Written on Friday, August 31, 2012 by David L. Goetsch
Words in the hands of someone adept at using them can be the most powerful force known to man. Depending on how they are used, words can be a mighty force for good or a devilish force for evil. Both Winston Churchill and Adolph Hitler were brilliant orators—they both used words with great imagination and skill. But for Churchill, words were a tool for good. For Hitler, they were a weapon for evil.
Words have specific meanings and those of us who use them should respect their meanings. Distorting the meaning of words to serve a personal or political agenda is an unconscionable act, an act of which liberals are increasingly guilty. This is why liberals hate dictionaries. Dictionaries explain what words really mean as opposed to what liberals want others to think they mean. Distorting the English language for political gain has become so common a practice among liberals that economist Thomas Sowell found it necessary to develop “A Political Glossary” (Townhall, June 26, 2012). In this article I examine some of the words from Sowell’s glossary that liberals frequently distort for nefarious purposes.
By far the most frequently misused words by liberals—particularly President Obama—are “fair” and “fairness.” Dictionaries use such adjectives as just, impartial, unbiased, and even-handed to define the concept. Ask a liberal what he means by the term and you are more likely to get a vitriolic tirade about wealthy conservatives than a definition. During his rant, the liberal will describe conservatives as people who are too hard-hearted, mean-spirited, and greedy to pay their “fair share” of taxes. Ah, so that is the definition of fairness? This being the case, an obvious question arises: What percentage of income paid in taxes would liberals consider fair—50%, 60%, 75%, 90%? Ask liberals this question and they go immediately into “E and E” mode: evade and escape. Liberals cannot allow themselves to be pinned down to any hard-and-fast definition of fairness because they want to reserve the right to continually up the ante. If they allow themselves to be pinned down to a specific figure—any figure—they will be justifiably labeled unfair when they come back to the trough to increase that figure, something liberals always do.
Another term liberals like to wrap around the axle of truth is “hungry” as in “the hungry in America.” But what do liberals mean when they use this term? This term holds particular interest for me because I have known hunger in my life. Further, I have witnessed abject, debilitating hunger in parts of the world where the poor in America would be considered fabulously wealthy. Is this kind of hunger really present and widespread in America? Dr. Sowell’s treatment of this question is worthy of repeating here: “People who make no provision to feed themselves, but expect others to provide food for them, are those who politicians and the media refer to as ‘the hungry.’ Those who meet this definition may have money for alcohol, drugs, or even various electronic devices. And many of them are overweight. But if they look to voluntary donations or money taken from taxpayers to provide them something to eat, then they are the hungry.”
Another term that liberals misuse and abuse to score political points is compassion. To liberals, compassion means a willingness to spend someone else’s money on people who have been taught by pandering politicians to view themselves as victims entitled to be taken care of by the government. Webster would faint if he could see how liberals are rewriting the definitions of such words he clearly and accurately defined. Imagine what the poor man would do if he could see how liberals have redefined the words racist and bigot.