‘Word salad’ no more: Let go of the words and phrases dividing America

George Bernard Shaw was once quoted stating that “England and America are two nations divided by a common language.” Today, America itself is divided by a common language. Reducing the division may help to close the vast gaps and polarization of the nation.  

I have previously argued that dropping the adjective hyphen used to classify Americans by race, religion or nationality is essential. We are not white, Black or green Americans. We are plainly Americans. The sooner the nation can grasp that reality, the better off we will be. 

That does not mean Americans cannot be proud of their ethnicity or background. But we need to be prouder of being Americans.

Unfortunately, this idea will be opposed on the grounds of insensitivity to identity politics. Identity in this case dominates unity and a sense of national pride. As long as emotion overrides rationality and common sense, the polarization of the nation will persist. And the national motto of “e pluribus unum” (one from many) is reversed to “ex uno plures” (many from one).

Two other phrases need to be exorcised from the political lexicon. The first is “word salad.” The second is “policy.” 

“Word salad” is meant to describe incoherent and inchoate speech. The phrase, originally used by psychiatrists to describe babbling by mentally ill people, has gradually migrated into our political vocabulary.

If someone cannot speak basic English, why deny reality and slough off the comment as a word salad? Let’s call balls and strikes. 

In last week’s debate, Donald Trump may have done a Biden and knocked himself out of contention. Although his MAGA supporters blindly agree with Trump that this was his “best debate,” he absurdly used Hungary’s strong man Viktor Orbán as a reference and wrongly claimed Haitian immigrants were dining on pet dogs.

Trump, however, did coin an imaginative variant of word salad. He calls it a “weave.” In his weave, Trump zigs and zags to whatever crosses his mind in the course of answering even the simplest questions. And then he often fails to answer the question in the end.

The term “policy” likewise must go in the context of elections. Those who argue that debates should be about policy, what does that mean? Policy is not an aspiration, an idea or a wishful thought. It is a well-argued plan that matches aims with action. Lacking that, policy is a delusion.

“Close the border,” “end inflation,” “stop the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, “cure cancer” and similar phrases are statements of intent that cannot be seen as policy.  

For example, how are the wars in Gaza and Ukraine going to be stopped? One historical analogy is the Korean War. Once United Nations forces were forced back from the Yalu River that divided Korea from China back to the 38th parallel separating North and South Korea, negotiations between China and U.N. forces began.  

China was recalcitrant. It took months and much loss of life and bloodshed before a truce was put into place. Gaza and Ukraine have similar characteristics in terms of recalcitrant participants unwilling to negotiate.

In Gaza, it is not in the current interests of Hamas or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reach a truce or cease-fire. As long as Israel continues the war and Palestinian casualties mount, greater international condemnation will mount. The U.N. may attempt to pass a resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. That favors Hamas.

Netanyahu faces an existential political threat to his leadership. His only option is to continue the war until Hamas is destroyed. Hence, the policy to end the war is vacuous until it establishes how Hamas and Netanyahu can come to terms.

In Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin show no interest in negotiations. Ukraine wants its territory, particularly Crimea, returned. Putin wants to increase its influence and control over Ukraine. How are both parties going to be coerced or convinced that negotiations are of mutual interest?

To repeat, words count. Hyphenated adjectives, “word salad” and “policy” have become terms of division and dissension and not unity. 

This may seem a secondary matter. After all, if these words were dropped from the lexicon would the divisions in the U.S. be lessened? Possibly not.  

But it is a start. Correct use of language is crucial to a healthy democracy and to the telling of truth and fact. Without either, any nation is in trouble.

Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and the prime author of the “shock and awe” military doctrine. His 12th book is “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD:  How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large.”