Kevin McCarthy: Literally & Figuratively

As modern technology advances, we’re slowly but surely forgetting how our own language works. We’re becoming more and more clueless about how the emotional connotation of words used in the media can influence our opinions — and personal politics — about current events.

Consider the headlines last Wednesday, on October 4, 2023, for example, when Speaker of The House Kevin McCarthy lost his job. Or should I say “left his position so he could spend more time with his family.” That’s usually the trope that pops up whenever the powerful and affluent ones find themselves suddenly unemployed. In this case, however, there was a tacit decorum for our nation’s government that was at play as the dramatic turn of events was reported by the media.

McCarthy’s departure marked the first time in American History that members of The House of Representatives removed a fellow member from that position. Frustrated Republicans from Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia turned out to be the driving force, the decisive factor, in this close 216-210 vote.

Now consider how 3 different newspapers covered the news.

Look at how this event was described in the front page headline, then the sub-headline. Think about all the various ways they reported how they got rid of Kevin.

From The New York Times:
“McCarthy First to be Removed As Speaker”
“Republican Hard-Liners Send House Into Chaos After a Fierce Debate”

From The St. Paul Pioneer Press:
“McCarthy is ousted as speaker”
“Unprecedented move led by fellow Republican
Rep. Gaetz leaves the House without a leader”

From The Minneapolis Star Tribune:
“McCarthy dumped in Gop revolt”
“Handful of hard-liners spearhead effort to
punish speaker in unprecedented move”

Notice how the basic information about McCarthy is similar, yet the descriptions of his departure unmistakably evoke the emotional — not the literal — sense.

All the newspapers agree that McCarthy will no longer serve as House Speaker. But was he “removed” or “ousted” or “dumped”? Although the reporting of his job loss is similar, the emotional connotation of these descriptions can give readers different pictures of his unemployment. In this case, “removed’ means to dismiss from office.” “Ousted” means “to eject from a position or place; force out.” As in, Speaker McCarthy didn’t really want to resign his House Speakership. One might even say he refused to go quietly, or that he resisted suggestions to leave in dignity.

But then, there’s “dumped,” that familiar, figurative verb that’s found a place in our everyday vernacular and no wonder. Since it means “the discarding or rejecting of a person or problem in an unceremonious manner,” it also implies disrespect for the worker who got sacked. Or axed. Or canned. Or “let go.” There are countless phrases that vividly describe getting fired, from “getting booted” to “receiving a pink slip.” What’s interesting here is that all these newspapers refrained from overusing this figurative language, with only the Star Tribune adding it as a kind of everyman plain-speak for readers.

I could go on and on with these colorful idiomatic expressions of getting fired — which is exactly what DID happen to McCarthy. My point here is that these newspapers did make efforts to limit such usage. They did try to accurately report his historic job loss in ways that respected the decorum and dignity of his office. They attempted instead to maintain a civil tone as they informed readers about the goings-on in Congress. They just didn’t want to spew headlines like “Inept and Problematic Speaker Loses Job! At Last! Fed-up House Finally Lowers Boom on McCarthy!”

That would seem way too disrespectful, even though some members of Congress have excelled in being disrespectful to their government, their country, and their constituents. So these newspapers made an effort to report the truth while also making sure their wording somehow reflected the connotative reality of a disorganized and selfish M.O. that is still taking place in Congress.

As readers, all we can do is pay attention to the way journalists use language to report newsworthy events.

And yet, as Americans who value our democracy, we must also be aware of how this selective coloring of words can unduly influence our perception of events, and ultimately, our beliefs.

Pay attention to what you’re reading(or hearing), dear readers. Then develop your own opinions from reading various accounts from different sources. Pay special attention to the different wordings of the same news story.

Right now, we all know Kevin McCarthy lost his job. But there are a lot of ways to state you’re not working at your job anymore. And the phrasing of a worker’s absence not only reflects his status but also influences our understanding and opinions about him.

If he’d been a shop rat on the assembly line, he’d be “on leave.”

If he’d been a talk show host, he’d be “on hiatus.”

If he’d been in any kind of business, he’d have left “to spend more time with his family.”

Since I don’t have to worry about stepping on any toes in Washington, I can just say McCarthy is another incompetent Trumper who “is no longer with us” as Speaker.