I’ve spent a good portion of life in the political world, so I am familiar with how words are used in politics and, if the public isn’t adroit in understanding how terms are used to manipulate the truth, they risk being hoodwinked.
Some words have been twisted beyond reason and only bear a faint resemblance to their original meaning when applied to this or that issue. Others are misappropriated in describing policies or advancing political agendas. In time, the repeated misuse of the word eventually results in a new understanding of its meaning. When certain words are abused in this way, the abuser is able to subtly shape how people think about things in ways that are helpful to political designs. Soon the alternative—and distorted—meaning becomes enshrined in the popular lexicon. And, like slowly boiling a frog so that it doesn’t realize its approaching demise, the misuse of words gradually changes the public’s understanding. The result? A dead frog.
Words are powerful in language. Alexander the Great knew this. He appreciated the transformative power of language. Because if you change the words people use, you can change their worldview. That’s why he compelled those he conquered to study Greek, adapt Hellenistic educational techniques and philosophy, and even accept Greek deities. Language—words—shape, mold, and define our culture where hate can be redefined to mean love, violence can be recast as peace, and traditional norms altered to mean suppression.
Let’s take a look at just four words abused by politicians.
Investment: Politicians frequently use the word “investment” when describing what is actually “spending” the people’s money on the priorities politicians set. Nowhere in the Constitution can you find the word investment. But politicians know the word spending is not as palatable to the general public, sitting at their kitchen table struggling to pay bills, as the agreeable word “investment.” That’s something families would love to do, but many can’t while living a hand-to-mouth existence. Politicians are deceiving people when they speak of investment, because to invest is to expect a gain, and while education funding, for example, is a gaining proposition for the country, not all government spending yields a return on investment. You need look no further than the $23 trillion spent on “The War on Poverty” that has produced a dependency culture in America.
Cuts: Only in an alternative universe could an “increase” in spending be called a “cut.” Yet that is precisely the term used in government parlance when one party proposes $600 billion on a program, the other $400 billion, and the latter is accused of a $200 billion cut when in fact nothing has been appropriated in the first place. This sort of word manipulation encourages more profligate spending as politicians equate the amount of money spent to the value it produces, absent the slightest consideration for the burgeoning debt dumped on us and our progeny.
Fairness: You won’t find this word in the Constitution either, but it frequently resides on the lips of politicians who—having advanced invalid arguments and facts to justify more spending—resort to fairness as the justification. Their vacuous minds depend on emotional appeals to justify that which should be a factual argument to spend our money. In turn, your money becomes a ping pong ball in a game of endless spending to achieve what is “fair.” That’s unfair.
Rights: Politicians torture this word by applying it to a host of things that may not be an actual codified “right.” I am reminded of James Madison’s view on the nature of a right in Federalist 43.
“But a right implies a remedy; and where else could the remedy be deposited, than where it is deposited by the Constitution?”
Yet politicians go well beyond the Constitution and statute laws to define what is a right, preferring to embrace what could be described as a good as an enumerated right. It’s good to be married. But you do not have a right to be married. Why? Because marriage is a contract that requires the consent of two people and you can’t marry the love of your life until both parties contractually agree. Moreover confusing what is a codified right with what is right action has vexed big government and big-hearted thinkers, who see the government’s role as the great provider of things as opposed to a great protector of liberty. Expanding the role of government to meet our every necessity or desire makes a mockery of the idea of limited government.
So what are we do about word usage in politics? We should insist on a higher standard for language clarity than the one used by the puppeteers among us. We might want to begin by substituting the frog for a manipulative politician or social activist. Then turn up the heat.
PS: If you haven’t seen the recent Webinar I did with the Association of the US Army on my book, I’m sure you will like it! Also, if you would like me to do a book presentation and signing in the future, please go to my Copy Book Warrior Contact tab and send me a message so we can begin a discussion.
Categories: CBW
0 Comments