Have you noticed how often the disembodied “we” word is used to justify policy action in government today?

A stray document that reached our inbox this week may explain why. It is an extract from the Ministry of Truth’s guidance on the correct use of words.

Apparently, successful careers for aspiring public servants and politicians can result from the successful application of just two rules.

RULE 1: Use the “We” word often, but always ambiguously

Ambiguity is everything in government. NEVER specify who “we” are. If no one is excluded, everyone can feel included. That is what we want.

This is a suggested template:

“We all want to see a [heart-warming adjective] New Zealand.”

Adjectives like “cleaner”, “fairer” or “safer” illustrate the genre; “prospering”, less so.

RULE 2: Change the subject of the “we” word at least once per sentence

Rule 2 is easily adopted by adding a clause beginning “we should or must” to the Rule 1 template.  The augmented template might look like this:

Because we all want to see a [less obese] New Zealand, we must [impose a sugar tax].

This formulation scores 8 out of 10. It flatters those in the wanting group to think they are also part of the governing group. Elites will fall for this every time.

By going straight from apparent problem definition to remedy, it looks like policy analysis; and is in fact all the policy analysis that is needed most of the time.

Corollary to Rule 1: Use “we” when you mean “you, not me”

To retain the illusion of empathy and inclusiveness, write: “We are poor savers” or “we have a love affair with housing” when you really mean other New Zealanders. Example:

Because we are poor savers, we must subsidise KiwiSaver.

Good savers can see the con and feel flattered.

A rock star example of how to combine aspiration and ambiguity

The guidance reserves its highest score, 9/10, for this example of the genre:

“We are going to clean up our rivers”, said the Prime Minister.

Study the technique. The aspiration exudes passion and conviction. She cares. She is also safe. She is safe if her group, (the government?), does not own any rivers. She is safe if it does since there is no timeframe. Sheer brilliance.

Perhaps some readers have received other extracts they can share?