If you put your ear to the ground, you’ll hear low rumbling sounds from distant places. At least that’s what cowboys and Native Americans – once called Indians – did in old American western films to predict what was coming.

Anyone who has been listening to the subtly changing rhythms of American, Irish and European political language may have already heard it. It’s language that focuses on values over policy details and uses simple, emotive stories rather than complex jargon. It’s a language that speaks to hearts rather than minds. And, it’s the language that wins elections.

During the American presidential election, Hillary Clinton said those who choose Barack Obama over her would vote for “talk versus action”. John McCain also warned Americans about Obama’s promises and being “deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.” We know who won.

In Ireland, Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley was recently accused of something similar. On November 18, Labour TD Joe Costello said Ganley’s remarks to the Oireachtas Subcommittee on Ireland’s Future in the European Union were “very strong on rhetoric and very short on specifics”.

Rhetoric has become a dirty word. It has, incorrectly, come to mean empty words and phrases. Rhetoric is the study of effective speaking and writing and the art of persuasion in both these things. It examines both what is being said and how it is being said.

The reason so many politicians scoff at “mere rhetoric” is that the rebirth of effective, meaningful language is a threat to the status quo. For many years, politicians and civil servants have used words and phrases to water-down meaning: collateral damage instead of murder and child sex abuse instead of the rape of children.

Speeches, and answers to questions, seem to be delivered by political automatons speaking in dispassionate, monotone voices. Modern politicians use “anti-rhetoric” to hide what is really happening in government and to bore the electorate to tears. When people are blind to what is going on they are less likely to vote or realise how politics affects their daily lives.

For example, can anyone understand what Brian Cowen is saying when he talks about the economy? Did voters understand the Government’s views on the Lisbon Treaty?

Wishy-washy, pretentious political language is nothing new. George Orwell, author of 1984 and Animal Farm, wrote about it in 1946. His essay, Politics and the English Language found that misleading and vague language is a tool of political manipulation. Thinking clearly is a necessary first step to political regeneration, he said.

“Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Political language is changing. Blah, blah, blah no longer appeals to American or Irish voters. The economy is in the toilet, people are angry and change be a’coming.

Obama’s campaign was the watershed moment. American Conservatives, who for decades captured voters with emotionally charged but vague language, found their own weapon turned against them during the president-elect’s campaign.

They have had a long and successful run. It began with Ronald Reagan. “The Great Communicator’s” presidential campaign was the testing ground for the Conservative’s new approach. Reagan’s team realised that voters didn’t want policy details; they wanted to connect with the candidate on a personal level.

Since then, billions of dollars has been given to conservative think tanks to study the issue and how it can be used for political advantage.

George Lakoff, an American professor of linguistics and cognitive science, has written extensively on the issue and advised Democrats how to use the same techniques. Recently, he told The Huffington Post, a political website that: “People vote not on the basis of positions on issues and on programs but on five things namely: values, communication and connection, trust, authenticity (do you tell the truth), and identity (do you identify with the candidate). Obama understood that, and ran his campaign that way. Clinton ran on the basis of positions on issues, and bored people, basically.”

People vote with their emotions. We all want to be inspired to follow. Who can forget Kennedy’s: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

During Obama’s election campaign he said: “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring real change to Washington…I’m asking you to believe in yours”.

Irish politicians need to learn the lingo, and quick. People are frightened. They need leaders. The Government is in real danger of losing power to those – with their own hidden interests – who hold the key to the electorate’s heart and speak their language.

Margaret E. Ward is an Irish Times columnist and a managing director of Clear Ink, the clear English specialists. Margaret@clearink.ie

Popularity: 13% [?]