Language is important in politics. The words we use affect the way we think about issues, which is why I try to be very careful in my choice of language when I talk about politics. Here, for example, are a few expressions I use with great care, if at all:
“Pro-life”
This should be pretty obvious. I consider myself as “pro-life” as anyone, but I am also as absolutist as anyone in my support for abortion rights. Opponents of abortion rights aren’t any more “pro-life” than I am, but they have managed to appropriate a propagandistically effective label, which, unfortunately has stuck. I never, never refer to opponents of abortion rights as “pro-life.” I just cal them “anti-abortion.”
“Conservative”
This is less obvious. Most of the people in American politics today who call themselves “conservative” aren’t conservative at all: they’re radical reactionaries. Today’s Republican party is dominated by such pseudo-conservative radicals. When I want to use value-neutral language I just call them right-wingers; never conservatives. (I must admit, actually, I do slip up occasionally and call them “conservatives.” And, it is true that there are still traditional conservatives left in the Republican party, but they keep their voices low--the politicians among them know that sooner or later they can face a primary battle in an electorate dominated by the far right.)
But, you may object: they do after all call themselves “conservative.” Aren’t people entitled to call themselves whatever they want; doesn’t civility demand that we respect the labels people choose for themselves? “Pro-life” is an understandable exception since it is so clearly invidious--tarring opponents as somehow “anti-life”--but “conservative” is just descriptive. Except that it isn’t. There is nothing conservative about a program that aims to undo much of 20th century public policy. So, calling radical right-wingers “conservatives” falls in line with their false advertising. And false advertising is essential to their cause, since most Americans don’t cherish fantasies of a free-market dystopia that exists in no advanced country of the world and never has.
It’s an interesting fact of politics that radicals of the left generally call themselves “radical,” while radicals of the right never do--instead, they call themselves “conservative.” The rightists’ attachment to the “conservative” label is perfectly natural--after all, what else are they going to call themselves? “Reactionary” obviously isn’t flattering, and they don’t want to admit to their radicalism, so they call themselves “conservative.” But that doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to go along.
“Entitlements”
This is the expression commonly used today to refer to three programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I don’t know how the term “entitlements” became so widespread, but I suspect that whoever first dreamed it up was not a fan of the programs in question. “Entitlements” conjures up the image of small, spoiled children, who think they are entitled to goodies that they haven’t earned.
Besides, lumping the three programs together under one heading helps reinforce the false impression that they present essentially similar policy issues. Medicare and Medicaid face serious long-term deficit problems that reflect, above all, a broader problem--the spiraling costs of health care in the United States. Social security has a minor long-term deficit problem which could easily be addressed with some relatively small tweaks. But lumping Social Security together with Medicare and Medicaid enables enemies of all three programs to conjure up scary numbers about the huge weight of “entitlements” on the federal budget. There are a lot of people who talk gravely about “entitlements” who should know better.
The conflation of the three programs under “entitlements” recalls a similarly effective propagandistic conflation: the infamous “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) allegedly possessed, or at least planned, or at least dreamed of, by Saddam Hussein. WMD conflated nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, but naturally, when people think of “weapons of mass destruction,” they think first and foremost of nuclear. Nuclear weapons are of course by far the most dangerous of the three, so it was convenient for the Cheney-Bush propaganda machine to lump them together: say “weapons of mass destruction ” and people will think “nukes.” Besides, you could say truthfully that Saddam had already used WMD (Think nukes!) because he had, in fact, used chemical weapons.
I could go on, but I’d like to open this up: Anybody out there have other examples of political abuses of our language? Maybe we can start a glossary.