The Guardian looks across the pond and finds the Colonies' State of the Union addresses getting "dumber":
Those bubbles show the relative word counts of each State of the Union address (which before FDR was called the President's Annual Message to Congress). We see notably larger word counts for most of the 1800s and early 1900s, largely because Presidents from Jefferson through Taft submitted written reports instead of marching up Pennsylvania Avenue to give Congress what-for in person. Compare the big 20th-century outlier, Jimmy Carter's last State of the Union address, a written report of 33,287 words, the longest such Presidential message.
The Guardian writers derive their "dumber" accusation from the other key data represented in this graph, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of each State of the Union address. The last two centuries show a distinct downward trend in grade level, from James Madison's 21.6 (which suggests even a post-doc would struggle to have grasped what this Founding Father was getting at) to Barack Obama's current average of 9.2 (which means all of my high school students should be able to follow along). Only George Bush the Elder scores lower, at 8.6. George W. Bush, whose intellect we often assail, beat his dad, Obama, Clinton, and LBJ with a 10.0.
This quantitative analysis of one set of specific and arguably useless Presidential messages does not suggest that either our Presidents or the electorate are getting dumber. The fact that Kristi Noem's entries in the Congressional Record have a higher Flesch-Kincaid grade level than Al Franken's proves that Flesch-Kincaid does not measure intellectual capacity. Flesch-Kincaid measures syllables per word and words per sentence. A two-century trend of shorter words and sentences may represent a more inclusive, democratic mindset, with Presidents increasingly aiming their words not just at Washington elites but at the general public.
Flesch-Kincaid grade level for this blog post: 9.53. That puts me between Obama's 9.2 and Bill Clinton's 9.8... still among the top five easiest-reading Presidents.
The Flesh-Kincaid scoring method seems pretty arbitrary and silly. So if the trend in English is to use shorter words of Germanic origin, rather than longer Latinate ones, that means that it's "dumber," not just a different, more direct writing style? I suspect Ernest Hemingway would be rated as pretty "dumb" on their scale, too, compared to a florid 19th-century potboiler romance, but would that really be accurate?
Hopefully just more Democratic. Else, the inference can be made that Shakespeare was really not that great and that the rhetorical question ... "What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet?" could seriously be put into question (There you go Brits!).
I did find it interesting that the median average of all of the Presidential addresses placed some of our weaker Presidents at the the higher end of this linguistic standard. Maybe we are all just too dumb to truly appreciate them, but we don't know it?
Interesting choice of text for comparison, Winston! The rose line comes from Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2. Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 5.43.
Cory, maybe Noem could be a writer.
Someone on her staff could be a writer. Not Noem. I've listened to her in public appearances. She's not that good with language.
While not a big fan of the Flesch-Kincaid, it's notable on the listing in Wikipedia that, "Such readability tests suggest that many Wikipedia articles may be "too sophisticated" for their readers."
And since by another measure about 23% of the US is illiterate, or functionally so - the gathering evidence from the nations' founders to the present time is that we are in the firm grip of manifesting, Idiocracy.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ejZtNlCyEJM/UR00BFuwjFI/AAAAAAAAIeU/6K_cccg5fFU/s1600/Thank+you+Jimmuh!.jpg
Lots of info on that graphic, John! But I notice toward the bottom that the least literate folks also tend to vote less frequently than the most literate folks. Would that undermine the claim that idiots run the show?
I have doubts about all these ratings based on words or kinds of words. Simple words can be put together in ways so obtuse and complex they make little sense. Science and math writing can fit these categories all to easily.
On the other hand, preachers can use the most easily understood speech in the western hemisphere and also be presenting mythology that would otherwise be considered a sign of insanity.
I don't care for Obama's speaking style. He often uses 20 words to say something possible in 8 or 10 words. He inserts fluff and stylish pc language that adds nothing to information. When he gets done, it is very difficult to remember anything he ever says. He should look at his talk as needing more laundry list approaches. 1.We know this. 2. We need to do this. 3. We must do this because, etc.
I won't dispute that Flesch-Kincaid and any other quantitative scale misses all sorts of obvious semantic and syntactic impact a good writer/orator can make with well-chosen words and well-crafted sentences.