Quantcast
ResurrectionSong.com
Crushers, Feeders, Conveyors, and More

Magazines.com, Inc.

Syndication

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Can We Banish These Words from the Debate?

They come from the left. They come from the right. They come from the posts. They come from the comments sections. They come from the articles in the daily paper. These are loaded words that are used in contemporary political debate like little bombs cut through the rest of our arguments leaving little sense in their wake. Talk about, say, Bush’s minions and you’ve made your case that he’s the evil, mustache-twirling baddie and you don’t have to treat him as a man who, however much you might have disagreed, made choices that he thought were right. Talk about Obama’s cronies, and you dismiss the motives of the people around him by turning them into some cackling cabal of evil who couldn’t possibly be acting from principle.

Now, allowing our elected officials to be humans rather than cardboard cut-out baddies doesn’t absolve them from their mistakes and bad-judgement. It’s just to say that attacking the person isn’t the best way to refute their arguments and ideals. It’s intellectually lazy and unconvincing.

These are the words that are driving me crazy right now. These are the words that, it seems, I can’t escape these days even though they almost never bring any substance to the debate.

Crony. Cronies.

Minion. Minions.

Regime. Fascist. Nazi.

Racist. Sexist. Ageist. Whatever-ist.

The first two pairs generally sound as if they belong in some overwrought political play where our heros and villains are drawn in the broad strokes of a Victorian era melodrama. Your point will be better received and understood if you don’t use over-the-top language that can detract from your argument or even discredit your argument with folks on the other side of the aisle.

With the third set, the words are often used incorrectly and sound like they belong somewhere in an overwrought G8 summit protest where protestors-by-avocation tend to push their disparate agendas (regardless of the tenuous relation of the agenda and the event) in annoyingly ill-considered ways like crashing the windows of every Starbucks in the area. They have created this weird little monoculture of people who bounce from anti-war protest to anti-G8 protest to anti-whatever protest with the same set of socialist literature, anti-US sloganeering, childlike view of politic realities, and same giant paper-mache puppets no matter the occasion. In that way, they are reminiscent of the moronic Wesboro Baptist Church types who see the entirety of the world’s issues as a referendum on God’s feelings about gays. They aren’t serious people and they shouldn’t be treated as such; anyone who adopts their linguistic tics faces the danger of putting themselves in that same, ignore-at-will category.

Likewise, the last set are rarely used correctly. They are knee-jerk reactions to any negative unpleasant negative commentary when the debate turns a little rough. It’s easier to claim the moral high ground with an assertion of racism than it is to argue the point--say, for example, by claiming that opponents of Obama’s health care reform push were racists when it is clear that those same opponents worked hard to ensure that the Clinton health care package failed. It isn’t racism (or sexism), but a genuine political difference--but if you claim that the opponents are racists, you won’t have to refute their arguments.

That said, real racism, sexism, and fascism do exist. Calling out racism where it exists--say, in the kinds of offensive comments that black conservatives receive about the real nature of their racial heritage when they espouse something other than the orthodox line of accepted racial politics--is important. Ask someone like Condi Rice if racism exists in America and I’m sure she’ll say yes. Ask her to describe the racism that she has faced in her adult life, though, and her answer might be a bit surprising. I would doubt that it would be racially oriented attacks from the KKK; I would guess that it would be racially-oriented attacks from liberal political commentators. Those folks weren’t so much interested in the content of her character except inasmuch as that character could be viewed through the distorting lens of racial politics.

So, yes, these things exist, but be damned careful when breaking out the accusations because the power in those words diminishes every time they are used improperly.

Comments & Trackbacks
The trackback URL for this entry is:

I only use the word “minion” in reference to people who work for me. As in “my faithful minion X.” It’s a term of endearment, really.

on Apr 14 2010 @ 02:11 PM

And in that case, it’s entirely acceptable (and probably pretty funny).

Damn, I could use an editor. My grammatical errors make me cranky.

on Apr 14 2010 @ 02:28 PM
jed

I agree, in part. Have you read Jonah Golberg’s Liberal Fascism?

The main problem we have in our dialogues is that people misuse terminology, slinging whatever they think sounds bad as a pejorative. Witness (one of my peeves) the demonization of ‘militia’.

Precision in usage is a thing of the past. Some people dismiss this as an issue with the bland observation that ‘language evolves’. The question is whether it’s evolving for the better.

on Apr 14 2010 @ 03:26 PM

I haven’t read his book yet--I never got around to buying it. Michael won’t agree, I’m sure, but I’ve heard that it’s an interesting read.

Anyway, you’re right: precision is a thing of the past. Some of my co-workers hate that I use words that they either don’t know or words that they think are a little uppity. I’ve been asked why I do that and I’ve been accused of putting on airs, but the truth is that I love language and I love being able to say precisely what I mean. That doesn’t lend itself to Twitter, texting, bumper stickers, and the like.

Right now language isn’t really evolving, it’s just being beaten and abused by people who don’t care--and, as you said, people who misuse words to club people into submission. Makes me angry.

on Apr 14 2010 @ 04:14 PM

Language is evolving ("getting 2 million hits” probably didn’t mean the same thing 25 years ago), but that evolution doesn’t include shifting definitions of Adolph Hitler and socialism.

And I doubt I would find it an interesting read. Books by pundits on one side telling me what I’m supposed to think about people on the other side don’t really interest me. If I read a book by someone with a political agenda, I tend to like it to be about one topic, event, or policy area, so I can see what some point of view on that subject is. I already know Jonah Goldberg thinks liberals are evil and just like Mussolini from the title. Don’t really need to read any further.

on Apr 14 2010 @ 06:01 PM
jed

Well, Michael, judging a book by it’s cover? Your perogative, but Goldberg does a good job of establishing his definition and evidence. It’s quite a good (IMHO) treatment. Might even be eye openning for some people.

on Apr 14 2010 @ 06:22 PM

I find the current view of “Nazi” interesting.

Didn’t it lose pretty much all of its sting when a Jewish comedian trivialized the term by popularizing the term in conjunction with a chef who was a stickler for rules?

on Apr 15 2010 @ 10:53 AM
jed

Nathan, I agree that “Nazi” has lost some sting, due to its overuse in many areas, e.g. ‘grammar nazi’, ‘spelling nazi’.

However, “Fascist” hasn’t gotten quite so overused, except by the left in using it to characterize conservatives. However, this is more than overuse of the word; it’s actually misplaced, particularly when the pro-regulation left who want ever-more corporate regulation use it against the right. Not to say that certain aspects of Fascism don’t apply to right-wingers, but for the Left to use it as a pejorative is like the pot calling the kettle black. The adoption of this health-care “reform” is a big step towards a command economy that would have made Mussolini proud.

on Apr 15 2010 @ 02:58 PM

Michael, you don’t need to read Jonah Goldberg’s book?  To the contrary, from your brazen misrepresentation of Goldberg’s message, it is clear that you do need to read it.

on Apr 15 2010 @ 07:15 PM

Two life lessons:

1.  If you label someone, you tend to dehumanize him.
2.  Inappropriate use of terminology cheapens and sucks the meaning out of language.

on Apr 19 2010 @ 01:17 AM
Post a Comment

If you are registered, please log in.
Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smilies


Remember my personal information
Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

TimeLife.com
 
 
© 2005 by the authors of ResurrectionSong. All rights reserved.
Powered by ExpressionEngine