When did the majestic plural become the default for US political candidates?
Is it just me or is it particularly jarring when a populist man of the people like Bernie Sanders uses it?
-
-
Scientopia Blogs
DrugMonkey is an NIH-funded researcher who blogs about careerism in science. And occasionally about the science of drug use.
-
Your donation helps to support the operation of Scientopia - thanks for your consideration.
Recent Comments
- e-rook on Tenured profs should pick up the check?
- Mic Galvin on Ecstasy is an environmental threat too?
- Joshua Gunner Johnson on It was the methylone that killed him
- Martin Buuri Kaburia on LinkedIn: yea or nay?
- day-to-day on So noob, you put in one grant, it didn't get funded and you feel mopey?
- AProf on Stupid CV Tricks: Is a job talk an invited seminar?
- Resilience and funding and the NIH | Mistress of the Animals on Your Grant in Review: Follow the Reviewers' Style Guide
- Resilience and funding and the NIH | Mistress of the Animals on Writedit and the Bergster publish a book on NIH grant strategy
- Resilience and funding and the NIH | Mistress of the Animals on NIH gets serious about the mouths-at-the-trough. Sortof.
- Toni Morrison on “The Work You Do, the Person You Are” | Mistress of the Animals on Poo3d!!!!
- Zuska on Thought of the Day
- Dude Awesome on Kill the R21!!!!
- DNAman on Thought of the Day
- DNAman on Thought of the Day
- Reproducible Research, Just Not Reproducible By You - The Scholarly Kitchen on Amgen continues their cherry picking on "reproducibility" agenda
-
Recent Posts
Archives
It depends on how "we" is meant. You seem to be interpreting it in the royal sense of "We are not amused", as opposed to "we" recognizing that politicians, no less than scientists, don't really work alone but have staff, colleagues, and supporters.
My problem is that it gets so habitual that they don't only use when referring to, say, "our campaign" which indeed requires a normal plural. It bleeds over into places where it is about attaining the office itself. Something along the lines of "Our chances of winning the race have improved...." is where it start to tip.
I think it becomes kind of a security blanket. I noticed after writing scientifically for a while I became quite resistant to using "I" when describing any results.
"Our chances of winning the race have improved...."
I thought politicians did this to build a sense of comradery. It's not one guy going into office, it's US. So send me your money, vote for me, tell your friends to send me their money and vote for me. All those volunteers during an campaign, they think they are friends with the politician.
Which is fine unless you think like Charles Guiteau that this bond means you are owed an ambassadorship....
I say 'we' meaning me and my tapeworm a lot
Politicians in a republic (or democracy) are supposedly representing their constituents. They are not supposed to be speaking for themselves. "We" is therefore *especially* appropriate for populists.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-sanders-had-opposing-views-on-biomedical-research/ar-BBrfCxf?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
I don't share Varmus' "litmus test" approach. And the quoted bit from Sanders as to why he wasn't supporting human cloning was consistent with his knee jerk anti-corporatism. Potentially this is why he is all gung-ho on GMO labeling as well.
I am for Hillary anyway. I like some of Bernie’s ideas (universal health care, college education etc) as many of young people do but recognize that these ideas are not feasible at all in the context of the USA and its history. And it would be a waste to vote for him (just my opinion). I have some reservations on Hillary and one of them is that she will keep Collins at NIH where a change is very badly needed. But one has to choose the less damaging of the two alternatives. Have become very skeptical about politicians and politics. However, no voting is not an option for me.