If you follow politics, there are certain words you’re likely to hear a lot. And sometimes, a lot is simply too much. Sometimes, a word is so overused or so badly used that it loses its meaning and becomes noise. And other times, a word actually inhibits intelligent conversation.
In light of President Barack Obama’s inauguration and in anticipation of the next four years of politics, here are three words that simply need to go away.
The first word is “socialist.” Ostensibly, this word describes a system of government wherein property is owned jointly by the community, but recently it has been used to define any institution whereby wealth is redistributed.
Victims of the “socialist” label include Obamacare, liberal tax policies and welfare programs, even though these things are no more socialist in principle than social security or veterans’ benefits. The fact is some Republicans have taken to labeling any financial policy they don’t like as socialist, particularly policies supported by the Obama administration.
The actual nature of the economic policy is immaterial; for evidence of this, look at Republicans’ vehement defense of social security, which is the American institution that most closely resembles actual socialism. In short, “socialist” has lost its meaning. Its use no longer adds to political dialogue, and we no longer need it.
The second word we should retire from political lingo is “terrorist.” Like “socialist,” this is a word politicians and pundits selectively apply to institutions they oppose.
Yes, Hamas and al Qaeda use terror to advance their political goals. But one could argue that so do American drone strikes and Israeli strafing runs. Military actions taken by Xe Solutions, a private military corporation employed by the United States in the war in Iraq, fit the description of terrorist to a T. But because of their ties to the United States (or because they are the United States), these groups escape being labeled as terroristic.
“Terrorist” isn’t used to describe organizations, it’s used to demonize them. And most often, it’s used to clump all Islamist fundamentalists under an extremely uninformative umbrella.
The last word that we need to stop using is “elitist.” This term has its roots in the basest political gamesmanship, and makes cynical and unsupported assumptions about both political parties. Most often applied to Obama in recent years, this term implies that a party or individual favors the domination of the majority by a small ruling class.
Neither party wants that. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have the same fundamental goals, which involve the greatest benefit to the people with the smallest exercise of government power. Yes, our politicians tend to be rich and out of touch, but that’s because they’re a product of a system that requires them to be.
We should take issue with a system that only allows rich career politicians to achieve positions of power, but it’s childish to brand individual lawmakers as “elitist” because they have a Harvard degree, a lot of houses, or a famous family.
I don’t believe that people will stop using these words, but one can hope that we find replacements that are a little more meaningful. Here’s to the next four years.
Nathan James is a sophomore majoring in public relations. His column runs weekly on Thursdays.
