The “World War Eleven” incident is now famous on Fox News, invisible on the New York Times. Evidence of astonishing stupidity? Or a harmless verbal stumble inflated by fascists.
Beyond the matter of Ilhan Omar’s aptitude, it raises a structural issue. What competencies should a representative have just to function as a representative?
In a republic, especially one with public hearings, media immersion and symbolic gestures, representatives are usually expected to embody a certain minimum civic literacy. Not expertise, but enough historical and cultural wits to communicate competently with constituents.
The Second World War is one of the organizing events of modern political consciousness. The UN, NATO, the Cold War, Europe’s borders, the American federal state, and noise about fascism and democracy all orbit around it. If someone genuinely doesn’t know there was no “World War Eleven,” you might naturally wonder where the floor is. It is less the mistake itself than the uncertainty it introduces.
One tradition says representatives should be broadly educated, rhetorically skilled, historically informed, capable of judgment beyond “light and transient causes” as the founders called them. That’s the old republican ideal. Think James Madison. The risk of minimum standards is oligarchy. Once you impose competency filters, who designs the test? Jim Crow era literacy tests famously became tools for exclusion, with test questions like: “In the space below, draw three circles, one inside (engulfed by) the other.”
I love that question because it is a philosophy of language seminar. Ludwig Wittgenstein would enjoy it. Meaning depends on use, shared practice, and cooperative context. Remove the cooperative context and language becomes radically unstable.
Case in point, the phrasing “one inside the other” becomes contradictory when applied to three circles collectively. “The other” grammatically implies a pairwise relationship, not a three-level nesting. Meanwhile “engulfed by” suggests total enclosure, yet only one circle can directly engulf another in a simple nested structure.
With three circles, “one inside the other” breaks down. The construction presupposes a binary relation. English idiomatically uses “the other” when exactly two relevant objects are in play. Once there are three, the grammar can no longer specify an arrangement. And, even if you judge it to mean concentric, you’d need the outer circle be inside the inner, as a literal reading would require. Non-Euclidean space?
A literal-minded reader, especially one primed to interpret carefully, reasonably concludes the instruction is malformed. It generates referential nonsense. Which circle is “the one”?
Other questions on the test are clearly designed to be obtuse. “In the first circle below write the last letter of the first word beginning with ‘L’.” What? It reveals the enormous gap between practical language use and formal precision. Interestingly, it flunks the ignorant and logicians alike.
I digressed, but I’ll return to philosophy of language in a moment.
The competing democratic ideal – competing with the republican belief that voters should be literate and their representative more so – says representatives should resemble the people, including their imperfections. Technocrats cease to represent ordinary citizens. Credentialed elites speak eloquently while understanding little.
Still, there’s a distinction between being non-elite and being uninformed. Few American warehouse workers think there was a World War Eleven. In ancient Rome, someone publicly fumbling a basic historical reference would have been seen even by illiterates as a fool diminishing the dignity of office.
If you ignore, for the moment, that matter of what should be required legally, there’s the question of what it takes to actually do the representing – to represent a constituency effectively. Representation requires some degree of shared cultural vocabulary. If representatives no longer possess historical references assumed by the public, communication between government and governed is impossible – in the Wittgenstein philosophy of language sense.
So the incident may matter less as evidence that Omar is stupid and more as a symptom of uncertainty about what democratic competence means today. We no longer agree on the minimum cultural equipment expected of public officials, or even whether such expectations are legitimate. Does the community Omar represents know about WW II?
If you’re a CNN libtard, you probably don’t even know about Omar’s WW Eleven utterance. If you’re a Fox fascist, you probably don’t know that she immediately corrected herself:
“The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, it was used to detain and deport German, Japanese, Italian immigrants during World War Eleven. Oh, Two. Sorry.”
If you’re interested in language and semantics, you might still wonder how she could make that goof, even if reading from a prompter, even if she immediately corrected it. Reference to Alien Enemies Act and deportation shows familiarity with the subject matter. Knowing that Italians were also deported exceeds median citizen knowledge. Then WW Eleven. Is the author of the words the same person who performed them? Could someone write out her thoughts about WW II and then have a memory lapse deep enough to read the words as if a stranger wrote them? Could a politician fail to review their speech-writer’s work before delivering it? Does “Sorry” acknowledge a reading error? Or that she “misspoke,” as Newsweek reported it, blaming The AP Style Guide preference for Roman numerals, “which could easily be misread as an 11,” Yahoo says.
“Misreading her notes”? Misreading the Roman numeral “II” as “11” in the context of World War seems roughly as plausible as misreading a stop sign to say “Spot” after having grown up in America. We dyslexic types might misread the letters s-t-o-p, but not on a red octagon. Could someone read aloud so mechanically, so disconnected from meaning, that the act of converting text to speech could block out a commonplace phrase? It’s not a phonological substitution, not a case of semantic familiarity without lexical capacity. No, it’s a visual parsing error that was not caught and prevented by fluency with the subject matter.
France, Italy, the Netherlands and Canada require applicants for citizenship to demonstrate knowledge of national history. No one regards such requirements as equivalent to Jim Crow. Requiring officeholders to meet minimal common-culture standards is hard to dismiss as an unfair standard. Democracy need not require voters to possess deep civic literacy but could plausibly require public officials to possess enough shared knowledge to communicate coherently within the civilization they govern.
The Multidisciplinarian 
Whirled War II and Lexical Parsing Errors
Posted by Bill Storage in Commentary on May 18, 2026
The “World War Eleven” incident is now famous on Fox News, invisible on the New York Times. Evidence of astonishing stupidity? Or a harmless verbal stumble inflated by fascists.
Beyond the matter of Ilhan Omar’s aptitude, it raises a structural issue. What competencies should a representative have just to function as a representative?
In a republic, especially one with public hearings, media immersion and symbolic gestures, representatives are usually expected to embody a certain minimum civic literacy. Not expertise, but enough historical and cultural wits to communicate competently with constituents.
The Second World War is one of the organizing events of modern political consciousness. The UN, NATO, the Cold War, Europe’s borders, the American federal state, and noise about fascism and democracy all orbit around it. If someone genuinely doesn’t know there was no “World War Eleven,” you might naturally wonder where the floor is. It is less the mistake itself than the uncertainty it introduces.
One tradition says representatives should be broadly educated, rhetorically skilled, historically informed, capable of judgment beyond “light and transient causes” as the founders called them. That’s the old republican ideal. Think James Madison. The risk of minimum standards is oligarchy. Once you impose competency filters, who designs the test? Jim Crow era literacy tests famously became tools for exclusion, with test questions like: “In the space below, draw three circles, one inside (engulfed by) the other.”
I love that question because it is a philosophy of language seminar. Ludwig Wittgenstein would enjoy it. Meaning depends on use, shared practice, and cooperative context. Remove the cooperative context and language becomes radically unstable.
Case in point, the phrasing “one inside the other” becomes contradictory when applied to three circles collectively. “The other” grammatically implies a pairwise relationship, not a three-level nesting. Meanwhile “engulfed by” suggests total enclosure, yet only one circle can directly engulf another in a simple nested structure.
With three circles, “one inside the other” breaks down. The construction presupposes a binary relation. English idiomatically uses “the other” when exactly two relevant objects are in play. Once there are three, the grammar can no longer specify an arrangement. And, even if you judge it to mean concentric, you’d need the outer circle be inside the inner, as a literal reading would require. Non-Euclidean space?
A literal-minded reader, especially one primed to interpret carefully, reasonably concludes the instruction is malformed. It generates referential nonsense. Which circle is “the one”?
Other questions on the test are clearly designed to be obtuse. “In the first circle below write the last letter of the first word beginning with ‘L’.” What? It reveals the enormous gap between practical language use and formal precision. Interestingly, it flunks the ignorant and logicians alike.
I digressed, but I’ll return to philosophy of language in a moment.
The competing democratic ideal – competing with the republican belief that voters should be literate and their representative more so – says representatives should resemble the people, including their imperfections. Technocrats cease to represent ordinary citizens. Credentialed elites speak eloquently while understanding little.
Still, there’s a distinction between being non-elite and being uninformed. Few American warehouse workers think there was a World War Eleven. In ancient Rome, someone publicly fumbling a basic historical reference would have been seen even by illiterates as a fool diminishing the dignity of office.
If you ignore, for the moment, that matter of what should be required legally, there’s the question of what it takes to actually do the representing – to represent a constituency effectively. Representation requires some degree of shared cultural vocabulary. If representatives no longer possess historical references assumed by the public, communication between government and governed is impossible – in the Wittgenstein philosophy of language sense.
So the incident may matter less as evidence that Omar is stupid and more as a symptom of uncertainty about what democratic competence means today. We no longer agree on the minimum cultural equipment expected of public officials, or even whether such expectations are legitimate. Does the community Omar represents know about WW II?
If you’re a CNN libtard, you probably don’t even know about Omar’s WW Eleven utterance. If you’re a Fox fascist, you probably don’t know that she immediately corrected herself:
“The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked, it was used to detain and deport German, Japanese, Italian immigrants during World War Eleven. Oh, Two. Sorry.”
If you’re interested in language and semantics, you might still wonder how she could make that goof, even if reading from a prompter, even if she immediately corrected it. Reference to Alien Enemies Act and deportation shows familiarity with the subject matter. Knowing that Italians were also deported exceeds median citizen knowledge. Then WW Eleven. Is the author of the words the same person who performed them? Could someone write out her thoughts about WW II and then have a memory lapse deep enough to read the words as if a stranger wrote them? Could a politician fail to review their speech-writer’s work before delivering it? Does “Sorry” acknowledge a reading error? Or that she “misspoke,” as Newsweek reported it, blaming The AP Style Guide preference for Roman numerals, “which could easily be misread as an 11,” Yahoo says.
“Misreading her notes”? Misreading the Roman numeral “II” as “11” in the context of World War seems roughly as plausible as misreading a stop sign to say “Spot” after having grown up in America. We dyslexic types might misread the letters s-t-o-p, but not on a red octagon. Could someone read aloud so mechanically, so disconnected from meaning, that the act of converting text to speech could block out a commonplace phrase? It’s not a phonological substitution, not a case of semantic familiarity without lexical capacity. No, it’s a visual parsing error that was not caught and prevented by fluency with the subject matter.
France, Italy, the Netherlands and Canada require applicants for citizenship to demonstrate knowledge of national history. No one regards such requirements as equivalent to Jim Crow. Requiring officeholders to meet minimal common-culture standards is hard to dismiss as an unfair standard. Democracy need not require voters to possess deep civic literacy but could plausibly require public officials to possess enough shared knowledge to communicate coherently within the civilization they govern.
government, politics, representation
1 Comment