"Political Talk" is aggravating

One of the most frustrating forms of language ‘naturalization’ is within politics. The discourse used in governmental positions is shrouded in both ideological and historical background. The source of political discourse lay in the hands of those who wrote the constitution and the time period in which it was practiced. Even during this time period however, I believe that this type of political discourse was created to keep others out of federal government decision-making. Furthermore, it has created a barrier between ordinary people and those in government. Those who contributed in the creation and debate of democracy were well educated, upper-class white men. And although the constitution proved to benefit the people in which it was written for, it is disproportionate in the benefits given to the authors themselves.
The early debate between Federalist and Anti-federalists was fraught with disagreement about the potential of ‘ordinary’ people to participate in government decisions. Some of the most renowned founders can be cited, referring to the masses as “ A bewildered herd, fraught with fleets of passion, and incapable of making rational decisions.” And although the constitution revolves around those revered phrases such as “By the people, for the people”, the overhanging power is most certainly within government. This hidden ideology is very much apparent in today’s democracy. The very people who are supposed to actively participate are feeling powerless and insignificant.
Perhaps that reason for this is due to a lack of understanding. When I turn on the television and listen to C-Span for example, I am sometimes confused by what they are talking about. And although I understand both current issues within government and the general system in which it functions, sometimes I feel like I’m listening to another language. It is obvious that people who hold governmental positions are well educated people, with this comes an elevated ability to utilize this ‘language’ in order to function within the system. But when everyone within this institution is speaking in a way that they understand one another, it does not mean that people outside of it can. How can people be expected to participate if we cannot understand one another on an agreed plane of dialog? If citizens wish to be active and aware of political working, they must first understand the lingo.
My assertion here, is that the type of dialect used within the political realm is purposefully used as a tool to keep power above the people. Furthermore, it has been naturalized within society to mean nothing more than “political talk”.