Political Shibboleths

I have noticed that those in the media or the government can often give away their political inclinations by the use of certain words or phrases. Part of this is due to the deliberate process of “framing” that both the left and right engage in. For example, the existing “estate tax” is called the “death tax” by its opponents. Can you guess which side uses the term “illegal aliens” and which uses “undocumented immigrants”? And regarding global warming, the Democratic left is almost unanimous in accepting it as scientific fact, but the Republican right is divided on the issue. Hence Republicans, in the interest of not ruffling feathers among its own, tend to use the more bland term “climate change”. And what about opponents of gay marriage who try to conceal their underlying antagonism toward homosexuals by referring to their goal as “preserving the sanctity of marriage”? Supporters of gay marriage, on the other hand, will often try to soften the sound of the words by using the term “same-sex marriage”. It’s all in the connotation one wants to impart on the subject, and whatever is used reveals the speaker’s (or writer’s) opinion even before it is expressed.

That is all very well and fine with me. It’s a shame, though, that people are so insecure in their beliefs that they feel the need to develop separate vocabularies in order to discuss them with others. The hook in this is to get whomever you are discussing a particular issue with to use your vocabulary. If successfully done, the argument is already halfway won, regardless from which side of the political spectrum you are arguing, for the other is now speaking using YOUR connotative terminology.

This posturing gets a little more serious when discussing war and peace issues. For example, an occupying army in another country will often refer to the insurgents fighting them guerilla-style as “terrorists”, evoking images in the public’s eye back home of 9/11 and the like. Meanwhile, those supporting the insurgents often call them “freedom fighters” and “patriots”. When the Soviet Union sent their army into Afghanistan in 1979 (at that government’s request) to fight forces trying to topple that nation’s secular, left-leaning regime, the U.S. vehemently praised the insurgents there and supported them (e.g. see the movie Charlie Wilson’s War). After 9/11, the U.S. (in my opinion justified) didn’t wait for an Afghan government request before attacking those believed to be responsible and complicit in the attack. But now that we occupy that land, any action committed by Afghani insurgents is termed “terrorist”. It’s all in which side of the fence you’re standing on as to how you frame the issue.

Lately, I have become quite irritated at how extreme right-wing self-proclaimed political pundits almost universally refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat” Party. For some reason, this is supposed to be a slur against them. Sure, it is proper to use “Democrat” as a noun, (e.g. I am a Democrat). But as an adjective, -ic should be added. This arrogant misusage does help to quickly identify the political leanings and integrity of whomever I am listening to (or reading). So I suppose that they are unwittingly doing me a service (saving me from wasting my time expecting a reasonable discussion of the issues from them).