Question of the day
March 14, 2016
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?
DrugMonkey
biomedical research, just another job…
Recent Comments
DrugMonkey 
March 14, 2016 at 1:14 pm
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.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 3:56 pm
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.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 4:34 pm
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.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 6:58 pm
“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.
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 7:41 pm
Which is fine unless you think like Charles Guiteau that this bond means you are owed an ambassadorship….
LikeLike
March 14, 2016 at 10:16 pm
I say ‘we’ meaning me and my tapeworm a lot
LikeLike
March 15, 2016 at 5:50 pm
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.
LikeLike
April 2, 2016 at 8:38 am
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-sanders-had-opposing-views-on-biomedical-research/ar-BBrfCxf?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
LikeLike
April 2, 2016 at 9:10 am
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.
LikeLike
April 2, 2016 at 11:55 am
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.
LikeLike