Serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis. © James Conner.
I read the fine print. I look for weasel words and phrases, and when I find them — and in the biographies of candidates I find them a lot — red flags go up. If a statement is vague, is it vague because the candidate isn’t thinking clearly, or is it vague because the candidate wants to muddy his position on a subject? If a statement is ambiguous, is the ambiguity deliberate, or is it the result of an inability to write clearly?
Consider the following description of a candidate’s educational credentials:
Joe attended Our Lady of the Night Catholic High School in Sinville, graduating in 1986. He received a BA, with honors, in business administration from Red Oak State College, and studied law at the prestigious University of Fremont Springs School of Law. He worked as a law clerk for Justice Harold Willard Andrew Castleton of the 13th Circuit Court of Appeals, and was admitted to the Montana bar in 1992.
Quick question: did Joe receive his law degree from the prestigious University of Fremont Springs School of Law?
Quick answer: we can’t tell from his campaign biography.
Joe says he studied at Fremont Law, but he doesn’t say he graduated from Fremont Law. He might have. Then again, he might have studied at Fremont Law, but transferred to another, less prestigious, law school to finish his law degree. Is Joe’s use of the “studied at” construction an attempt to deceive, or just sloppy writing? There’s no way to tell without asking him.
It’s probably safe to assume that a young candidate who passed the bar exam received a law degree.
But suppose Joe is a businessman and not a lawyer, and that he describes his college education this way:
Joe studied business administration at Red Oak State College.
Did Joe graduate? Or did he drop out, but wants us to conclude he graduated without actually claiming that he did? Again, there’s no way of knowing without asking him (and then double-checking with the college).
When a candidate uses artful phrasing to describe something, either he’s trying to conceal something, or he’s incapable of writing (and thinking) clearly. Neither possibility recommends him for public service.