At best... at worst...
There's a wonderful pair of two-word phrases that the English language offers for the display of approval or scorn for an idea: they are "at worst" and "at best". Each of these phrases has a great deal of argumentative power.

For example, imagine you're listening to a politician describe a policy, and then have to evaluate that policy for a third party. If you're in agreement, the phrase "at worst" is great: it allows you to say that, even if the proponent of the policy is over-optimistic, the overwhelming likelihood is that things will still be OK. Conversely, the phrase "at best" might be deployed if you think the idea is awful; you might want to say that the best possible outcome of the policy is that it'll make the world only slightly worse - the clear unspoken implication being that, however you cut the pie, the idea is a bad one.

It's a lovely little rhetorical device.

So why is it, then, that for the last ten years or so, it's seemed impossible for any commentator to avoid using "at best" and "at worst"? This is a crime against language, and it is so for several reasons.

The first reason is that it's utterly po-faced. The whole point of the two word formulation is that it's suggestive; it doesn't spell things out, but trusts the listener to draw their own conclusions. There's no joy in the formulation. it also indicates a love of language and the use of language. That's utterly eliminated by the four-word version.

The second is that the four-word version treats the listener as an utter imbecile, as though he will be utterly incapable of following any line of argument that is allusive.

Third, it's cowardly, indicating as it does that the speaker not only doesn't trust the listener to follow a trail of implication, but also is terrified that any such failure by the listener, or any misinterpretation by the listener, will be visited on the speaker.

Fourth, it's always, always, always false. The joy of the two-word version is that it's open-ended and never more than suggestive. When you say that x will, at best, cause y, what you clearly mean is that you think something worse than y will happen, and want to leave that thought lingering. By contrast, to conjoin the "at best" and "at worst" phrases indicates a literalism that's idotic because it's always misguided: after all, for any idea, the best that could happen is not a minor diminution of happiness, but the elimination of all misery; and the worst is not the loss of a small marginal opportunity for happiness, but the elimination of all happiness whatsoever. So why, then, circumscribe the rhetoric, when in doing so you commit yourself to talking nonsense? Is a plain falsehood really preferable to allusiveness? And then, if you decide that there's something to be said for rhetoric - and there is, as long as it's not empty rhetoric - why not embrace it fully, and accept that just one of those two-word phrases is enough?

Anyone who uses the phrases "at best" and "at worst" in the same sentence is a dullard, and should expect - at best - to be ignored.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 10:14, 4 replies)

I agree with your eloquent rant, in principle.
But I've never been aware of hearing anyone use both phrases in the same sentence.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 11:00, closed)

...
It's one of those phenomena whereby, once you're alerted to it, you notice it all over the place. Journalists, politicians, and political journalists seem to be the worst offenders, but I've seen it elsewhere too.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 11:11, closed)

Same here
Your point is exquisitely argued, but I can't imagine the conflated usage you're railing against. Could you give us an example?
( Scrumper, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 12:35, closed)

I found a horrid example yesterday...
... but I left the book in which it appears at home. I'll post it here later.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 14 Apr 2010, 13:04, closed)