In Death Sentence Don Watson gives a good description of the way that language is used within the friend/enemy political machinery of parliamentary politics. He writes:
"In the diabolical environment of politics, unreasoning forces forces throw up unreasoning things like red herrings and dead cats and fling them in the path of journalists. Politicians come forth willing to say anything, and without regard to ordinary civility. Their opponents are rank hypocrites, they say: they've heinous secret plans that all the outward signs disguise. And often it emerges that these outrageous accusations have some truth about them, because politics does throw up hypocrites and liars. In keeping with the evolution of such political animals, among journalists horrible cynics emerge. "
It looks so different watching it at the other end of the camera. It turns you off. If you listen to several hours of this on the computer you realize that most of them are parroting the party line to score petty political points. You know they have nothing to say when they suddenly puff themselves up, become all impassioned and go about how evil the other side is and wonderful their side is.
There is no policy making being done here.
So what are the consequences of this use of language by instrumental reason? Watson gives a good account. He says:
"For the [public] language the consequences are terrible: catchalls, cliches, and nauseating platitudes are all rolled out. Syntax is mangled. Reason goes up in smoke. The truth is less significant than the political contest. The question is not, Which is the better argument? It is Who won? Or What was the outcome? Along with reason and enlightenment language goes out the window."