The conventions of political debate are annoying, frustrating, pervasive, and militate against truth-telling. Citizens know they will be fed the party line and that the truth will be wrapped in obscure language designed to avoid commitment or embarrassment. In alphabetical order, I offer the following characteristics of political dialogue designed to avoid or evade the truth:

Accountability. While claiming to represent constituents and be responsible to them in a continuous communication loop, the utterances of politicians are frequently peppered with positive party slogans or negative massages about opponents.

Anti-intellectual. Political statements, particularly in the electronic media, are frequently positioned to not invite critical examination but directed to basic comprehension and often critical of argumentative “intellectual elites”.

Body Language. Politicians express themselves through stances and mannerisms that suggest the truth is far away. For some years the mood of political debate rested on John Howard’s bottom lip.

Caricature. What politicians say and do is legitimate grist for cartoonists and satirists. Such artistry often provides the clearest way of cutting through an issue by parody and subtle ridicule. No physical feature will be left unexploited or outrageous statement overlooked.

Catastrophe. Truth is compromised by politicians claiming that legislation or proposed action by the other party will lead to disaster when it may only be an alternatively nuanced approach to an issue for which the consequences are not dire.

Compression. As media attention is dispensed in grabs and bites, complex issues are compressed to brevity that denies balanced debate and consideration of public policy issues. This shorthand is frequently expressed as epithets, cliches and stereotypes. An example is the reduction of sustainable population to illegal entry of refugees.

Conspiracy Conjectures. One’s political opponents are deemed always to be plotting some chicanery behind the scenes to undermine our democratic freedoms. Such ploys are thinly disguised and cannot be ennobled by the label of theory, hence conjecture.

Demands for responses. Common verbal assault on one’s opponents, often extended by the media, is to demand that one provide an answer to a spurious question. Such demands may take the form of public record undertakings not to challenge for party leadership or never to support a particular controversial policy.

Evasion. Rather than respond candidly and truthfully to a question posed, a politician may shift to respond to a question not asked at all. A partisan twist to this tactic is to use any media question as an opportunity to express all that is wrong with one’s opponents. Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne are particularly adept at this ruse.

Lies, Fibs and Porkies. There appears to be a hierarchy of falsehood that places untruths as lies about issues that matter at the top, descending to fibs about less critical matters to porkies where one is entangled in one’s own rhetoric.

Obfuscation. An obfuscation is, ironically, usually preceded by the verbal signpost “now let me be absolutely clear about this”. It engulfs the nub of an issue in clouds of tautological confusion.

Reading Age. As with anti-intellectualism, reports in the print media are presented in language that assumes the literacy of a twelve year old. This prohibits anything like intelligent analysis through presentation of argument and counter-argument.

Social Media. A playground for shoot-from-the-lip opinions and slander, used by politicians to demonstrate their “hipness” to generation Y, social media is exploited for the viral contagion of partisan positions.

Spin and Interpretation. Spin manufactures meaning to create a pre-configured slant that negates the prospect of an interpretation closer to the truth.

TV bites. As for compression, bites measured in seconds focus not on the pithy and profound in an issue but capture only the most embarrassing gaffes or cringe-worthy moments of political spokespersons.

Weasel words. Bureau-speak adopted by politicians so they can converse with their public sector advisors, gutted of meaning, serving only to bewilder. 

David Muscio