The distortions in language and democracy are not 'inherent' in language or democracy.

Language cannot function without generalities and specifics. It's within the nature of language to be able to refer to the 'specifics' of experience as well as to the huge, generalities of experience. In the 'politics' of democracy, this fact reduces to 'talking democracy' on very high levels of abstraction and sometimes, unfortunately, never reducing general principles 'down' to 'specific', 'real' facts. Law, policy, and 'social' programs are defined and established on very high levels of abstraction, because they apply to the Many individuals at the Bottom. Of course, they have to be reduced to specific, qualified cases of application, to be rendered efficient. This necessity calls for establishing 'byways', methods, and a 'structural relation' down the 'real' relation that connects the Top to the Bottom of government. Otherwise, we are stuck with the 'talk' of democracy and never get down to the 'walk' of democracy. Hence, the 'distortions' that arise in some political discourse are not necessarily inherent in language nor in democracy. Truly, many of the distortions inhere in the human condition of some politicians. Government is an absolute necessity; the use of language is also and absolute necessity; but the distorted, ambiguous, ranting's of some politicians is not necessary. To be sure, with some politicians, the distortions are intentional, but fortunately, not all human conditions are motivated by the same moral values. The substitution of economic values in lieu of democratic values in the 'governing process' is the most 'demoralizing' move that can be imposed on the human condition. We are all in a 'human condition' and we all need government, but, I assume, some of us don't have to be 'greedy for money or political power'. God help the 'conditions of togetherness'. Where are the Statesmen?