Watch Your Language Blog

We the front-runner

Little words such as pronouns--I, you or we--carry more important meaning than we usually give them credit for. If you listen more closely to the political speeches that are everywhere around us in this exciting election year, you'll notice that the candidates use the pronouns in rather picturesque ways. I'm particularly thinking of the pronoun we.

Of course, we know what this pronoun means: I just used it inclusively to mean "you all and I" know that. I could also have used it exclusively to mean "we here at Living Language" know that, but you the readers don't. The inclusive and exclusive uses of we are two of its most basic and very common uses in all languages; many cultures have found the difference between the two meanings important enough to create two different words in their languages to represent them. (One such language is Tagalog.)

But what caught my attention these days, as I was glued to the TV along with millions of fellow Americans, following the events of the primaries, was pluralis majestatis, the majestic or royal we, in the speeches of the presidential candidates. For example--and, really, by no means do I mean to suggest that McCain is the only candidate to employ this rhetorical tool--notice the pronouns in this citation from a NYT article. The alternation of I and we seems to be all over the place, and, at the same time, very meaningful but probably unnoticed by most.

"Tonight, I think we must get used to the idea that we are the Republican Party front-runner for the nomination of president of the United States," Mr. McCain said to cheers on Tuesday night in Phoenix, after winning his home state, Arizona. "And I don't really mind it one bit."

First notice the classic instance of the royal we in "we are the Republican Party front-runner," of course meaning, "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm the one!" There is strength in numbers, and plural pronouns connote it. So, here, the plurality of we is a metaphor of the power the candidate is assuming and a suggestion that he speaks not for himself, but for the people or the institution he claims to represent, not unlike a pope or a royal. Then notice the different and ultimately vague we in "we must get used to the idea." Is this the basic exclusive "we the members of the Republican Party," the inclusive "you my beloved supporters and I," or a more patronizing and condescending "you my opponents better watch out"?

I wish I could find we examples from other candidates' speeches quickly enough to cite them here--I know I've heard them. I find this to be a very intriguing "pronominal" usage from politicians in a country very proud of its individualism, where, incidentally, people speak the only language I know off with the pronoun I respectfully capitalized. Such respect is more commonly showed through capitalization of pronouns one uses to address others politely, often using the plural you (such as the Croatian Vi).

It's tempting to make conjectures--of course, things are fuzzy and rather unscientific on this level of consideration, but still interesting to entertain casually: Is such pronominal usage (the royal or, should I say, presidential we and the inclusive we) more common in the speeches of candidates now than it was in the past elections? Which metaphorical meanings are more prevalent? If so, what can we conclude from it? Does this suggest more collectivism and unity? Or more presidential authority?

We have to leave these questions open, but we might want to pay some attention to the pronouns anyway. [ZVIEZDANA]


February 6, 2008