Political language is general, nebulous, and very unreliable. Of course, that's the case with language in general. All language is abstract, both the general terms as well as the specific terms. Each 'language discipline' has its own paradigm. If you want to do "science", you have to stay within the scientific paradigm, otherwise you are not doing science. However, politics does not have a paradigm. It is a special case of generality, confusion and unreliability. The reason being that government and hence politics deals with that ancient problematic called the 'One and the Many'. The relation between the One and the Many is a governmental or political relation. All government is about governing or ruling and all governing is about One or a few governing the Many or the People. The Top of any government must allude to the Bottom( the people)in a general way because there are many people at the bottom and the Many are those being governed. When 'governing', the Top must govern all the people. Of course, there are many different types of government, but democracy presents a novel language problem. The problematic is precisely that of 'abstract language' and generality. Of course, language should not be a problem in government, but because it purports to govern the relation between the One and the Many, it becomes problematic. The government relation is a problematic relation. Can that issue be remedied? I think it can, but it requires that we look at the relation in a fresh way. The Top of any government must relate to the Bottom in a realistic manner. In an Autocracy or Dictatorship, that's not a problem. What the Top says is what must be done. In a democracy, the Top must carefully categorize the individuals referenced in policy or law so as to include or exclude those referenced. In a general reference like "all people are Free and Equal", the term "all" must be 'real'. No reduction of the term must take place. "All" means all human beings. No 'reduction' to male, female, lesbian, gay, black, white, brown, red, homeless, etc.. unless the policy or law properly applies to a certain part of the population, e.g. employees, drivers, etc.. Categorizing is quantitative and quantity deals with numbers, not abstractions. Human beings within categories can be counted. Democracy is an equation and in an equation all numbers must be considered. If not, its not democracy.