's killing Iraqi innocents is pretty accurate.)
The real absurdity of Palin's drawing a link between present-day Iraq and 9/11 is that it involves the foolish assumption that the neo-salafis in Iraq taking AQ's name having anything but the slenderest connection – and that likely in nothing but a shared ideology – with the Frankfurt plotters of the 2001 attacks. Al Qaeda is not S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
One could also wonder in passing whether the larger threat to Iraqi innocents might not simply be the army that attacked and occupied their country, and its bombs, soldiers, and accompanying trigger-happy condottieri. But let's not go there.
lambert strether said,
September 14, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Bill asks:
Has American politics reached the point that people actually care more about linguistic one-upmanship than about the knowledge and views of the candidates?
Simple answers to simple questions:
Yes.
Nice blog.
language hat said,
September 14, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Perhaps, but apparently American linguistics … has reached the point that people care more about political one-upmanship than scholarship. As a non-linguist, I read Language Log because I have a hobbyist's interest in linguistics. But lately, it has become difficult to find any posts that actually deal with linguistics as opposed to unwanted and underhanded political bashing.
Hear, hear.
David Marjanović said,
September 14, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
You dislike the mention of politics, so you pile on by making ridiculous assertions about politics, calculated to get an infuriated reaction? How logical.
"Alright, I am the Messiah…"
— Brian (Life Of)
John Baker said,
September 14, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
I hope that the bloggers on Language Log will not be dissuaded from further posts on the linguistic implications of public statements, including political statements, even if the implications of those posts may be contrary to the political leanings of some of their readership. Self-censorship can only harm Language Log and its appeal.
Steve said,
September 15, 2008 @ 5:47 am
To John and David,
The fact that Mr. Poser seems to go out of his way to lambast Bush/McCain/Palin, and never Obama (who has certainly made his own share of public gaffes), indicates to me a significant bias on his part. Oh, and the prominant "I support Obama" advertisement on his personal website.
I certainly don't wish to dissuade any of the bloggers from "further posts on the linguistic implications of public statements". But when the posts degenerate to the "Bush is an idiot" level, that's where I draw the line. As soon as Mr. Poser presents his credentials as a professor of political science, I'll start to care about his personal beliefs. In the meantime, I'd prefer it if he limited himself to things he actually is qualified to talk about. Especially on a blog titled "Language Log".
And no, David, I don't "dislike the mention of politics" in this forum as long as it is relevant to the discussion of linguistics. But Mr. Poser's posts have become increasingly more irrelevant. And I made no "assertions about politics".
David Letterman said,
September 15, 2008 @ 6:30 am
@ Steve, That's Dr Poser.
David Letterman said,
September 15, 2008 @ 6:51 am
@ Steve & Hat:
Where's the conflict? He's not breaking some ethical rule by having a bias and flaunting it. God knows I wouldn't want anyone to think I supported Sarah Palin — next to Dan Quail, she's the stupidest and most dangerous person ever to run for Vice President of the United States. If Dr Posner, who is a linguist, wants to use his expertise to write about politics, so what? If you don't like the politics then go and read William Shatner, or whatever his name is. If Dr Posner suddenly started to write articles about gay issues that had only the most tangential relation to language or draw boring graphs about birdsong would you complain about that? I think not. So leave him alone, some of us like it.
John Spevacek said,
September 15, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
If the first casualty in war is the truth, the first casualty in an election campaign is linguistics.
To find linguistic issues in political speech (and political commentary) is as mindless as finding grass on a golf course. Please bring out something that stimulates the mind, something that is more difficult to find, something that makes me want to continue reading this blog.
The last half of this post was "fact checking" and interpretation of what this "showed". This was poorly done. Since Palin apparently couldn't be sunk with her own words, she was shot down with the interpretation provided by Kristol. I have higher standards of proof than that.
Moe said,
September 15, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
> The fact that Mr. Poser seems to go out of his way to lambast Bush/McCain/Palin, and never Obama (who has certainly made his own share of public gaffes), indicates to me a significant bias on his part.
Focus on facts, not "bias." If the facts are wrong (or left out), point them out. There's little more harmful to this country than supporting a bad candidate because they're on the right team. And that applies no matter which team and which candidate we're talking about.
Alas, American politics makes a lot more sense if you think of it in terms of a sport. Especially when people blame the referees.
iamkimiam said,
September 15, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
I find that analyzing examples of speech that are well-known, timely, and controversial helps make the linguistic features that they contain much more salient and accessible. I get to learn about linguistics as it applies to relevant, socially constructed, widely distributed data. This helps not me not only hone my critical thinking skills in this field that I love, but in other areas of my life that are also important to me and have practical, real-world impact.
John McIntyre said,
September 15, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
Unless I have suffered a mild stroke, I recall that Professor Poser began by pointing out a fairly substantial error of interpretation in The Washington Post, which I recognize as a fellow member of the Eastern Liberal Media Establishment. So because he also ventured to comment on an interpretation by Bill Kristol, he is a running dog of that same liberal establishment?
And because it is an election year, Language Log can comment on "Get Fuzzy" and "Zippy," but any comment analyzing political comments is verboten?
Obviously, as a mere journalist, I'm not equipped to understand these subtleties.
Quant said,
September 15, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
Steve, I find Mr. Poser's posts topical, interesting and factual. It would seem from the tone of your comment that his criticism of a particular candidate has rubbed you the wrong way and caused you to attack by using exagerration. I welcome further posts with political themes as they are certainly timely.
Steve said,
September 16, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Last comment on this topic…
It's not about the bias. I don't care that Professor Poser is an Obama supporter. I just don't particularly want to hear about it on Language Log. If he were to say, " made an error in his/her speech today," then no matter who the candidate is, I'm interested to hear about it if it has relevance to linguistics. But when he continues on to say that the candidate is "ignorant", it is mere opinion and doesn't belong here.
If I were reading a blog on mathematics (and by the way, I do) and someone commented that "Obama (or Bush, or McCain) got his statistics wrong," and then went on to show the correct statistics and possibly the equations that led to them, then I wouldn't complain. But if the blogger continued by saying, "and this proves that Obama (or Bush, or McCain) is either an idiot or a liar," then I'd have to cry foul. I expect the same level of "nonpartisanship" on a blog about language, or any other scientific topic.
Christy Mason said,
September 17, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
I enjoy reading the political analysis. I don't care if it's one-sided. All my friends are left or far-left. All my family is right or far-right. I have always felt that I must be "middle of the road" since I have learned not to discuss politics with most of them. I have no problems with attacks on either candidate – I feel capable myself of distinguishing between fair and unfair criticism. The only criticism I dislike is the sort that cannot be explained. One of my friends, during the last election, told me that George W. Bush was the worst president we have ever had. This comment startled me, and I responded, genuinely interested, "Worse than Taft? What makes you think so?" I was expecting my friend, a gentleman that I consider to be brilliant, to respond with his actual reasoning for holding that opinion. Alas, I discovered too late that he considered even that gentle question to be an attack and could not explain even one reason behind his opinion.
Irene said,
September 18, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
I just found this site and just began posting my comments on topics after everybody is done with them and gone. But, before I posted my first comment, I read the rules of conduct. It seems to me that these rules are there for the hoi polloi, those neither possessing nor pursuing a terminal degree in linguistics.
Like Steve, I am just a linguistics groupie searching for interesting and possibly entertaining items (like the origin of decussate). I too can do without the political commentary.
And, I'm sure we all know that political speech is deliberately designed to obfuscate and bamboozle. Parsing it is fruitless.