Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Hackneyed Political Phrases: "The American People" & "Wall Street vs.     Main Street"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Berkeley Brett - 29 Jan 2010 03:19 GMT
I suppose there have always been hackneyed political phrases.

In my opinion, the most overused phrase (by far) among American
politicians is the phrase "the American people" -- a phrase that is
often used when the simple phrase "the people" would be more natural.

The U.S. Constitution begins with the words

"We the People..."

in bold calligraphy:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

In Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address he describes "the great task
remaining before us" as ensuring that

"...government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall
not perish from the earth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_address

"The people" in each case was not a trivial phrase: it was "the
people" as opposed to "the tyrant," "the monarch," "the (arbitrary)
aristocratic class," etc.  I imagine many people felt exhilaration
when they heard the phrase "the people."  It was a call to break the
yoke of despotism!

But at some time (unknown specifically to me) in American history,
this phrase "the people" -- so much a part of that history -- was
supplanted with the phrase "the American people."  As often as you
hear American politicians use that latter phrase, so RARELY will you
hear them use Jefferson's and Lincoln's more elegant "the people."

Why is this?

Well, I've always supposed it is because the phrase "the people" --
sans "American" -- came to be associated with socialism, communism,
and more recently "liberalism" (in the contemporary American sense)
and "the left wing."  This once-patriotic phrase came to be regarded
as distinctly *unpatriotic* if it was unescorted by the safety-word
"American."

I must say, I regret this change (and I am neither a socialist nor a
communist).  "The People" seems so sublime and universal, while "the
American people" seems to stop at the national borders.

Another hackneyed political phrase that is enjoying its cyclic
resurgence in America is "Wall Street vs. Main Street."  Wall Street
is the business world (typically the big-money business world), and
"Main Street" is the people -- oops, I guess I'm supposed to say "the
American people."

What I find particularly annoying about this phrase is that (it seems
to me) it is used when politicians want to appear to have said
something substantive when they really haven't.  Spoken with loud
conviction from the podium: "It's time for Congress to stop putting
the interests of Wall Street above of the interests of Main
Street!!" (Wild cheering is supposed to follow when this profound
proclamation is dispensed.)  And that's usually good enough for the
evening news cycle -- a tidy, safe sound byte spoken with all due
conviction.

Well, enough ranting from me for now.  I'd be interested to hear your
own thoughts on hackneyed political phrases -- from your country or
any country.  Please feel free to provide us with your own
"favorites" (i.e. the ones that annoy you to no end).  I'll be very
interested to read them.

And thanks in advance for anything you might choose to share.

--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
http://www.electoralmaps.org/
Pictorial election results for every U.S. Presidential Election from
George Washington to Barack Obama.
tony cooper - 29 Jan 2010 04:13 GMT
>I suppose there have always been hackneyed political phrases.
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>Why is this?

Because, I suppose, it identifies the specific group of people being
referred to.  Seems a good enough reason to me.

>I must say, I regret this change (and I am neither a socialist nor a
>communist).  "The People" seems so sublime and universal, while "the
>American people" seems to stop at the national borders.

In most political speeches, the people being referred to *do* stop at
the national borders.  

>Another hackneyed political phrase that is enjoying its cyclic
>resurgence in America is "Wall Street vs. Main Street."  Wall Street
>is the business world (typically the big-money business world), and
>"Main Street" is the people -- oops, I guess I'm supposed to say "the
>American people."

No, you don't need to.  By identifying "Wall Street" as one side, we
know who the other side is.

>Well, enough ranting from me for now.  I'd be interested to hear your
>own thoughts on hackneyed political phrases -- from your country or
>any country.

"God Bless".  

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Peter Moylan - 29 Jan 2010 13:50 GMT
> And that's usually good enough for the evening news cycle -- a tidy,
> safe sound byte spoken with all due conviction.

At the risk of bringing English usage into this discussion, I'd like to
suggest that you probably meant "sound bite".

I'm not American, by the way. That means that I usually hear "we, the
people" and similar phrases as jingoistic rubbish that is of zero
relevance to me. Such things whoosh by me with about the same impact as
bird poo.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Jerry Friedman - 29 Jan 2010 19:17 GMT
> > And that's usually good enough for the evening news cycle -- a tidy,
> > safe sound byte spoken with all due conviction.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> people" and similar phrases as jingoistic rubbish that is of zero
> relevance to me.

Not necessarily jingoistic.  "WE THE PEOPLE SAY NO TO THE BUSH
AGENDA." from Artists Against the War (2003?).

http://aawnyc.org/

> Such things whoosh by me with about the same impact as
> bird poo.

So is there an Australian equivalent to "I don't think the American
people will elect someone who etc."?  That's a dropping by which
political commentators criticize someone who etc.

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan - 30 Jan 2010 23:04 GMT
>> I'm not American, by the way. That means that I usually hear "we, the
>> people" and similar phrases as jingoistic rubbish that is of zero
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> people will elect someone who etc."?  That's a dropping by which
> political commentators criticize someone who etc.

I can't think of anything comparable. Very occasionally you'll hear
something like "Australians aren't likely to vote for that", or even
"The Australian people ..." but it hasn't achieved slogan or cliche
status. Opinions about unelectability are more along the lines of "X
doesn't have much chance of winning a seat".

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

John Holmes - 31 Jan 2010 01:25 GMT
>>> I'm not American, by the way. That means that I usually hear "we,
>>> the people" and similar phrases as jingoistic rubbish that is of
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> status. Opinions about unelectability are more along the lines of "X
> doesn't have much chance of winning a seat".

Or if it is about voting or politics, the attitude is attributed to "the
voters..." or "the electorate...", not to "the people..."

Signature

Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Maria Conlon - 31 Jan 2010 18:20 GMT
>>>> I'm not American, by the way. That means that I usually hear "we,
>>>> the people" and similar phrases as jingoistic rubbish that is of
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Or if it is about voting or politics, the attitude is attributed to
> "the voters..." or "the electorate...", not to "the people..."

My theory: Objections to the phrase "the American people" are not really
due to its being "hackneyed," but due to the fact that the objecters are
simply sick-and-tired[1] of hearing about Americans -- or because the
objector doesn't like the person who uses the phrase.

Paring the phrase down to "the people" is possible, but in some cases
"the people" would be too general. "We the people" needs to be modified
if speaking about a certain group of people; thus, "we the people of
Michigan," "we the people of xxx county," etc.

OBAUE: [1]"Sick-and-tired" has long expressed what "sick" or "tired"
separately do not.

Maria Conlon
Neither sick nor tired right now.
Jerry Friedman - 31 Jan 2010 19:34 GMT
> >>>> I'm not American, by the way. That means that I usually hear "we,
> >>>> the people" and similar phrases as jingoistic rubbish that is of
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> >> status. Opinions about unelectability are more along the lines of "X
> >> doesn't have much chance of winning a seat".

I think I've just caught on to something that may have been obvious to
others who watch more news than I do.  The commentators are probably
told to provide analysis, not opinion, except in specific opinion
slots.  So they can't say, "This person has bad ideas and you
shouldn't vote for him or her."  Instead they say, "The American
people won't vote for a person with these bad ideas."

> > Or if it is about voting or politics, the attitude is attributed to
> > "the voters..." or "the electorate...", not to "the people..."

Interesting, since there's more of a distinction between "the voters"
and "the people" in America than in Australia.

> My theory: Objections to the phrase "the American people" are not really
> due to its being "hackneyed," but due to the fact that the objecters are
> simply sick-and-tired[1] of hearing about Americans

An odd theory in this case.  According to Berkeley Brett's sig, he (or
she) has a Web site detailing the results of all U. S. presidential
elections, so is probably not sick or tired of hearing about
Americans.

-- or because the
> objector doesn't like the person who uses the phrase.

If you dislike a phrase and dislike all the people who use it, it's
hard to tell whether the chicken or the egg came first.  In my case,
I've seen it only from political commentators in my occasional
glimpses of CNN.  The commentators are in a situation where it's very
easy to be obnoxious, and they take full advantage of it.  I dislike
their specious way of stating their opinions more than the phrase, but
I wouldn't have to watch much more to dislike every phrase they use
frequently.

> Paring the phrase down to "the people" is possible, but in some cases
> "the people" would be too general. "We the people" needs to be modified
> if speaking about a certain group of people; thus, "we the people of
> Michigan," "we the people of xxx county," etc.

And can be improved, especially in an American context, by saying "We
Michiganians" (or "Michiganders"), unless what one is saying really
compares to the U. S. Constitution.

> OBAUE: [1]"Sick-and-tired" has long expressed what "sick" or "tired"
> separately do not.

Hm.  "I'm sick of this.  I'm tired of this.  I'm sick and tired of
this."  I'm not seeing the difference.

--
Jerry Friedman
Maria Conlon - 01 Feb 2010 04:07 GMT
Jerry Friedman wrote, in part:

>> My theory: Objections to the phrase "the American people" are not
>> really
>> due to its being "hackneyed," but due to the fact that the objecters
>> are
>> simply sick-and-tired[1] of hearing about Americans

> An odd theory in this case.  According to Berkeley Brett's sig, he (or
> she) has a Web site detailing the results of all U. S. presidential
> elections, so is probably not sick or tired of hearing about
> Americans.

Not knowing where Brett is from, it's hard to say much of anything
(though that, I admit, didn't stop me from making the comment above).
But I think that there is definitely a dislike for Americans in this
world, and Brett's contention that "the American people" is a "hackneyed
political phrase" makes me think that there's more than hackneying
(hackneyedness?) going on here. As I mentioned before, I think that
objections to the phrase "the American people" would seem to have little
to do with the phrase itself, but lots to do with one's opinion of
Americans.

[...]

>> Paring the phrase down to "the people" is possible, but in some cases
>> "the people" would be too general. "We the people" needs to be
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Michiganians" (or "Michiganders"), unless what one is saying really
> compares to the U. S. Constitution.

I guess I'd go for "we the people of the State of Michigan" -- that's
how the preamble to the State of Michigan Constitution begins. Neither
"the Michiganian people," "the Michigander people," nor "the Michigan
people" works. None of those three words (Michiganian etc.) is
comparable to "American." At least, not in my book.

>> OBAUE: [1]"Sick-and-tired" has long expressed what "sick" or "tired"
>> separately do not.

> Hm.  "I'm sick of this.  I'm tired of this.  I'm sick and tired of
> this."  I'm not seeing the difference.

I should have expressed myself better. I think of "sick-and-tired" (or
"sick-n-tired") as one word, as that's how a lot of people say it. "I'm
sick of this and I'm tired of this" has not reached one-word status.

You don't buy it? Oh, well. <smile>

Signature

Maria Conlon

Pat Durkin - 01 Feb 2010 04:51 GMT
> Jerry Friedman wrote, in part:
>
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> it. "I'm sick of this and I'm tired of this" has not reached
> one-word status.

Well, there is "sick 'n tired of being sick 'n tired", (hyphens
optional). (Or "sicken tired"--which I _have_ seen written.)

> You don't buy it? Oh, well. <smile>
Jerry Friedman - 03 Feb 2010 05:42 GMT
> JerryFriedmanwrote, in part:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Not knowing where Brett is from, it's hard to say much of anything
> (though that, I admit, didn't stop me from making the comment above).

Well, he or she's in Berkeley, Cal.

> But I think that there is definitely a dislike for Americans in this
> world, and Brett's contention that "the American people" is a "hackneyed
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> to do with the phrase itself, but lots to do with one's opinion of
> Americans.

But I don't see why.  A person who complains that American politicians
overuse a phrase is probably someone who listens to American
politicians a lot, and thus is probably an American.  That "dislike
for Americans" in this world wouldn't have much to do with it.

> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> people" works. None of those three words (Michiganian etc.) is
> comparable to "American." At least, not in my book.

Well, I agree with you about those three words, and the writers of the
Michigan Constitution had good rhetorical reasons to imitate the U. S.
Constitution.  On the other hand, a letter to the editor with "We, the
people of Michigan, want to see a health-care plan that really
improves things" would strike me as over-inflated.

> >> OBAUE: [1]"Sick-and-tired" has long expressed what "sick" or "tired"
> >> separately do not.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> You don't buy it? Oh, well. <smile>

No, I agree that it's one word for lots of people.

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 03 Feb 2010 11:47 GMT
>> >>>> I'm not American, by the way. That means that I usually hear "we,
>> >>>> the people" and similar phrases as jingoistic rubbish that is of
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>Interesting, since there's more of a distinction between "the voters"
>and "the people" in America than in Australia.

I've noticed when watching US TV news programs that they refer to
"Americans" in circumstances in which, mutatis mutandis, a UK
broadcaster would simply say "people" meaning "people in this country".
If necessary "people" would be qualified: "people in England and Wales"
or wherever.

This is from a radio documentary on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/ray_gosling_live_chat.shtml

   Baker: You say more and more people are self-employed, I
   agree, there seems to be a self-employment boom.

From my casual observations of US TV reporting I would expect the US
equivalent of such a statement to be "You say more and more Americans
are self-employed,...".

There is the mildly pedantic point that "people in Britain/the UK" and
"people in America" are not coterminous with "British" and "American".
The statement may well refer to residents rather than citizens.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

the Omrud - 03 Feb 2010 11:55 GMT
> I've noticed when watching US TV news programs that they refer to
> "Americans" in circumstances in which, mutatis mutandis, a UK
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> "people in America" are not coterminous with "British" and "American".
> The statement may well refer to residents rather than citizens.

My local paper does that.  It says things like "Teachers in Warrington
will be given a 2% pay rise next year", when it's actually a national
pay agreement.

Signature

David

James Silverton - 03 Feb 2010 13:34 GMT
the  wrote  on Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:55:31 GMT:

>> I've noticed when watching US TV news programs that they
>> refer to "Americans" in circumstances in which, mutatis
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>> with "British" and "American". The statement may well refer
>> to residents rather than citizens.

> My local paper does that.  It says things like "Teachers in
> Warrington will be given a 2% pay rise next year", when it's
> actually a national pay agreement.

The Herald newspaper of Glasgow has an opposite tendency on its web
page. They are fond of phrases like "A leading Scottish University"
where they could generally save space by giving the name, say, "Glasgow
University".

Signature

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Bob Martin - 04 Feb 2010 07:30 GMT
>The Herald newspaper of Glasgow has an opposite tendency on its web
>page. They are fond of phrases like "A leading Scottish University"
>where they could generally save space by giving the name, say, "Glasgow
>University".

BBC really annoys me with that sort of thing.  Southern news on both teletext
and website always says "a town in the south ..."  in links and headlines.
One has to read the full item to find out which town.
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 04 Feb 2010 07:57 GMT
> [ ... ]

> I've noticed when watching US TV news programs that they refer to
> "Americans" in circumstances in which, mutatis mutandis, a UK
> broadcaster would simply say "people" meaning "people in this country".
> If necessary "people" would be qualified: "people in England and Wales"
> or wherever.

Could that have more to do with the complications over which particular
bits of the UK population are implied by "the British people", etc.
than with differences between the US and the rest? French politicians
and newreaders refer to "les Français" in almost exactly the way
American ones refer (mutatis mutandis) to "Americans".
Signature

athel

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.