We live in a new Trump-era for the use of words in politics and public debate. It is not just blunt words, exaggerations, fake news, and more of the kind; it is also a shift towards more concrete action following the words. The old, polite discourse is fading, although it still exists, particularly among establishment politicians. Alas, much of it is polite under the guise of the opposite, seemingly presenting a more sober, objective, and neutral description of reality and political action. The established politicians claim knowledge-based decisions, founded on research, commission reports, and further studies. Good and well, but the results may not always justify all the background data.
In many ways, the old thinking is good and proper, serious and appropriate, but it is often difficult to assess because we cannot fully understand the language and concepts. The polite discourse of the establishment, as opposed to the blunt words of the new Trump right-wingers, has implications for democracy. The establishment politicians’ language and concepts are often impressive and seemingly correct but not quite democratic if people cannot fully comprehend them. Democracy requires that people understand issues and participate in decision-making. On the other hand, the new way of speaking adopted by Trump-era right-wingers is not wholly democratic either; it is often too crude and not necessarily truthful. However, many may have grown tired of the elegant, diplomatic rhetoric of establishment politicians, which does not always deliver as much as it claims.
Since establishment politicians are often evasive and vague, with good but unclear references to various data and knowledge, people have begun to shun such politicians and parties. Additionally, ordinary people, particularly young people, have more knowledge about issues than before and easier access to information and counter-expertise via new technology. As a result, they no longer feel compelled to follow politicians, bureaucrats, and others who claim superior knowledge.
If we watch the news on television nowadays about climate change, international politics, wars and conflicts, social issues at home and abroad, and many other topics, we often fail to grasp the key points or gain insight. Furthermore, clever and competent journalists and TV anchors have developed their own language and slogans, often communicating more with colleagues and insiders than with ordinary people. This certainly applies to politicians, their advisers, and experts as well.
A few generations ago, a Norwegian theologian coined the term ‘the church-created reality’ in his doctoral dissertation, noting that one could only follow and understand issues if one shared the same faith as the preacher. The language and way of thinking made less sense to outsiders. This observation applies to many other groups and sectors in society, including how issues are discussed on television, in political debates, and among ourselves. Using more colloquial terms, one might say that concepts and ideas are often wishy-washy, lacking precision and clarity.
The new era with Trump, his politicians, and his voters—the populists and ultra-conservatives—rejects the unclear and often arrogant rhetoric of establishment politicians. They have grown weary of wishy-washy talk, ideas, and policies, which often benefit the establishment more than the ordinary people they claim to represent. When up to half of all secondary school students in Norway say they would support a right-wing party, democracy must listen. Social democrats, centrist parties, and even traditional conservative parties must seriously reflect on their language, actions, and policies and adapt accordingly. They need to find not only more concrete policies but also a simpler language and operational style that resonates more effectively.
In Pakistan, I not only write newspaper columns but also read them. Alas, the language in such columns is often better than the content, the pretence higher than the performance, and the smooth rhetoric less impactful than claimed. Much of the ideas and analysis in these columns fail to impress anyone beyond like-minded individuals and those who enjoy name-dropping to seem intellectual.
We live in a time when young people, in particular, want clearer and more concrete analysis and proposals for solutions. Everyone desires results from politicians—not just talk about issues and costly policies and plans that fail to deliver. Criticism is particularly strong against large national, regional, and international organisations—not only traditional political parties.
When President-elect Donald Trump assumed office, he was expected to curb funding to many organisations, particularly UN agencies with poor and costly results, especially those dealing with development aid. Bilateral and multilateral funds, which are government funds, should be directed to well-defined and significant problems where results can be achieved. One large institution is the World Bank Group. It has delivered poor results for developing countries but somehow created an image to the contrary, remaining distinctly American in its approach with headquarters in Washington D.C. It remains to be seen what Trump might have done with these Bretton Woods Institutions, as they are sometimes called, named after the resort in New Hampshire, USA, where they were established in 1944. Perhaps he would have allowed them to continue since America benefits from them directly and as a vehicle for propagating American values. Yet, it would align with Trump’s thinking to modernise such institutions and organisations, making them smaller and more effective.
I believe the new populist and right-wing era in politics is not entirely negative. Much credit goes to Trump; it is also partly positive, particularly if it remains relatively temporary. I believe Trump’s policies will include many positive aspects, especially concerning international organisations and trade. Most trade should, after all, be local and regional. Additionally, I believe the Trump-era rhetoric will engage more young people in politics and contribute to renewing democracy.
Many would argue that the new conservative trends are too crude and simplistic, with shallow language and analyses. Yet, it is also true that the old political parties often use unclear language and, in many ways, have made politics elitist, delivering fewer results for ordinary people than claimed. The populist and right-wing era is likely to expand in Europe and other democracies, as it has already done in the United States. In the longer term, however, I believe social-democratic and centrist parties will manage to renew themselves. After all, they stand for genuine democratic values. They must act quickly, reclaiming leadership after the current populist and right-wing era. There is life during the Trump-era and much more beyond it.
Atle Hetland
The writer is a senior Norwegian social scientist with experience from university, diplomacy and development aid. He can be reached atatlehetland@yahoo.com
