My original idea for this paper was to expand my knowledge of Deborah Tannen's theory on gender communication. However, when I put "Deborah Tannen" into a scholarly database, it came up with an article she wrote on the use of language by politicians to influence the American public. The article was so interesting I decided to expand my knowledge of how words can be used to manipulate emotional reactions in people. Politicians do it when they have an agenda and want the public to accept it.
             I knew already, for example, that words are often chosen that reveal the speaker's feelings more than they describe actual reality. For instance, the words thrifty and cheap both describe similar behavior. But if we call a person thrifty, it's a compliment-the person knows how to get the most for his or her money and is careful about spending money. On the other hand, if we say a person it cheap, it is not a compliment although that person is also careful about spending money and wants to get the most for his/her money. These words really tell how the speaker feels about the person. The article by Deborah Tannen shows how politicians choose words-not to show their own feelings so much, but to get others to feel a certain way about them. They use language to appeal to the listener's feelings.
             Tannen gives several examples of the politically conservative use of language. As a Democrat she is concerned that Democrats aren't as good at using language to their own advantage as Republicans are. One example she describes has to do with what is now called "partial birth abortion." It wasn't always called that. She points out that the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates this medical procedure is extremely rare-"only one-fifth of 1 percent of all abortions performed in the United States in 2000" (Tannen, 2003, p. 29). Instead of referring to the aborted as a "second trimester fe...