What’s your point? “E
Recent U.S. presidential administrations are cultivating quite the reputation for scandal, with Donald Trump’s perceived conflicts of interest, Barack Obama’s seemingly unbounded surveillance program or George W. Bush’s controversial justification for invading Iraq. Corporate scandals, meanwhile — think a United Airlines passenger being assaulted, exploding Samsung telephones or Bernie Madoff — can arouse similar, or sometimes even greater, public outrage. Yet between a typical political scandal and a garden-variety corporate one, the latter is generally the lesser of two evils.
Many frustrated U.S. citizens feel unable to hold the politicians responsible for government scandals accountable. Voting them out of office is an incredibly coarse — and mild — punishment mechanism, while the congressional committees convened to investigate misdemeanors have devolved into teams of partisan finger waggers. Not to be outdone, corporate America has excelled in inexcusable acts of immorality. British Petroleum’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Enron’s fraudulent accounting and the credit rating agencies’ manipulation of credit assessments prior to 2008 all demonstrate human fallibility and the inadequacy of the systems meant to prevent such missteps. Assuming we don’t want to expend every ounce of our mental energy being angry at so many deserving targets, how do we prioritize? Two key differences suggest, given the choice, we should probably focus on the politicians:
First, in the private sector, when most organizations become embroiled in a scandal, we consumers can take our business to a competitor. If you were among those outraged by Volkswagen fraudulently manipulating its emissions reporting, you can effortlessly boycott the German vehicle manufacturer in favor any one of the dozens of competing manufacturers. Second, on the rare occasion when the scandalous company is a monopoly — and no competitor can service our demand — we usually retain the option of simply opting out. If you are disgusted by how the NFL handles domestic violence issues, or by the corruption in soccer’s governing body, FIFA, you may be frustrated by the fact that there is no comparable replacement on the market. However, you don’t have to support either one. In contrast, for many government services such as law enforcement, there is no real alternative. Even when there is a viable commercial competitor, such as in education, you cannot get your money back when you decline the government option.
In principle, eliminating competition and choice should result in poorer performance, including unsatisfactory responses to scandals when they erupt. Corporate America’s cold-hearted pursuit of profits in a competitive marketplace means that they genuinely want to avoid scandals in the first place. If one does arise, it’s in their best interests to deal with it in a manner that satisfies consumers. Those that fail to heed the warnings suffer serious commercial consequences. We remember the anger Enron generated, but it’s easier to forget that the company’s abhorrent practices led to its bankruptcy. Privacy concerns illustrate the difference between corporate and government responses to accusations of unethical conduct. Facebook and Google have been severely criticized for opaque data policies, including accusations of invasions of privacy. Both responded and now provide far superior levels of transparency. The threat of either internet goliath losing customers to Microsoft or Snapchat has made them take the criticism seriously, rather than arrogantly dismissing it. They are likely to take consumers’ remaining concerns seriously as well.
And what about the government’s response to accusations of invading citizens’ privacy with excessive surveillance? What evidence of reform by the organizations accused of acting improperly have we seen? The federal response to National Security Agency revelations has been geared more toward preventing future leaks than reassessing whether they are overstepping boundaries. Admittedly, it’s difficult to conceive of a decentralized, competition-based alternative to the current systems of national defense and security, unlike the social media services that Facebook, Google and others provide. Instead, the public must be vocal as a watchdog and demand internal reform when necessary.
This is the price of public schools and universities, transportation, clinics, and all of the services for which we voluntarily cede the benefits of competition in the marketplace. Minimizing scandals, and ensuring a satisfactory response to those that do occur, cannot happen unless we provide a viable replacement for profit and loss in a competitive environment. As Americans grow increasingly disenchanted with the political process, the importance of public engagement in it is at an all-time high. And perhaps taking some of the power out of the hands of policymakers can be more effective than simply waiting until the next election. xclamation marks are a tool of the devil.”
This is the message I received from our esteemed editor, Mike Colombo, after submitting my last column. I couldn’t believe it! Exclamation points are my favorite way to express my enthusiasm. They are the tool by which I let people know that I really, really mean what I am saying. How could he say that?!?
With the same intensity that I pour into expression, I went about researching to prove him wrong. I first wanted to understand the origins of the mark. The most common theory is that it is derived from the Latin exclamation of joy, The exclamation mark first showed up in English printing in the 15th century and was deemed a “sign of admiration” in 1610, becoming a “sign of exclamation” in 1650.
In a 2012 Smithsonian.com article by Rose Eveleth, I was surprised to learn that there are actually a few towns that include exclamation marks in their names:
Westward Ho!, a town in England, is named after the Charles Kingsley novel.
Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha! is a real town in Quebec. (Yes, it uses Ha! twice.)
Hamilton, Ohio, changed its name to Hamilton! in 1986.
Would we be more inclined to battle the traffic if we were headed to Atlanta! instead of just plain old Atlanta? (Note to self: pitch new marketing plan to distract visitors from the highway heresy that is currently dominating the media.)
Ok, maybe not, but what an interesting idea to infuse enthusiasm into your town’s image!
Writer Bill Bryson once made the excellent observation that “Duck.” and “Duck!” have two very different connotations. If commas matter in how we understand a sentence, so do exclamation points.
F. Scott Fitzgerald, however, agreed with Colombo’s disregard for enthusiastic communication. “Cut out all exclamation marks,” he wrote, “An exclamation mark is like laughing at your own jokes.” But, I have to ask, is this really bad? How many times have you told a joke and stood stone-faced while your friends laughed heartily? How awkward would that be?!?
Philip Cowell wrote an interesting piece for the BBC that is worth finding on the internet. He pointed out that studies show that women are more likely to use exclamation points in their correspondence; not because we are more emotional, but because we are more prone to expressing admiration. I am pretty satisfied with that perspective. Who wouldn’t appreciate being known to admire?
But, Cowell also describes an interesting comparison from recent events. Hillary Clinton has often been criticized for not being feminine enough. Many women are all too familiar with this conundrum. Too feminine spells incapable, not feminine enough spells cold. It is a fine line to balance.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is known for an excessive use of exclamation points.
In 2016 @realDonaldTrump apparently posted 2,251 tweets with exclamation points in them. Could it be that our current social media culture rewards exuberant expression? Could it be that this maligned punctuation may have actually factored into the outcome of the election? But, how often is Trump using the mark in exclamation of fear or disdain rather than admiration; i.e. — in an aggressive manner? And herein lies a sticking point for me. A 2013 study in China looked at hundreds of thousands of social media posts and found that people are far more likely to echo and share angry posts than those that express joy, sadness or disgust. I can’t begin to count the number of times I have seen people railing against each other on social media, exclamation marks and all caps flying across the screen. Elias Aboujaoude argues in his book “Virtually You” that the internet is bringing out the worst in us. I must admit, I have been known to feel that pit of the stomach rage myself. I have not always succeeded in refraining from expressing those thoughts, and there are usually exclamation points involved. I have, however, always regretted giving in to my most devilish inclinations.
In that regard, exclamation points truly are the devil’s work. It is interesting and sad to note how much kinder we are to each other when discussing hard topics in person. It is much easier to call someone stupid (!!!) when you are looking at a screen instead of a face. This penchant to throw out insult and injury is a definite drawback to our more frequent online dialogue.
So, where does that leave my beloved exclamation mark? I think I will try using fewer of them and, just as we ask of toddlers with tantrums, will try to use my words to better express my meaning from now on. But, I will be using an exclamation point or two when I wish Mike Colombo a happy birthday on Facebook. Sometimes you simply have to exclaim! MONICA SHEPPARD Jim Powell of Young Harris