We Are Losing the War on Vagueness

We are losing the war on vagueness. Writers, pundits, and politicians like never before are trotting out expressions empty of meaning and devoid of substance. And surprisingly those guiltiest are not the candidates running for office--they are the columnists within the commentariat, who actually get paid to write thoughtful prose and put forth fresh viewpoints. With the New Year upon us, let's pledge to put a moratorium in 2008 on a number of worn-out expressions, old ideas, and empty phrases. Please. In the words of Jon Stewart: "Stop hurting America."

To wit: One of my favorite foreign policy analysts is Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. But a recent ad in Newsweek International quotes him as saying, "The 21st century will be the century of change." Hmm, Ok, that sounds pretty smack-on, if a little vague. He goes on, "More things will change in more places in the next 10 years than in the previous 100. More countries aren't ready for this dizzying ride--certainly not the United States of America." OK, this is one of those throw-away statements that's difficult to refute, but also difficult to fact-check. Wow, things are changing, Fareed? Lemme guess, globalization is bringing the world closer together, too? Making the economic playing field, let's see, flatter perhaps?

That's not what I see when I travel abroad. I'm amazed at how little the world has changed. And to say that over the next 10 years there will be greater change than the previous 100 is just inaccurate for the billions of people living under $2 per day. I was just in southeastern Turkey where Kurdish schoolchildren still scavenge buses for loose scraps of food. Come on, Fareed, you can do better than that.

Or take a recent segment on the Brian Lehrer show. Prominent thinker Naomi Wolf likens present-day America to Weimar Germany, which could fall to fascism pretty easily. Nothing wrong with that logic, but sadly she trots out (at least four times) one of the most banal expressions of the past decade to make her point--America, she says, is at a "tipping point." Really, Naomi? How neatly summarized and Gladwellian! The trouble with this kind of vague and clichéd phrasing is that if America does not tip over, she will not have to answer for, well, being flat-out wrong. Most "tipping points" are, in fact, just political talking points.

Finally, let's please put a moratorium on all mentions of "supporting the troops"--a favorite standby of politicians and pundits alike that not only is vague but also just sounds stupid. Don't get me wrong. Let's continue to support them, regardless of our views on the war, but please do so without mentioning them to score political points or to seize the moral or patriotic high ground. While we're at it, let's also retire the word "hero," except where it is truly warranted (take note CNN). Robert Kaplan, maybe the worst foreign policy thinker to come along in decades, scores a double-whammy on this account in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. He chastises journalists for pitying soldiers and, to prove his point, describes how little coverage is given to Medal of Honor winners (he backs this up with highly sophisticated research: a LexisNexis search of this subject brings up lower numbers than, say, abuse at Guantanamo). But by invoking the troops--specifically the everyday heroic deeds by our soldiers that go unnoticed in the media--Kaplan is not really making a point, but just trying to take the moral high ground from anyone who might disagree with him by trotting out sappy but pious-sounding phrases like, "Heroes, according to the ancients, are those who do great deeds that have a lasting claim to our respect."

Increasingly, most columns or on-air comments read or sound like bad press releases. Please, those who publish op-eds on a regular basis, let's retire the "charm offensives" and cheeky references to "Goldilocks." Tell it like it is. Otherwise we will never win the war against vagueness.

Comments

[3fingerbrown]

Good stuff, especially on the "support the troops" canard, which has become the last refuge of war hawks who are hopelessly out-pointed in a debate about the mess in Iraq.
I do agree, though, with Kaplan's thoughts on the word "hero," sappy and pious though they may be. Call me an ancient, but I also believe that the word should be reserved for "those who do great deeds that have a lasting claim to our respect."
On the road between 9/11 and Iraq, "hero" was thrown around so freely by windbag politicians and lazy reporters that the word lost its power. It's gotten to the point where nearly everyone who happened to be anywhere near ground zero on 9/11 is called a hero, as is any soldier who serves in Iraq.
I was in NY on 9/11, and I can assure you I was nobody's hero--"innocent bystander" best describes my contribution to the cause.
As for our "heroes" in Iraq, I think most of them would agree that being called simply United States marines, sailors, and soldiers is honor enough for them.

[westwind]

Fareed Zakaria's favorite band is probably Status Quo. Anyone who looks to him for new or daring thinking is wasting their time. He's no David Brooks, to be sure, but his usefulness as a source of enlightenment is minimal.

Naomi Wolf however, has written a very important book, and while the 'tipping-point' terminology might be cliched, it is in fact appropriate in her scenario: The situation she describes has largely come about through the actions of the Bush administration, through concerted effort. With one year left until the next election, they are unlikely to give up power and their Orwellian dreams without a major push to realize their mad dreams. I'm sure they themselves see their efforts as leading to and creating a tipping point, and that war with Iran, further intrusions in our privacy, restrictions on dissent etc, will be the things that actually tip this country into full-blown fascism.

Agreed, Gladwell's phrase has been overused, but if ever it applies to a situation, it applies to what Wolf is decribing.

[JustAnotherJoe]

And I would think that for the sake of future-day America, a prominent thinker like Naomi Wolf would be glad to have her hypothesis disproven.

[skizziks]

........whatever..........

[realitytrumpsbull]

It's called 'filler'. That's when people
write a bunch of stuff because they probably
get paid by the word rather than the overall
content of the story. Heck, I could probably
turn out 400 pages of pure drivel if they
were going to pay me like, .05/word, hell, I
could go ONE THOUSAND pages!

I forget the name of the movie, but it was
about people learning to be communication
majors or journalists or propagandists or
somesuch, anyway, the part that I do remember
from it goes, 'brevity is the essence of
good communication'. Short, sweet, factual,
accurate, and to the point. The rest is
wasted space and the readers' time. And
paper. Publication costs, you know...