Some Words Creep Into Politics, Lose Meanings
Roy Maynard
I remember the first time my dad caught me cussing. The rebuke wasn't what I expected. No soap ingestion, no fire and brimstone; he didn't even tell my mom. He just took issue with using those words because they're poor carriers of information.
"It's sloppy," he said of cussing. "The words don't mean anything anymore. They don't communicate anything."
He was right. And the same thing happens in politics. Words lose their meanings, or meanings change and the words become poor carriers of information. Politicians learn to hide behind them.
It's been years since the word "liberal" lost its legacy, for example.
It used to be a proud word, meaning in its Latin root "freeing." A liberal arts education, we once believed, was the education proper for a free person. It was the best way to prevent tyrannies, because it taught history, critical thinking and effective communication - three things fatal to a despotic government.
Little by little, the word liberal crept into politics. Liberalism, with its focus on equality, made the first stand against the divine right of kings; its broad umbrella contained the foundational principles for the American republic.
But a split happened; classical liberalism and social liberalism divided over the role of government. Classical liberals favor a "hands off" approach to the economy and other parts of society, while social liberals advocate more government involvement.
That split is behind the unpopularity of the word now. Democrats refuse to run as liberals. And Republicans use the term as an insult (even though they should be proud to wear the label "classical liberal").
Even Sen. Hillary Clinton won't use the word.
"I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th Century," she said in July. "I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life to get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family."
I agree; "progressive" is a much better word, at least for communicating actual ideas.
Another word being tossed about nowadays is "jingoism." Support for the Iraq war, suspicion of Iran and North Korea, and most recently, lingering anger at the Sept. 11 attacks have all been dismissed as jingoism.
Those using the word intend it to mean "mindless patriotism."
It goes back to a British music hall song from the 19th century:
"We don't want to fight, but by Jingo if we do, we've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too."
The song - and the attitude - have been credited with encouraging Britain's entry into the First World War. The slaughter of that conflict debunked the word, and left it without any meaning in the modern world.
Attempting to use the label for 21st century defense policy - in a world with undeniable threats and extensively televised consequences of any of our actions - is ludicrous. No one today sees war as an exciting adventure. We can't. We see the pictures.
A final word, or at least phrase, that is quickly outliving its usefulness is "support the troops." Driving by a peace demonstration last week, and the counter-demonstration it spawned, I saw "Support the Troops" signs in both camps.
Enough said.
I might seem naive in saying this, but I believe the purpose of speech is effective communication. When a word (or phrase) loses its effectiveness, we should stop using it.
Politically, it would go a long way toward clearing the air.
Early Returns is the political observations column of staff writer Roy Maynard, who can be reached at 903-596-6291 or at roymaynardtmt@gmail.com.
"It's sloppy," he said of cussing. "The words don't mean anything anymore. They don't communicate anything."
He was right. And the same thing happens in politics. Words lose their meanings, or meanings change and the words become poor carriers of information. Politicians learn to hide behind them.
It's been years since the word "liberal" lost its legacy, for example.
It used to be a proud word, meaning in its Latin root "freeing." A liberal arts education, we once believed, was the education proper for a free person. It was the best way to prevent tyrannies, because it taught history, critical thinking and effective communication - three things fatal to a despotic government.
Little by little, the word liberal crept into politics. Liberalism, with its focus on equality, made the first stand against the divine right of kings; its broad umbrella contained the foundational principles for the American republic.
But a split happened; classical liberalism and social liberalism divided over the role of government. Classical liberals favor a "hands off" approach to the economy and other parts of society, while social liberals advocate more government involvement.
That split is behind the unpopularity of the word now. Democrats refuse to run as liberals. And Republicans use the term as an insult (even though they should be proud to wear the label "classical liberal").
Even Sen. Hillary Clinton won't use the word.
"I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th Century," she said in July. "I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life to get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family."
I agree; "progressive" is a much better word, at least for communicating actual ideas.
Another word being tossed about nowadays is "jingoism." Support for the Iraq war, suspicion of Iran and North Korea, and most recently, lingering anger at the Sept. 11 attacks have all been dismissed as jingoism.
Those using the word intend it to mean "mindless patriotism."
It goes back to a British music hall song from the 19th century:
"We don't want to fight, but by Jingo if we do, we've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too."
The song - and the attitude - have been credited with encouraging Britain's entry into the First World War. The slaughter of that conflict debunked the word, and left it without any meaning in the modern world.
Attempting to use the label for 21st century defense policy - in a world with undeniable threats and extensively televised consequences of any of our actions - is ludicrous. No one today sees war as an exciting adventure. We can't. We see the pictures.
A final word, or at least phrase, that is quickly outliving its usefulness is "support the troops." Driving by a peace demonstration last week, and the counter-demonstration it spawned, I saw "Support the Troops" signs in both camps.
Enough said.
I might seem naive in saying this, but I believe the purpose of speech is effective communication. When a word (or phrase) loses its effectiveness, we should stop using it.
Politically, it would go a long way toward clearing the air.
Early Returns is the political observations column of staff writer Roy Maynard, who can be reached at 903-596-6291 or at roymaynardtmt@gmail.com.
FAQ
Search Forums
Log in
Register
