John thinks that language is supposed to be used to clearly express beliefs, but political language doesn't just express beliefs. It mobilizes and inspires. Why can't politicians use clear, literal language? Is metaphorical language misleading? Are the politicians solely to blame? What about the reporters who write and print that stuff? Ken introduces Geoffrey Nunberg, linguist and contributor to Fresh Air on NPR. The term 'values', in the plural, comes from philosophy, from Georg Zimmel. It entered the American political scene in the 70s, mixing the notions of social mores and moral principles. It has a very specific sense in politics. Nunberg suggests that the conservatives have a hold on the term 'values'. Nunberg says that the word 'liberal' has similarly attained a very specific meaning.

政治语言的泛滥是近期的现象吗?奥威尔认为，政治语言有助于避免关于这些问题的激烈争论。农伯格认为，在我们的政治体系中，一定程度的编造或诬陷是不可避免的。约翰问记者是否应该成为政治语言的反叛者。框架是通过使用特定词汇(如“折磨”和“死亡税”)而引入的一系列对比和概念。农伯格认为，没有一种语言形式对世界具有价值中立的态度。Walter Lippmann认为，在多元社会中，只有使用只有情感意义、没有认知意义的符号，才能达成共识。

John points out that many descriptions can be applied to a single thing. Is there ever a point when labels become illegitimate? Is one side worse than the other? John says that Kerry's acceptance speech for the presidential nomination was just as bad as any conservative speech. Shouldn't part of the blame fall on the voters for allowing politicians to use this language? It seems that the politicians, journalists, and the voters are all to blame in part.