All words are not equal. For years communication experts have spoken of good words and bad words. Good words include “progress,” “success,” “family,” and “love.” Bad words include “dictatorship,” “totalitarianism,” “bureaucracy,” and “nuclear war.”
In every speaking situation there are good words and bad words. The good words have great clarity and persuasion. Some words unite and heal. Some words do even more than that, becoming so powerful that they shatter the tranquillity of the moment and explosively propel the audience into the future. Other words obfuscate and repel. Some words divide and incite hatred, even violence, igniting irrational frenzy. Some words destroy and vigilantly continue their destruction as they become part of the historical record. Words have jobs and skilled speakers know how to use them. In the right hands, words have a kind of immortality, for better or worse.
Words are weapons, more than mere propaganda. Winston Churchill knew the power of his words when he labelled German adversaries as “the Hun” and Nazis as “odious.” To inspire the Soviet Russian people Joseph Stalin consistently invoked that deeply sacred word:
“motherland.” Ronald Reagan regularly used the word “Americans” (“We are Americans”) to explain that anything was possible in that country. John Paul II spoke of “Poland” as if that word captured the nation’s tortured past and its unwritten history of a free people in the future.
General Douglas MacArthur understood this extremely well in his speech at West Point in
1962. He started the speech with the words of the Corps of Cadets: “Duty – Honour-
Country.” He repeated these words several times, calling them “hallowed words,” “rallying points,” “a code....(of) the highest moral laws,” a “mission,” and a “a guidepost....a tenfold beacon in the night.” Tony Blair was equally overt in his Blackpool conference speech in
1994. He started with these words: “A belief in society. Working together. Solidarity.
Cooperation. Partnership. These are our words. This is my socialism.” The bad words can be used to brand an opponent, sometimes with devastating effect. As Michael Portillo explained after the Conservative defeat in 1997, “...the Party became associated increasingly with the most disagreeable messages and thoughts.....Tories were linked to harshness: thought to be uncaring about unemployment, poverty, poor housing, disability and singleparenthood; and considered indifferent to the moral arguments over landmines and arms sales. We were thought to favour greed and the unqualified pursuit of the free market....”
Word choice is more than attempted branding; it constitutes the decisions that create the perception that becomes a reality. At a workshop in the UK last year, one participate complained that “the other side” had “all the good words.” If so, then it is time to fight for the good words, to win them back. Sometimes words are the scene of struggle. Speakers and parties often have to fight for the “good words” because they are the point of the struggle itself, not just symbols of conflict. If you want a word you may have to work for it. Words are intellectual geography. David Cameron has long fought for the word “green” to be associated with Conservative Party. The person or party that holds the commanding landscape has a strong tactical rhetorical advantage. That is why it is important to identify the good words and to seize them, to be able to say “These are our words.”
Before every speech I make a list of good and bad words for the target audience. Because words have jobs, and some words have a powerful emotive impact, it is vital to know which

words will work best to persuade an audience. These words have to be credible and authentic. Also, it is important to know which words to avoid. And, it is vital to use unfavourable words to explain disagreeable or poor policy positions. Often, the words dictate the ideas and policies which become the speech. The list of positive words is often the outline of the speech.
In our time, there are some obvious good words that should be in every policy speech. These words demand to be used, because of their impact. They function to show competence, professionalism, leadership, and character. They function to help unite the speaker with the audience. They work to transmit values and shared understanding. It is no exaggeration to say that words construct our world, becoming a verbal commons that provides mutual understanding and structured perception.
Empowerment
In numerous speeches, former Prime Minister Blair often said that voters in developed countries want “choice,” that providing choice is one of the expectations of modern government. This is an important word to use and capture. And there are good words which should are associated with “choice”: “freedom,” “liberty,” “empowerment,” and
“responsibility.” These words are the words of shared political power, party politics, social contract, and enlightened voting. They are words that underline our duties and our capabilities. It would be hard to argue against these words, as I’m sure the former prime minister understood. These are words that should appear in almost every policy or political speech.
Racial Harmony
The language of racial, ethnic, and religious harmony is central to our efforts to maintain developed nation states. So there are words that are necessary: “tolerance,” “multi-cultural societies,” “mutual respect,” “mutual regard,” and “colour-blindness.” President Barack
Obama has made these words and others the centrepiece of his rhetorical achievement.
Social Justice
We also live in a time when “social justice” is at the forefront of our concerns. The words that are linked to “social justice” are “equality,” “equal rights,” “equal opportunities,”
“fairness,” “civil rights,” “human rights,” “egalitarianism,” and “concern for others.” Social justice is an effort to bring people together through equal treatment under the law and in society, because each person is of equal value in the polity. There are some who frown on that notion, preferring to acknowledge and celebrate the differences between us. But they miss the point of the dialogue. The language of social justice is primarily about institutional fairness, not about generating equal outcomes. That is why the discussion is misdirected if setting educational standards for threshold competence is taken to mean dummying down achieving students. We want everybody to get an education. That doesn’t mean that we want great students to be held back.
Words can evolve, too. Good words and become bad words. For example, currently, there is a debate over the term “community,” which used to be a good word. Now, some want to make that word into something bureaucratic and socialistic, preferring instead terms like
“neighbourhood” or “micro-culture.”
National Security

The war on terrorism is a war of words, as well as an armed conflict. Policy-makers and military strategists speak of “security” with gravity. Speeches speak of “safety,” “screening,”
“secure borders,” and “freedom from fear.” Security is now rated in colour codes, with an ideal threshold of “zero risk,” and discussed as a battle of “rationality over fanaticism.” In
Iraq or Afghanistan, when there is talk about “winning the peace,” that discussion can be translated into successfully selling the ideas behind certain words such as “rule of law,”
“regional stability,” joining the “international community,” and overcoming “instability,”
“chaos,” or “rogue actions.” The worse label of all: “failed state.”
Finance and Economics
One lesson I learned in the Reagan White House, perhaps the most valuable one, was the important of building and retaining business confidence. The financial markets are sensitive, easily disrupted barometers of expectations. So much hinges on knowing the future, which is always risky and unpredictable. The overwhelming desire is for predictability in the business and regulatory climate. Whether taxes rise or fall, or new programs are instituted or others eliminated, businesses need to have a sense of the direction and commitment of government.
They need to know if there is commitment to stability and predictability. Business is looking for competence and direction, vision and leadership, and intensity of commitment. And if the markets are disrupted by unpredictable events or constantly changing policies, if businesses sense that the hand on the tiller is unsteady or incompetent, then fear takes over.
Clearly, in a time of economic turbulence, words matter. Three years ago, there was much discussion about whether or not government leaders and media reporters were talking economies into recession. Was it responsible for Alistair Darling to warn of an upcoming recession? Should newspapers flash headlines with the words “meltdown” or “apocalypse”?
Given that the financial institutions were over-extended and that the “shifting sands of instability” were exposing that our lenders and bond markets were “a house of cards,” did our language move banks and traders towards “collapse,” countries toward “bankruptcy,” and the international financial system toward “insolvency”? Surely, the language of disaster did little to help maintain or rescue those financial institutions or governments in trouble. On the other hand, should commentators use misleading positive language? Historians will write of the power of words during this turbulence. Now, as we rebuild our markets, government is using words of warning, such “responsibility,” “accountability,” “transparency,” and “good governance.” There is constant comment about “freeing liquidity” and “restoring trust.”
These are words that matter; jobs and investment rely on them.
Technology
The last two elections in the United States and the recent British election show that technology is voting issue. In the United States, the Democratic Party was more “wired,” had more “buzz,” “tweeted more on twitter,” and turned the election “virtual” with more outreach, fundraising, blogging, and campaigning through the Internet. John McCain, famously, perhaps fatally, said he was “aware” of the Internet. In Britain, Facebook, Twitter, and the Internet were central components of the campaigns of all parties. So it became important to use the language of technology, talking about “my web site,” becoming a “friend on Facebook,” “checking out my blog,” receiving “instant messages,” obtaining the “latest on
Twitter,” and even speaking with the new language of technology (“u no u do...c u on fb”).
We are even using technology for name substitution. Political commentator Shane Greer is often referred to by his wife as “@shanegreer.com.” Techno words are the new vocabulary, an emerging language. One American scholar, Naomi Baron, in her book From Alphabet to
Email , has shown that language is rapidly evolving through the use of this new information

and messaging technology. The evolution is producing new good words and an emergent linguistic reality.
Vision
Good words can be an essential part of a vision. They are not a substitute for vision. But they can capture a vision. In 1994, in his masterful inaugural speech, Nelson Mandela painted his vision of a new South Africa. He said, “The time for the healing of the wounds has come. The moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has come. The time to build is upon us. We have, at last, achieved our political emancipation. We pledge ourselves to liberate all our people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender and other discrimination. We succeeded to take our last steps to freedom in conditions of relative peace. We commit ourselves to the construction of a complete, just, and lasting peace.” There are many good words in that passage. But they signal an approach to government, not slushy sloganeering.
So be careful. Good words are not a substitute for policy. They are tools of persuasion.
When government or businesses rely on good words alone, it is a sure sign that they are bereft of policy. Unacceptable legislation, policies or programs may also be disguised by good words, which is why George Orwell warned us of doublespeak and logicians see obfuscation through misleading language.
So, it is vital that words are handled with care. However, that doesn’t mean they should be watered down or bled by qualification. The profound force of language must be respected and used with focused purpose, like a precision laser, not like napalm. As Voltaire said, “To hold a pen is to be at war.” He understood that every battle is for the mind and heart. So the dictionary is a weapons factory. The speech is an arsenal. The speaker is the one who boldly pushes the ballistic trigger with a target in mind. That requires the speaker to use skill and daring. It also demands wisdom and humility.