Empirical Proof: Congress is Getting Dumber
The following appeared in the DC Examiner earlier this week:
House members are dumbing down their speeches, or they are just getting dumber themselves.
That's a conclusion suggested in a new analysis by the Sunlight Foundation, which used an interesting website called Capitolwords.org to analyze the most popular words lawmakers utter on the Senate and House floor every day.
According to Sunlight, Congress speaks nearly a grade level lower than lawmakers did in 2005. Sunlight concluded that Congress speaks at the level of a mid-year high school sophomore. Back in 2005, lawmakers were speechifying like high school juniors
...
The report also calculates that the nation's most historical documents are far, far more sophisticated than any recent floor speech.
The U.S. Constitution, for instance, written at a 17.8 grade level, the Federalist Papers at a 17.1 grade level, and the Declaration of Independence at a 15.1 grade level.
But President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address comes at an 11.2 grade level and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is at a 9.4 grade level.
First, a word in defense of our inarticulate elected officials. It's apples and oranges to compare speeches with written documents such as the Federalist Papers or the Declaration (the Constitution is an even worse example, since its primary function is as a legal document). And based on the Sunlight Foundation's research, it looks like they're still lapping the public at large:
Lawmakers of both parties still speak over the heads of the average American, who reads at between at 8th and 9th grade level.
That's a statistic that will come to mind every time that proposals for expanding voter participation (a topic we've touched on recently) come up.
It seems to me incontrovertible that over the history of our nation we've increasingly valued the democratic over the republican. We've instituted the direct election of senators, made the Electoral College essentially a bizarre quasi-ratification of the popular vote, and in places like California we're approximately 18 months away from deciding that the best method for determining the proper way to cook a roast is to put it to a popular referendum. In essence, we've done everything we can to promote the demotic in American life. The result: elected officials that share the idiom of people who pre-purchase tickets for the "Twilight" movies. Let me go on record now as saying that any public policy that arrests that downward spiral is fine by me.
By the way, one bit of fun for your Friday: Sunlight also has a page showing which SAT words are used most in congressional chambers and which members employ them the most often. An examination of the list shows that Patrick Leahy is the legislator most prone to using the word "asylum." Seems to me that there's some poetry in that fact.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Empirical Proof: Congress is Getting Dumber
Mendel
I think most politicians can obfuscate just as well at a 7th grade level as at a 12th grade level. · 11 minutes ago
Edited 10 minutes ago
When a yes/no question is asked, a short answer is clear. A long-winded answer is much more likely to be evasive.
May '11
Re: Empirical Proof: Congress is Getting Dumber
Mulvaney does speak with short words. The one he uses especially well is the second shortest word in the English language......no. Congress is like a two year old and my speech recognition software, it doesn't recognize "No".
Aug '10
Re: Empirical Proof: Congress is Getting Dumber
barbara lydick
The question becomes: How many of the general public could read and debate the Federalist Papers today? Even high school graduation tests in the mid 1800’s and early 1900’s are too difficult for current seniors – and even college seniors for that matter – to pass. Methinks education standards play a large role in this issue.
Of course a decline in literacy plays a role.
But let's be honest: It's not just the intellectual and literary sophistication that makes the Federalist Papers hard for a modern youngster to understand. Language also changes over time. (Chaucer is no more sophisticated than the Federalist Papers, but a lot harder to understand.)
We have a vested interest in maintaining a widespread understanding of the English our Founders used in our founding documents, no matter how much language changes. But we shouldn't be surprised or outraged that the passage of time also takes its toll.
For that matter, I have mixed feelings about historical graduation tests. My studies concentrated on the sciences at the expense of other things, and a lot of the topics I studied weren't even around by 1900. Does that make my education worthless?
Mar '11
Re: Empirical Proof: Congress is Getting Dumber
iWc
Mendel
When a yes/no question is asked, a short answer is clear. A long-winded answer is much more likely to be evasive.
On the other hand...
"I am not a crook."
"I don't recall."
"Mission accomplished."
Zingers aside, the truth is politicians can deceive us with any language they wish - where obfuscation is not possible, lying seems to be a popular option among both parties. And even less-educated Americans are still usually savvy enough to tell when a politician is using long words as a diversion technique.
Edited on May 25, 2012 at 11:08pmSep '11
Re: Empirical Proof: Congress is Getting Dumber
This reminds me of when Dan Quayle was ridiculed for not knowing how to spell the word potato; I thought that was unfair. Having an advanced vocabulary and good spelling skills is wonderful, but hardly the most important thing. I have forgotten almost everything that I learned in school, but for some reason, I almost never forget how to spell a word; I usually remember the meaning of words too, without putting any effort into it. I know people who are far more knowledgable (did I spell that correctly? :) than I am about everything, but they would never win a spelling bee. When it comes to government, math skills are probably more important than grammar.
Aug '11
Re: Empirical Proof: Congress is Getting Dumber
Congress has problems. One of the biggest problems is that Congress is doing so much-- too much. Our elected officials are now called to be "experts" on everything and, I don't see how they can be. I think they can read what their aides tell them but I'm not sure we are getting anything close to "expertise." I'm not so concerned about the "speech level." Congress is trying to communicate thoughts in a manner that people can re-tweet and post on facebook and be read in a few seconds.
Do we want to go back to the Lincoln-Douglass debates ? Those things took a few days of debates that lasted hours. How would that play out today? Ricochet would enjoy it. But other people would just wait on a summary. At least this way the Congressmen can summarize their own thoughts for us...
Jul '10
Re: Empirical Proof: Congress is Getting Dumber
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
barbara lydick
Of course a decline in literacy plays a role.
But let's be honest: It's not just the intellectual and literary sophistication that makes the Federalist Papers hard for a modern youngster to understand. Language also changes over time. (Chaucer is no more sophisticated than the Federalist Papers, but a lot harder to understand.)
I would venture to say that even if the FP were ‘translated’ into modern English, there still wouldn’t be that many who could comprehend, let alone debate, the material.
As for historical H.S.tests, much of the material centered on literature, civics, geography, math, etc., i.e., the basics. Like you, my major was in the sciences, but since I’m a bit older (I saw your pic!), when I was in school the university required nearly 2/3 of the credits to be outside of our major with required courses in history, literature, foreign language, the arts, and social sciences – including econ and psychology. (My minor was in music.)
I still think today's education standards play a large role here.
And no, of course I don't think your education was worthless in the least.