Searching for words: politicians can use words to inflame or reconcile. How do you use your words?

In the spring of 1955, William Faulkner covered the Kentucky Derby for Sports Illustrated. Not surprisingly, he delivered a memorable piece of reporting. Describing Abraham Lincoln's birthplace, Faulkner wrote: "No sound there now unless perhaps you like to think the man's voice is somewhere there too, speaking into the scene of his own nativity the simple and matchless prose with which he reminded us of our duties and responsibilities if we wished to continue as a nation."

Far from simple and matchless, George Orwell thought that most political speech was but a cunning device: "Political language and with variations this is true of all political parties--is designed to make lies sound truthful."

Politicians have always dealt in artful spin and catchy slogans, and the result is often nothing more than a mild euphemism, like saying "challenge" instead of "problem." In other instances, public figures get creative with the language and their words look misleading. "Forest density reduction" sounds dubious if loggers are chopping down every tree in the woods. But wordplay isn't always about putting lipstick on a pig or obscuring the truth. Smart language can also help bridge political divides, build consensus, and inspire.

"Words are like fire," says Frank Luntz, former Republican pollster and wordsmith extraordinaire. "Fire can heat your home or burn it down. It all depends how it's used."

DIALED IN

Educated at Oxford, Luntz's specialty is testing language to find words that sway public opinion. He helped Newt Gingrich write the contract for America in 1994 and then continued scripting GOP messages for almost a decade. The controversial terms "death tax" and "energy exploration" are two of his more well-known calling cards.

Famous for words, Luntz insists his real talent is listening. The best place to do that, he says, is in a "dial session" or "people meter." In a dial session, participants register their moment-by-moment responses to a speech or presentation by turning a hand-held dial. Watching the read-out behind a two-way mirror, Luntz can isolate which words resonate. Crank on the dial, and Luntz knows he's struck a nerve. "It's like an X-ray that gets inside your head," Luntz told PBS' "Frontline."

Luntz prefers dial sessions because they get at people's immediate, visceral response. "Politics is instantaneous. Politics is gut," he said. "Eighty percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." The key to being persuasive, explains Luntz, is to discover what people feel strongly about related to an issue and then speak to that.

For example, in a 2005 memo titled The New American Lexicon, Luntz told Republicans to avoid saying "private accounts" during Social Security debates because privatization implies profits and losses, winners and losers--a ceding of control to Wall Street and the market. "Personal accounts" is better, he said, because it gives retirees a comfortable sense of ownership and freedom.

Similarly, Luntz points out that only a narrow majority of Americans favor repealing the "estate" or "inheritance" tax, which sounds like a tax on the very wealthy. But more than 70 percent of people would abolish the "death tax"--an ostensibly overzealous penalty.

That a potent phrase can affect debate is not a new idea. Emerson wrote in 1870 that "A popular assembly like the American congress is commanded first by a fact, then by skill of statement. Put the argument into an image, some hard phrase, round and solid as a ball, which they can see and handle and carry home with them, and the cause is half won."

But the kind of calculating work that Luntz does sounds so, well, calculating. It seems to support Orwell's suspicion that in politics, words are merely manipulative tools. Lincoln's language, the kind that stands up, talks straight and leads, looks naive and obsolete. What happened to just telling the truth?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Truth, even the idea itself, is everywhere contested in our world. In politics, it's especially slippery. Issues are complex, facts shifty, policies bulky. Try finding a few words that accurately encapsulate the economic intricacies of Social Security or the puzzling nature of health care: The language is inevitably vague. For instance, President Bush calls his newest health insurance proposal the Affordable Choices Initiative. That's great, but who benefits, who doesn't? What's the real skinny?

The fact is most Americans don't take the time to sit down and study these complicated issues. People like it pared down. As a result, words become more influential even as they grow more ambiguous. And the truth, like beauty, seems to end up in the eye of the beholder.

Such an environment gives a wordsmith like Luntz plenty of room to maneuver. Take the phrase "energy exploration," for example. In his new book Words That Work, Luntz argues that with advances in technology, "energy exploration" correctly portrays how the energy industry finds fossil fuels and pulls them from the earth. "Drilling for oil," he says, paints an outdated picture. "Oil drilling reminds people of Jed Clampett shooting at the ground, conjuring images of liquid black goo gushing into the sky," he says.

So what should we call the sometimes clean, sometimes dirty business of getting gas and oil? Neither term tells a false story, neither tells the whole story. But, says Luntz, "energy exploration" gets people turning their dials in the right direction: "Increasing exploration for American energy resources sounds energy-independent, self-reliant and efficient--all important aspirational values in 21st century American life." Plus, energy companies love the phrase because it makes their business sound like the Apollo program.

Wrong or right, in an era of sound-bytes and short attention spans, emphasizing the positive is unfortunately part of the game, says New York Senator Stephen Saland. "Regrettably, as the world has gotten smaller and communication has become a 24/7 endeavor, we have a sub-culture of people whose job it is to ensure that someone's best foot is always forward, which is a nice way of saying that they engage in spin," he says.

Luntz's critics think he's doing more that just putting a good foot forward. They say his words obscure the facts, deceive the public and impede clear thinking. A nonprofit advocacy group, the National Environmental Trust, even set up a website called "Luntz-speak" that calls out politicians who supposedly parrot Luntz's words and then purports to decode their alleged lies.

FIGHTING WORDS 

Cleverly devised words that are seen as one-sided or disingenuous can quickly cripple a debate, says former Senator Roger Moe, the longest serving majority leader in Minnesota Senate history. "I can give you words that immediately divide the room--the rhetoric that divides people without any intention of finding common ground," he says. Retired from the Legislature in 2002, Moe now serves on the board of directors for the Policy Consensus Initiative, a group created to help state leaders develop collaborative approaches to governance.

Politics is full of wedge words. In a conversation about abortion or gay marriage, terms like "activist judges" and "reproductive rights" will cleave a room faster than a slow song at a grade school dance. One side thinks the term is perfect packaging, the other thinks it's distortion.

Biased language further separates people if it leads them to view each other as obstinate or even deceitful--instead of just different. "Hot button terms like 'death tax,' for example, are almost a signal of 'we're ready for a fight here and we don't care what you think,'" says Washington Representative Mary-Lou Dickerson.

Outside the statehouse, controversial terms have the same effect, says Bill Black, public affairs consultant for Fleishman-Hillard, a global communications firm. According to Black, the dissemination of loaded language, especially by partisan media sources, inflames already strident political feuds. "They tell you what you want to hear in terms that give you that very satisfying moral indignation against your adversaries," he says. "Divisions are deepened because the public is appealed to in that way."

Words that appeal to people's prejudices usually help promote an agenda. They also hinder compromise and make problem solving more difficult. But politics being the sharp-elbow sport that it is, survival is often paramount. In that case, words become another weapon, another advantage.

"The public does not understand the depth and the length people go to in this business to test out messages and ultimately determine which one is best," says Val Marmillion, president of Marmillion + Company, a D.C.-based strategic communication firm. "So many things are determined by a hair fracture in an election; or in a legislative body, where everything seems to be decided by a one- or two-vote margin when the issues are controversial."

DO YOU SPEAK-A MY LANGUAGE?

In its report, "Legislators at a Crossroads: Making Choices to Work Differently," the Policy Consensus Initiative lists eight keys to getting people to work together. One is to frame the discussion in an unbiased way. "Defining and naming the issue jointly can ensure that everyone is willing to contribute to the solution," the report says.

Sounds nice, but how to do that?

The subtitle of Luntz's book, "It's not what you say, it's what people hear," is also its mantra. The crux of Luntz's advice is this: "You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of his or her own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices and preexisting beliefs. It's not enough to be correct or reasonable or even brilliant. The key to successful communication is to take the imaginative leap of stuffing yourself right into your listeners' shoes to know what they are thinking and feeling in the deepest recesses of their mind and heart."

The problem, says Luntz, is that people aren't looking to learn, they're looking to affirm. "And if the language doesn't fit in a preexisting context, we will automatically reject it, either by saying it's wrong or by not hearing it," he says.

For legislators looking to bring people together, doing some linguistic homework can help persuade an adversary that you're willing to cooperate, says Dickerson. "You have to understand which terms are hot-button for the other side that will turn people off. And you have to understand what terms are favorable and meaningful to them and learn how to use those terms," she says.

Even better, using words that reflect multiple beliefs is another way to facilitate conversation and build trust. For example, one of Luntz's favorite words is "opportunity." He argues that Bush's incessant use of the word "freedom" has politicized the term. On the other hand, terms like "fairness" and "empowerment" are usually linked to liberals. But, he says, a word like "opportunity" is a winner; it conveys the values of both parties and invokes the American dream.

"The tone and words that you use are important when it comes to talking about tough issues," says Washington Representative John McCoy. "If you use bridge-building words and a respectful tone, that can go a long way toward compromise."

Weapons or olive branches, words that stray too far from reality can backfire. As Luntz and others are quick to point out, honesty is imperative.

"The premise we start from in the current communications environment is that you have to be honest and authentic or you'll get got," says Black. "Getting very, very clever with words to describe this or that is not going to bring you long-term success. It can bring a short-term benefit. But what we do is focus on authenticity."

There is a sense, too, that when lawmakers calculate their every word, something is lost. "Yes, we're all using polling and focus groups to find the phrases that work. And I don't think that's always good," says Utah Representative Sheryl Allen, a 13-session veteran who also does work for the Policy Consensus Institute. "I think we need to be a little more straightforward. Sometimes better language sells, but it becomes less genuine."

Shanto Iyengar, director of Stanford's Political Communication Lab and author of Media Politics, a book on image-based government, is even more worried. "This concern with language and PR is symptomatic of style over substance, image over responsibility. And these problems are going to fester and fester until there is a calamity."

Luntz disagrees. "The saddest thing in politics today is that so many elected officials use language that actually undercuts their ability to get things done. The words they craft turn people off to what they're trying to communicate because they speak from their own emotion rather than from the understanding and interpretation of others," he says.

COMPANY OF ENGINEMEN

All this talk about jumping into someone else's shoes and speaking their language sounds like a superficial, backwards approach to cooperation. But learning how someone else talks is a first step toward actually understanding their beliefs and valuing their input. Both are major signs of respect--the real cornerstone of compromise.

"To work cooperatively, you need to be proactive and reach out," says Allen. "You need to be respectful of differences of opinion. And you need to know that collaboration can actually help find a better solution."

That's good advice, but it's not new.

In the late 1700s, John Adams had a hope that our nation might become "a company of enginemen," a free people who come together for the good of the whole, just like a volunteer fire department. These days, that may sound foolish. But what does it say when our Founders' dreams begin to look like nostalgia? As we work to continue as a nation, reviving their old hopes will surely be necessary. Along the way, a few simple, matchless words will help--even if they're dial tested.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER

Kathleen Jamieson is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. She is co-creator of FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit site that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics by monitoring the accuracy of what is said by major political players. Her most recent book, co-authored with Brooks Jackson, is un-Spun: finding facts in a world of [disinformation].

State Legislatures spoke with Jamieson about words, facts and what it all means for our democracy. To get the full interview, along with commentary by professors George Lakoff and Alan Rosenthal and Associated Press reporter Bob Tanner, visit State Legislatures online at www.ncsl.org/magazine.

SL: How important are words in politics?

Jamieson: Words frame people's understanding of issues; language does our thinking for us. And so the person who places the vocabulary in the heads of the audience controls the thought process.

SL: Issues are so big and complex, it seems like everyone has their own "facts." How do voters know what to believe?

Jamieson: Factcheck.org was founded on the assumption that citizens are easily confused by political discourse. Candidates on all sides of an issue selectively use evidence in ways that can seriously mislead. And when the press focuses on 'he said, she said' journalism it does not provide a context for the public to understand what is and what is not accurate....

If you aren't able to do that, everything becomes spin and people may as well say "I don't have any positions based on fact or what happens in the real world; I simply vote my ideology uninformed by anything that constitutes evidence."

SL: Aren't there plenty of people who want things spun their way?

Jamieson: There are, but everyone doesn't have to accept it. We can cut through the spin and we can create a penalty for those who are deceiving us. And if we don't, we might as well just give up. Because if we campaign in an environment in which we don't face the facts, we are likely to put the poor people who have to legislate in a situation in which if they're going to do what's fight for their state or the nation, they'll have to do it without an electorate that understands the nature of the problem. And the danger is you get short-term solutions with damaging long-term consequences.

SL: What do you think of a term like 'energy exploration' vs. 'drilling for oil'?

Jamieson: The problem is, you don't need a language of either/or. You can say that drilling for oil is a part of energy exploration and it has these consequences. If you're ideologically conservative you want to accept energy exploration and if you're ideologically liberal you want to accept drilling for oiler 'exploiting the environment' is probably the more preferable term. But there's a factual base under this. We have to consume energy if we are going to keep our industries powered, our homes heated. How are we going to get it? There's a finite amount of energy. And the process of getting it is dirty, and using it is dirty. Nonetheless, we have to get it and use it. Now we're back in the world of fact. So how much energy is there and what are the known trade-offs between one form of energy and another? We're still in a world that's amenable to discussion through fact. The problem with framing is that it works outside the world of fact to get you to selectively use some facts over others.

SL: Does the way some political players appeal to citizens suggest that the public is somewhat unwilling to face the facts?

Jamieson: Everyone would prefer to believe that we don't have problems, that there's no need to sacrifice to get to solutions, that there are no real trade-offs.... Our disposition as humans is to want to hear that everything is fine and there are no costs and trade-offs. The obligation of those who would lead is to explain to the public that no, that is not the case, and here is what we have to confront in order to deal with these problems.

NCSL staffer Josh Lohmer, a sometime freelancer for the Wisconsin State Journal and other publications, has a way with words himself.