Kamala's "Word Salad" Problem Is Really Corporate Speak
"Corporate speak" is designed to be avoidant and gives the illusion of intelligence. Regular people value clarity, and Kamala is unable to provide that.
The only people who believe Kamala speaks intelligently attended universities where "corporate speak" is commonplace.
"Corporate speak" is designed to be avoidant and gives the illusion of intelligence. Regular people value clarity, and Kamala is unable to provide that.
Many of us have been in a corporate environment and we listened to many people who sound just like Kamala Harris. They talk a lot but say absolutely nothing in the end. If you don't participate in corporate speak, you're constantly left scratching your head.
Corporate speak is filled with overused uncommon jargon and purposefully soft language. Words like "strategize" and "synergy" are thrown at you combined with a bunch of filler jargon that equates to nothing of substance.
Visit www.xx-xyathletics.com/ADAM to shop through their top-quality athletic Women’s (XX) and Men’s (XY) clothing, ranging from t-shirts to leggings.
Corporate speak is especially deceptive because if you use it properly, it gives the impression that you know what you're talking about and are actively doing something in addition to having useless meetings for further "collaboration" about how you're going to "strategize".
The biggest problem with corporate speak is that it works: People are intimidated by complex words and sentence combinations. If you use a word that is uncommon, many people interpret this as you're someone of high intelligence surrounding that topic.
There are tactics of memorizing unfamiliar words & flooding people with them, causing them to back off instead of challenging them on the meaning or clarity of their statement. This tactic is used in debates and politics all of the time; I call it talking someone into submission.
I contend that a better sign of someone's intelligence is their ability to be clear about the topic they claim to be an expert on. As the communicator, it's their responsibility to speak in a generally understandable way, otherwise we'll think they're hiding something.
I believe this is why so many people do not like how Kamala Harris speaks: She's been primed to use corporate speak likely since her college years. She hides behind corporate-style lingo, giving unclear responses when she lacks valid answers & frequently gets away with it.
She's been able to climb the ladder being avoidant in environments where nearly everyone is avoidant. However, when you're running for president and dealing with the average American, being repeatedly evasive comes off like you're not genuine and we don't trust ungenuine people.
It's only left-wing college-educated elitists who feel comfortable listening to such incomprehensible language and find nothing wrong with her giving roundabout opaque answers for the most important job interview process in America.
They were "educated" in an environment of credential hierarchy, and the people at the top spoke the same way. I've listened to professors who have delusions of grandeur & they speak with such gravitas as their audience is left behind trying to piece together what they just said.
Those people are supremely talented bullsh*t artists and masters of linguistic manipulation. You could listen to an hour-long interview and take away nothing from it because the goal wasn't to provide you with information, it was to display how more intelligent they are than you.
But Kamala isn't that skilled and she's trying this in the wrong environment. Regular people will default to concluding that she is either stupid, inexperienced, or incompetent (and possibly all of the above) because of how routinely avoidant she is with her speech.
This is how disconnected Kamala Harris (and Democrats) are from working-class Americans because she believes she can use the same evasive language that would work in a corporate board room and we'd be impressed.
As I've stated before, Kamala Harris' major problem is that she comes off as disingenuous and fake. If I don't believe you're genuine in character, why would I believe you'll follow through with what you said you'd do?
She's yet to realize that part of the reason we feel this way is her usage of language. She believes she's answering our questions because the answers she provides only work well with a niche audience, not with the general public.
Great observation. You nailed it. The “corporate speak” (I’d call it “academic speak”) is seductive. As you pointed out, in the academic environment the the speech and writing become increasingly obscure, masking as insight and brilliance! Believe me, I know! I graduated with a PhD and instead of going into academics I went into a small Wall Street firm. I learned very quickly that I had no clue how to write for that community, but I turned around fast and got rid of the “academese”. It’s “get to the point”. One of the most vivid memories is in one of my early presentations to the sales force about a stock I thought they should recommend to their clients….I was about 10% into my presentation (building my argument from the ground up) when the top salesman, sitting opposite me, picked up his Wall Street Journal and started reading it! Message received. From then on, I gave my recommendation, two or three main arguments and if they wanted more backup I had it and they could ask for it!!!! The best communicators are straightforward!
I live in the corporate environment. Her style is beyond even that. She sounds like a) a lawyer, which I imagine is her background, as a DA and b) someone who is being very careful not to misspeak, which, as others have pointed out suggests she is not only inauthentic but most importantly, not the one in charge