Campaign Talk: Why Elections Are Good for Us (review)

Campaign Talk: Why Elections Are Good for Us. By Roderick P. Hart. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000; pp. xvii + 307. $29.95.

Roderick P. Hart, who holds the Shivers Chair in Communication and Government at the University of Texas, Austin, has written a provocative new book, Campaign Talk: Why Elections Are Good for Us. It is a book to read, reread, ponder, and argue about, a major work on political language. His goal is "to look at the sweep of [campaign] discourse during the last 50 years . . . from a single vantage point--word choice" (17). Like a detective, he uncovers the "unconscious word habits" of his subjects, in the knowledge that "language is so easily underestimated" (28). And he concludes that, contrary to popular belief, campaigns play a positive role in sustaining democracy, in a process that informs us about issues, sensitizes us to the concerns of others, and heightens our sense of the political world. In short, elections are good for us.

Employing DICTION, his computer content analysis program, Hart provides an exceptionally full, rich description and comparison of the language of the principal agents in the political campaign process: the presidential candidates, the media, and the citizens. As with other Hart books, such as The Sound of Leadership, the sheer scope of the enterprise commands attention. In Campaign Talk, he examines 20,000 textual samples of campaign speeches, debates, advertisements, print and broadcast news stories, and a diverse collection of letters to the editor from the 13 presidential elections between 1948 and 1996. These samples are taken from the period of late August through election day in each presidential campaign. There are nine chapters, covering "Campaign Questions," "Campaign Language," "Campaign Evolution," "Campaign Functions," "Campaign Forums," "The Political Voice," "The Media's Voice," "The People's Voice," and "Campaign Reflections." The inclusion of the "voice of the people" during campaigns, as expressed in letters to the editor in 12 small cities around the country, is a unique and welcome contribution to communication analysis, fleshing out our picture of the citizenry beyond their faceless portrayal in poll numbers.

Hart provides excellent synopses of the state of research on campaign language. His own findings lead him to question some prior research. For example, he finds no evidence for claims that campaigns now have a narrower agenda than before, or that political rhetoric has become more abstract over time, or that Democrats and Republicans have come to speak a common language. But his main contribution is to suggest new ways of seeing the campaign. In his macroscopic method, he found different language patterns in the three groups studied: the candidates, media, and citizens. The greatest contrast in language is between the politicians and the press. Politicians use language that is high in inspiration, praise, and satisfaction, for example; the media are just the opposite, using language that is low in these qualities. The people are in between. Hart found dramatic differences in the discourse of the press and the public in the newspapers over time, "with the front page being resolutely glum and the letters sometimes sounding like sermonettes" (211). The discovery of such differences in language and perspective sheds light on Americans' hostility to the news media, which they view as arrogant and cynical.

Hart writes in a clear and readable style, with wry turns of phrase. But Campaign Talk is not a book to be digested quickly. In fact, I found this review a daunting assignment, as there are so many new perspectives to examine. Following are just a few of his surprising findings.

Politicians today "speak with far less certainty than they did in the days of Harry Truman and Tom Dewey" (19).

"The more unique a politician's language, the more likely he is to lose" (20).

In close races, the winners "change what they are doing" (90), speaking more about basic values towards the end of the campaign.

The language of governors who...