Why Politicians Use the Word 'Folks' Inappropriately
Thank you, Ms. Lorenda, for your insightful question. The use of the term 'folks' by politicians inappropriately can be seen as a strategic move to create an illusory connection with the electorate. However, the manner in which it is used often reflects awkward attempts to appear relatable and down-to-earth, sometimes bordering on patronizing condescension.
Definition and Origin of 'Folks'
According to Merriam-Webster, the term 'folk' or 'folks' can mean 'people generally' and is also an informal and friendly way to address a group of people. In the United States, it is often used to create a sense of inclusion and familiarity.
Politicians often use 'folks' to foster a sense of community and to seem more relatable to their constituents. This approach is highly strategic, aiming to make the speaker appear 'one of them,' as if they are sharing the 'common struggles' of everyday life like paying bills, handling household duties, and more.
The Strategic Use and Misuse of 'Folks'
Politicians primarily use the term 'folks' to imply a relatable, friendly, and accessible persona. The intent is to create an image of a more personal and less formal connection with the audience. This strategy is designed to resonate with voters who are looking for a candidate that feels like 'one of the people' rather than a distant figure.
However, the misuse or overuse of 'folks' can have the opposite effect. Instead of connoting humility and approachability, it can come across as patronizing and condescending. This is particularly visible when politicians use 'folks' in a manner that seems forced or inauthentic, which can lead to a sense of disingenuousness.
Examples of Inappropriate Usage
The use of 'folks' by politicians can be seen as a strategic attempt to create an informal and friendly atmosphere. However, when overused or used in a context that feels inauthentic, it becomes a transparent attempt to manipulate the audience.
For example, some politicians may say, 'Like paying the rent, electricity, and phone bills, looking after kids… you know, common folk.' This phrasing can be seen as an attempt to make a connection with the audience by highlighting common struggles, but it can also feel patronizing if the tone is not genuine.
Another way the term 'folks' can be misused is to make someone sound less 'communist' and more 'German.' This strategy often fails, as it can come across as arrogant and condescending. Politicians who use such phrases are often perceived as lacking honesty and authenticity.
Personal and Authenticity in Speech
Some critics view the use of 'folks' by politicians with disdain, believing that it is a crass and inauthentic attempt to appear relatable. Gerrit, a commenter, notes that this term can be overly personal and casual. He also expresses a lack of trust in most politicians, suggesting that their use of 'folks' can be seen as an attempt to gain votes rather than a genuine display of empathy.
Although some believe that the use of 'folks' is effective in gaining votes, others see it as a transparent exhibition of patronizing condescension. While it is difficult to pinpoint when such usage started or how widespread it has become, it is clear that the term's strategic use can backfire if not executed carefully.
It is also worth noting that the media has played a role in how terms like 'gentlemen' for criminal suspects have been used or not, reflecting a broader shift in language and attitudes in the political sphere.
Conclusion
In summary, the term 'folks' is often used by politicians to create a sense of familiarity and relatability. However, its misuse or overuse can make it seem inauthentic and patronizing. The strategic use of such informal language can be effective, but it must be employed with care to avoid appearing condescending. As with all language use in politics, the key to success lies in authenticity and genuine connections with constituents.