The words we choose matter, and the evolution of language must be understood if we too are to evolve

Posted November 2020

By Garon Jones

Staff Editor

Language is an important tool. Throughout all of human history, it has been used to spark inventions, communicate with others, and educate young minds to the fullest of their potential. But power hungry politicians seeking to carve out a long term election victory have seen language a different way. They have sought to manipulate language itself to achieve their own personal ends. They see language as a weapon, and they have used it to the fullest potential. Rhetoric may be cheap, but its effects are priceless.

Now, to explain what I mean by the manipulation of language, we’ll start by looking at a single word and we’ll follow its journey from its original meaning, and watch how it has been manipulated over time to its meaning today. The first word we will examine together is the term “liberal.”

Now, today the word liberal is basically synonymous with the left. Those who identify with the left’s views, both fiscally and socially, are either called leftist or liberal, both terms used interchangeably. But the word was used in completely opposite terms just over a century ago. The term liberal used to be a term to describe those who favored liberty and freedom from the government, almost the exact opposite of how it is used today. This original definition comes from another defining way we talk about freedom. It was the freedom our founding fathers embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Americans are acquainted with the well known phrase: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But most of us don’t stop to really examine these words or learn of their implications. In this passage, the essential freedoms we are born with are clearly defined. But is in the lesser known following passage which connects these freedoms with the role of government. “...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Jefferson’s language makes it clear that Governments are instituted to protect our most fundamental freedoms. The framers believed that a government had to be limited in order to even accomplish these goals, as embodied in the Constitution with the separation of powers. But as time passed, and in the dawn of the 20th century, members of the “progressive” movement began to criticize the very philosophies of the founding era.

To these so-called progressives, freedom no longer meant freedom from government tyranny, or the freedom to enjoy “life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” but the freedom from an active federal government. You were no longer considered to be truly free until the government took an active role in your everyday life. Rights went from being what the government couldn’t do to you, to being what the government could do for you. Freedom no longer meant the freedom from government tyranny, but the freedom from a supposedly “passive” federal state. And with that, liberal no longer meant to advocate against government overreach, but to advocate in favor of it. This of course all makes sense in today’s context. When we hear politicians like Bernie Sanders declare healthcare as a “right,” what it really means is that healthcare is now a product the government will control. But simply declaring a product or service a right never means that the government will provide it efficiently or distribute it fairly. As we have seen with American history, and history all around the globe, it often means the exact opposite will take place. Declaring healthcare a “right” cleverly disguises the fact that the government will be running our healthcare system. Why hand that power to an institution that 90 percent of Americans say they mistrust?

As a side note, returning to the early 20th century, the very famous phrase “History is written only by the victors” can arguably not apply more to how we have defined the period in America dubbed as the “Progressive Era.” The so-called Progressive Era was defined by a period of widespread political change, moving the country significantly toward a more active government. At root, the word progressive means progress, or the ability to move forward. This of course insinuates subconsciously to the American public that the “progressive era” is a time in our history we should celebrate and look to as a moment of triumph. For typical libertarian conservatives, this era—while good intentioned—was not an era of triumph, but an era of drastic government overreach. But this view is kicked to the sidelines by a single one word defined era. Now, all across our country, taught in schools and classrooms, children are being taught to not think twice about the rosy and colorful wonders of big government. With one. Single. Word.

To take a more modern example, let us look at the ongoing Black Lives Matter movement. The very term Black Lives Matter is actually a cleverly designed object of misdirection that perfectly encapsulates how easily words can be manipulated. Black Lives Matter taken as its literal meaning encourages a blanket statement that most Americans can get behind. But Black Lives Matter is also an organization, with its own people, website, philosophy, and goals. And unfortunately, many of the organization's philosophy and goals ultimately hinder the black community in several ways, the largest being the crusade to “defund the police,” actions that, if taken seriously, would disproportionately harm low income and minority neighborhoods who need police to deter crime. But here’s why the name Black Lives Matter is so crucial. If you were to crusade against BLM for the sole reason of fighting against defunding the police, you could very easily be castigated as a racist who doesn’t think black lives matter. By simply having this name, the organization backs many Americans into a corner: either support this organization or suffer the consequences.

To take another example, on late night Fox News or on talk radio, it’s likely you’ve heard figures such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, or Rush Limbaugh talk about the dangers of the so-called “radical” left. But what exactly does this language insinuate? One of the largest fears among conservatives is the idea that at some point in time, in the near future, the more left leaning members of the Democratic party will implement “full blown Socialism.” There will be some single and sudden cataclysmic event where the radicals take over the moderates. But that’s not how politics works. The left knows this all too well. The idea isn’t to shift so-called moderate policies to so-called radical ones. The idea is to change what it even means to be radical. Take for example the case of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries. He was the perceived radical of the party running against the corporate moderate, Hillary Clinton. The two candidates could have not been a more stark representation of the divide in the Democratic party at that time. But in the 2020 primaries, virtually every major democratic candidate with the exception of Joe Biden mirrored Sanders on policy. Biden was perceived as the new moderate, and for some, his victory was a sign that the Radical wing of the Democratic party is dying out. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Even Biden has adopted a significant share of Sanders’ policies. Biden has supported a federal 15 dollar minimum wage, a policy considered radical just years earlier. Biden is a more progressive candidate than Barack Obama, also once called a socialist by right wing commentators.

There is clearly a pattern going on about how we communicate with one another, and which words we choose to associate with ideas. And that pattern is that words are constantly shifting. What meant one thing 50 years ago may mean the opposite 50 years later. And this shifting of language doesn’t just happen naturally. Malicious politicians and interest groups have their own goals in mind. Using cheap rhetoric is one of the easiest means of accomplishing those goals. If we don’t wish to be influenced, we must look beyond the rhetoric and spot true fallacy before it is ingrained into the American mind as fact.