A Political Conversation

Of late, a term has come into use that is irritating in the extreme, or at least irritating to me.

Herewith my gripe.

From time to time (actually not often enough) politicians are confronted with the results of a bad decision, or were queried on why nothing has been done to resolve a long-standing issue. In the past, you always had a chance of obtaining an answer or being presented with a possible course of action.

Not so today. Now we get a response that the politician is engaging in a "conversation" about the issue, or intends to have such a "conversation" on the topic. With whom that "conversation is" to be held is vague, but in the mind of the politician, the response appears serious and action-oriented, and they to a man (or woman) are ecstatic about stumbling upon such a weasel word.

To my way of thinking, based on Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, this response is both misleading and immoral. Misleading because it suggests indefinite future action , and immoral because it takes an honest request for information and betrays that request.
 
After all, what really is a conversation? At its simplest, it is an exchange of views on a topic. For our purposes it matters not a whit what that topic is, be it on mosaic tiles, sycamore trees, rogue seals or whatever. The heart of the matter is the exchange of information.

What, pray tell, is being exchanged when a politician responds to a request or clarification on an issue, and offers the reply that "We are shortly going to have a conversation about that."

What on earth does that mean? I certainly do not know, but I am certain that  a specific answer to the query or clarification request is highly unlikely to emerge from "the conversation".

Aristotle, who held politicians in high regard, would be appalled.

Time, then, for readers to engage in their own conversations on this issue.