> People spoke in a particular way, say 60 years ago, that left very little room for interpretation of what they meant. The same cannot be said today.

Surely you don’t mean everyone in the 1960s spoke directly, free of metaphor or euphemism or nuance or doublespeak or dog whistle or any other kind or ambiguity? Then why are there people who dedicate their entire life to interpreting religious texts and the Constitution?