The Power of Words

By Michelle Giametta on 05/25/2009

Question: Are words shaping the way we look at the issues?

"Estate tax" or "Death Tax?" "Global Warming" or "Climate Change?" "Freedom Fighter" or "Terrorist?" No matter how you word the issue at hand, it's still the same thing. Politicians use the power of words to their advantage to try and make their ideas and beliefs more appealing to the public. Manipulating the way we talk about an issue has become the new way to rebrand the old issues. Political parties, administrations and politicians change the wording of a particular issue or event to get the public to fall more in line with their beliefs.

In a recent New York Times article, John Broder addresses this very concept stating, "The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is "global warming." The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes..." The article goes on to say that the best way to conjure support is to "reframe the issue using different language." People don't become inspired to support a cause through boring and intellectual descriptions. Politicians need to ignite emotion through statements people can relate to and words are the match that sparks the fire.

This is why Frank Luntz, a well renowned Republican pollster, has made a career around the importance of words. In a 2003 interview with Frontline, Luntz stresses that "...words with emotion can change destiny, can change life as we know it... We know that words and emotion together are the most powerful force known to mankind."

As Luntz puts it, when a tax is referred to as a "death tax" rather than an "estate tax" it changes people's perspective. An "estate tax" implies a tax on the wealthy, whereas, a "death tax" implies a tax on everyone. "And suddenly something that isn't viable achieves the support of 75 percent of the American people. It's the same tax, but nobody really knows what an estate is. But they certainly know what it means to be taxed when you die" Luntz explains. Packaging an issue with clever rhetoric has become a way for politicians to market their positions.

Ask yourself this, are we being programmed how to think about the issues through the words used to describe them? An issue always has more than one side, but do these contrived choice of words strip the issue of an opposing argument? As Shakespeare once put it, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Or would it?

[Additional Photos: Think Archimedes, 2009; "Hannity and Colmes," Fox News, 2009]