SO, HOW'S YOUR GRAVITAS, WHAT'S YOUR NARRATIVE: ARE YOU GOING FORWARD, OR WHAT . . . ?

   

                                            DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER the word "gravitas" and its exhaustive political use a few years back? Yes? No? Well, how about the word "narrative," also widely employed a couple of years ago in a political sense, and still hanging in there to quite a degree? Surely it rings a bell.
      Perhaps it's impossible to pinpoint exactly who first employed those words in the political events of yesteryear. But, originally, they somehow became vogue words in the U.S., particularly among hosts and panelists on public affairs TV shows, as well as among political observers in newspapers and magazines.
      And since American political terminology has a tendency to sneak across the border and somehow filter into the minds of our own Canadian commentators and politicians, both "gravitas" and "narrative" did indeed make that trip.
      You could scarcely turn on any one of those programs without hearing an "analyst" or commentator say something like, "Well, (candidate) Jones seems to be a nice fellow, but he just lacks gravitas, and that will be a big drawback for him with voters."
                                                                 
                                                                  ------

                                           ALSO, WHEN IT CAME TO TALKING about political campaigns, their issues and controversies, and the prospects for the contending parties and candidates, the viewer and reader would come across such phrases as "the narrative has taken an unexpected turn" for X or Z party or candidate.
      My impression is that "gravitas" (very much a pomposity word) did not last long in Canada. I think this was because most people were suspicious of it, its meaning not being terribly clear, politically speaking. Readers and viewers would note that it was usually meant in a negative way -- "he lacks gravitas" -- since they would never hear any commentator or politician use it in positive verbal formations, such as "say, that candidate has a lot of gravitas."
      The voting public would, I think, prefer clearer terms like, "that candidate is a lightweight" (or heavyweight).
                                                                 ------
     
                                          AS FAR AS "NARRATIVE" is concerned, my view is that the word is pretentious when used by reporters or commentators to cover the way a political event or situation is developing: the clearer word in its place is the plain and basic "story." But then, maybe I'm old-fashioned and too appreciative of the ancient City Desk admonition to "keep it simple, stupid."
      By the way, I have consulted a number of word sources and am able to inform the reader that "gravitas" is from the latin, and comes to us through Spanish. It apparently is applicable to people of high seriousness, or those who show authority and expertise, and have intellectual weightiness.
      Does anybody know of, do I know of, a politician today of such description? Hmmm . . . let me think . . . Uh, well, it's a subject that might need further consideration and contemplation . . . will get back to you . . .

                                                                ------

                                          AND FINALLY, let me deal with one of the worst phrase forms ever dreamed up by the twisted and fevered minds of word-disadvantaged business people, political people and, yes, even of a few (quite a few) media people.
      Its use must occur millions of times daily among the English-speaking peoples of the world, in both oral and printed ways -- and it's use should be banned, outlawed, condemned, eliminated, scourged, blown up (you name it); anything to get rid of it.
      The term of which I speak is going forward. Let me repeat that so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding. We must destroy GOING FORWARD.  We must kill Going Forward. We must devise jail terms and worse as penalties to be meted out to those public figures and writers and scribblers who continue to use the term "going forward." Because what's usually in the minds of those who use it is a great deal of directional confusion.  And it doesn't mean a damn thing, anyway.
      So, in the interests of promoting (in my own small way), intellectual clarity in public discourse, I hereby offer myself as a Charter Volunteer and Supporter of any organization that might bear a name like "The Holy Crusade to Condemn To Everlasting Hell And Perdition The Term  'Going Forward'  (or, THCTCTEHAPTTGF)."

                                                 _________________________