If it sounds like the debates in Congress have devolved to that of teenagers, it’s because they have.
The level of discourse in the House and Senate has dropped a full grade level -- to the equivalent of a sophomore in high school, according to a new study.
Call this the dumbing down of Congress in a partisan age. Or a shift to plain-spoken populism ignited by the new class of tea party Republicans.
But what has become clear in the new research is that the soaring oratory that once filled the floors of the House and Senate with million-dollar diction and sophisticated syntax is making way for a more modest approach.
“Congress is changing as an institution, and what you see is more and more members gearing their speeches as sound bites or YouTube clips,” said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which compiled the study released Monday.
“You can harken back to a golden age of Congress when members quoted Shakespeare on the floor and really engaged in debate and talked to each other and tried to reason back and forth.”
Listening to the floor debates over the last several years, the study found that newer lawmakers tended to speak at a lower grade level than the veterans of congressional speechifying.
And political moderates among both Republicans and Democrats tended to carry on at a higher grade level than those more partisan liberals or conservatives.
With that framework in mind, it should come as no surprise that the lawmakers at the bottom of the list, speaking at the lowest grade level, are among the most ardent tea party Republicans in the freshmen class.
Republican Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Rep. Rob Woodall of Georgia and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky were the bottom three – speaking about an eighth-grade level, the study found.
“We look at it as a badge of honor,” said Mulvaney, a graduate of Georgetown University and the University of North Carolina Law School, who notes that he often speaks on the floor “extemporaneously.”
“It’s a conscious decision on my part. We are trying to be clear and trying to be concise,” he added, noting that he and his wife have been known to diagram sentences at the dinner table, a byproduct of schoolteacher parents.
"I can explain the difference between 'fewer' and 'less,' " Mulvaney said in a phone interview Monday between stops at a military base and a Rotary Club in South Carolina, but acknowledged that he still stumbled over the difference between “farther” and “further.”
“I don’t think people see the polysyllabic words - or the number of words - in a sentence as a sign of your intelligence,” he said.
As a case in point, he notes fellow Republican Rep. Dan Lungren of California, a seasoned politician in Sacramento and Washington who topped the list as the lawmaker with the highest level of speech – that of a senior in college.
That makes Lungren almost a throwback – on par with the Federalist Papers (a 17.1 grade level) or the U.S. Constitution (17.8 grade level). Though it is not clear his speeches are easier to understand.
“The canard that somehow we are tearing the Constitution up just does not stand any kind of inquiry whatsoever,” said Lungren during a debate over the Patriot Act during this session of Congress. “The suggestion that somehow we are invading the civil liberties of citizens is negated by the language in the three sections of the bill that we have before us.”
Californians ranked among the better spoken overall, and the No. 2 slot went to Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-East Los Angeles), at almost a 16th grade level. Her skills were on display during last week’s debate on a GOP version of the Violence Against Women Act that Democrats largely opposed.
“I cannot in good conscience vote to pass this version of VAWA, as it erases 18 years of bipartisan efforts to respond to the needs of victims of domestic violence,” she said. “I am also disappointed that, yet again, provisions to alleviate the economic factors that keep victims in abusive relationships have not been included.”
The best and worst speeches may be in the ear of the listener, and the study noted that President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address was judged by other researchers to rank at the eighth-grade level for the third year in a row.
As for those high-powered words from the Scholastic Assessment Test, memorized and recited by legions of high schoolers, they go virtually unspoken in Congress.
Of the 100 words on SAT preparation study lists, 14 are missing entirely from the Congressional Record for this Congress – notably florid, hackneyed, ostentatious and querulous.
The most used SAT word – compromise – was said the most by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader, who is fond of pronouncing, “Legislation is the art of compromise.”
But in this partisan environment, as the study noted, even saying the word 142 times “does not make it so.”
LA Times
The level of discourse in the House and Senate has dropped a full grade level -- to the equivalent of a sophomore in high school, according to a new study.
Call this the dumbing down of Congress in a partisan age. Or a shift to plain-spoken populism ignited by the new class of tea party Republicans.
But what has become clear in the new research is that the soaring oratory that once filled the floors of the House and Senate with million-dollar diction and sophisticated syntax is making way for a more modest approach.
“Congress is changing as an institution, and what you see is more and more members gearing their speeches as sound bites or YouTube clips,” said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which compiled the study released Monday.
“You can harken back to a golden age of Congress when members quoted Shakespeare on the floor and really engaged in debate and talked to each other and tried to reason back and forth.”
Listening to the floor debates over the last several years, the study found that newer lawmakers tended to speak at a lower grade level than the veterans of congressional speechifying.
And political moderates among both Republicans and Democrats tended to carry on at a higher grade level than those more partisan liberals or conservatives.
With that framework in mind, it should come as no surprise that the lawmakers at the bottom of the list, speaking at the lowest grade level, are among the most ardent tea party Republicans in the freshmen class.
Republican Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Rep. Rob Woodall of Georgia and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky were the bottom three – speaking about an eighth-grade level, the study found.
“We look at it as a badge of honor,” said Mulvaney, a graduate of Georgetown University and the University of North Carolina Law School, who notes that he often speaks on the floor “extemporaneously.”
“It’s a conscious decision on my part. We are trying to be clear and trying to be concise,” he added, noting that he and his wife have been known to diagram sentences at the dinner table, a byproduct of schoolteacher parents.
"I can explain the difference between 'fewer' and 'less,' " Mulvaney said in a phone interview Monday between stops at a military base and a Rotary Club in South Carolina, but acknowledged that he still stumbled over the difference between “farther” and “further.”
“I don’t think people see the polysyllabic words - or the number of words - in a sentence as a sign of your intelligence,” he said.
As a case in point, he notes fellow Republican Rep. Dan Lungren of California, a seasoned politician in Sacramento and Washington who topped the list as the lawmaker with the highest level of speech – that of a senior in college.
That makes Lungren almost a throwback – on par with the Federalist Papers (a 17.1 grade level) or the U.S. Constitution (17.8 grade level). Though it is not clear his speeches are easier to understand.
“The canard that somehow we are tearing the Constitution up just does not stand any kind of inquiry whatsoever,” said Lungren during a debate over the Patriot Act during this session of Congress. “The suggestion that somehow we are invading the civil liberties of citizens is negated by the language in the three sections of the bill that we have before us.”
Californians ranked among the better spoken overall, and the No. 2 slot went to Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-East Los Angeles), at almost a 16th grade level. Her skills were on display during last week’s debate on a GOP version of the Violence Against Women Act that Democrats largely opposed.
“I cannot in good conscience vote to pass this version of VAWA, as it erases 18 years of bipartisan efforts to respond to the needs of victims of domestic violence,” she said. “I am also disappointed that, yet again, provisions to alleviate the economic factors that keep victims in abusive relationships have not been included.”
The best and worst speeches may be in the ear of the listener, and the study noted that President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address was judged by other researchers to rank at the eighth-grade level for the third year in a row.
As for those high-powered words from the Scholastic Assessment Test, memorized and recited by legions of high schoolers, they go virtually unspoken in Congress.
Of the 100 words on SAT preparation study lists, 14 are missing entirely from the Congressional Record for this Congress – notably florid, hackneyed, ostentatious and querulous.
The most used SAT word – compromise – was said the most by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader, who is fond of pronouncing, “Legislation is the art of compromise.”
But in this partisan environment, as the study noted, even saying the word 142 times “does not make it so.”
LA Times
The average American speaks at a 8th grade level."
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2
Is this negative though, when the public speaks at the same level?
In town halls/direct democracy approach the language is going to be even simpler.
In highly hierarchical (for example old monarchies) the language of governance was more 'educated'.
Edit: Informative graph
Edited at 2012-05-31 11:52 pm (UTC)
it actually surprises me that, from a stategy standpoint, the state of the union would be *at* average level and maybe not just slightly under.
Naw, I don't judge a politician's intelligence by their usage of polysyllabic words. I judge it by logical and factual content and their capability to engage in rational debate. Or are those too complex for your listeners too?
If they're handing out badges for stupidity, I hope they're not relative in size to the amount of stupidity, or y'all are gonna need a bigger shirt to pin it on. Maybe you can use it as a belt buckle. Or a serving plate. Or as a satellite.
Edited at 2012-06-01 01:09 am (UTC)
Oh, and could you start with those responsible for the "10 Items or Less" checkout signs in grocery stores? </peeeeeeeeve>
There's a huge difference, IMO, between going from complex language to simpler language, and going from high-content to low-content speeches. In fact, wordiness often goes hand-in-hand with saying a whole lot of nothing.
This reminds me of the whole "Fox News makes you stupid" matter from a year or so ago. No, it doesn't make you stupid--it's just that people who watch Fox News are more likely to be misinformed on certain issues.
The whole idea that progressiveness is superior to conservatism because conservatives are "dumber" is, frankly, quite disgusting. And basing intelligence on things like grade levels, IQ, and SAT scores is no better. How are we pushing progressive ideals by implying that "Republicans speak at lower grade levels than Democrats; therefore, they're stupid"? I don't support social justice because it's the "smart" thing to do, but because it's the "right" thing to do.
Also, Shakespeare? Old white dude whose works are racist, sexist, and overrated. And while they're considered "sophisticated literature" today, they are written in the vernacular of that time--the same kind of "stupid" language being decried in this article.
By the way, I'm not blaming the OP, but just the overall attitude that the problem with the GOP is its "stupidity" and not its "horrible platform."
And I lol every time someone wants to use Shakespeare to measure sophistication. Dude wrote a bunch of bawdy trash, made up half the words he used and punctuated all that with a shit-ton of sex jokes. The title of one of his plays, Much Ado About Nothing, is jokes about sex/vulvas ffs. I say this as a big fangirl of the Bard. Again, intelligence =/= refinement.
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
aka "If you can't explain something simply, you don't know enough about it."
This! I work in academia and rule number 1* (for me) for presenting often complex ideas is keep practising until you can describe it in a manner accessible to someone completely unfamiliar with the subject. Confusing the matter by using 20 words where 5 will do is the fastest way to ensure your work and ideas are considered irrelevant by the general public. Surely that's not what Congress should be about.
When it comes to ridiculous attacks aka the "they did it first!!!", that's where I agree the language of those in government - and I include the UK in that - needs to change.
*Totally agree that that's not the case for a lot of academics. Irritates me no end.
ETA: Oops, commented in the wrong place. But I agree with you as well, so I'll leave it here.
Edited at 2012-06-01 09:54 am (UTC)
I would not be surprised if both were true, but I'm not sure whether you can directly correlate complex vocabulary with complex ideas.
Still, I'm a little annoyed by all these protestations that it's wrong to to be upset by the extent to which politicians are pandering to the uninformed and incurious by speaking in easily-digestible soundbites. I also think it's wrong to say that all complicated ideas can and should be expressed in the simplest language possible. I've read a lot of philosophy, for instance, and you simply cannot discuss, say, Kantian metaphysics in "plain English," nor should you. Technical language allows precision, and some ideas are complicated enough to understand that actual study and application are necessary.
Tying it all together, I suppose what I'm thinking right now is that politicians using simple language isn't worrying except inasmuch as it indicates that politicians are only expressing simple (and simple-minded!) concepts. And since governing a large, diverse, powerful and complicated nation is a difficult task, I want politicians capable of complex thought!
(I think I need to stop using the word "complicated").
I've noticed a huge increase in people not knowing simple turns of phrase, though - little sayings and word-associations that they just don't seem to *know*. The Shrub and his 'fool me once' debacle is just an extreme example, but i notice congresspeople/senators/etc. and newscasters messing up stuff like that a lot, too.
That and the inability of some people to actually complete sentence in a way that *makes sense*.