Junkspace: The Empty Slogans of Our Politicized Linguistic Regime

Modern media commentary is chockful of imputed intentions, nearly all bad. Rarely, if ever, are opponents perceived as honest interlocutors arguing in good faith who are sadly mistaken in certain premises or conclusions. No, given the self-evidence of “our” side’s arguments and the righteousness of “our” cause, opponents must be either fools or scoundrels — and probably both.

It is not merely the fact of disagreement between different groups that should disturb us — disagreements of a certain sort are essential to any functioning democracy and can be a sign of its health and vitality — but the tone of the disagreements and the increasing lack of basic civility that make attempts to work through disagreements nearly impossible. Expressing offense or indignation at someone else’s words has become the default mode of discourse.

Why is good will so often lacking? Or why does it disappear so quickly? Consider this problem: Although the order we would normally expect to follow in an argument is to begin with the evidence, adduce valid arguments, and then draw reasonable conclusions, what we sense in ourselves, and thus suspect in others, is that the conclusions came first, after which we searched around for some “arguments” or perhaps cherry-picked some “evidence” to support our view.

It is for these reasons, according to the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, that one of the characteristic features of contemporary moral protest is the “unmasking” of the so-called arguments of one’s opponents, which are taken to be made in bad faith. “They don’t really believe their own arguments,” is the common charge; “they are just saying that to cover their greed.” Or, “What’s really going on here is their dedication to” — take your pick — “bleeding-heart liberalism,” “wealth and privilege,” “the status quo,” or the ultimate dialogue-stopper, “racism.” In this way, what might have been a serious argument devolves into a series of ad hominem attacks, the goal of which is not to prove that one’s opponent’s arguments are wrong but that he is using them to further his self-interests or to buttress his biases. If this is the case, then what we call “arguments” are really cover for a will-to-power. Our opponents are never merely mistaken; they are hiding a deeper and more sinister motive. Their arguments are “hypocritical” and “dishonest,” their presentation of the facts “deceptive” and “misleading,” their accusations “biased,” their charges “trumped up,” and their presentation of the issues “deceitful.”