Words Mean Things

[Cord Byrd]

As a consumer of news, a.k.a. a political junkie, I get annoyed when the pundits, "experts" and politicians, use euphemisms or false phrases to purposely mislead or confuse the listener.  The left uses this tactic all the time, i.e. Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, liberal, leftist and now back to progressive.  Once people figure out they don't like the goods they are being sold, voila, just change the name and keep plugging along. To them it's never a problem with the message, just the stupidity of the listener who is not smart enough or intelligent enough to understand what is good for them.  

 I am increasingly disturbed by the use of this tactic by many of the leading voices in the conservative movement or by those claiming to be on the right.   In a previous post I commented on the use of "destination resorts" as a euphemism for casinos.  Why don't those who want casinos just say what it is instead of trying to confuse and fool people with the sanitized phrase, destination resort?  Anyone can build a destination resort, they are not illegal and require no change to the current  law.  So why all the lobbying in Tallahassee? Because gambling will happen at destination resorts, thus requiring a change to  the law.  The proponents of large casinos think Floridians are stupid and are opposed to casinos but if they just call them destination resorts, the hayseed hicks will go along with it until it is too late.  Be honest, call it what it is, we are big boys and girls and can be trusted to make the right decision.

Another purposely misleading term currently in vogue is "isolationist."  If you are pegged with the isolationist tag, you are accused of wanting America to withdraw completely from the world similar to the Ming Dynasty of  long ago China.  What the critics label as isolationist is actually non-interventionist.  A non-interventionist believes in a strong national defense, a strong navy to ensure enforcement of the sea lanes for trade and commerce, defending the nation's borders, the use of force where a vital national interest is threatened and actually declaring war in accordance with the Constitution.

Non-interventionists  are generally skeptical of America's role as the world's policeman, skeptical of the need for unending military deployments with undefined missions and restrictive rules of engagement, and skeptical of the cost of hundreds of military bases around the world while  the nation sinks further and further into debt. 

I have heard several pro "America as world policeman" pundits  claim that non-interventionists want a "19th century foreign policy,"  thus making non-interventionists naive and simplistic.  Are these same people opposed to our 18th century Constitution and do they now agree with Al Gore that it is an outdated relic of our agrarian pre-modern forefathers?

I love the give and take of vigorous debate.  People can disagree on policy without being enemies.   I implore  those on the right to stop using the tactics of the left to smear those with whom they  may disagree and mislead those who are willing to be persuaded.  I am growing increasingly distrustful of those who I once trusted to give me plain words and an honest opinion and so should you.

[Ron Mullins]

Cord, Thanks for starting the post.  The comments are brief and to the point.

I am having a difficult time favoring any one candidate.  Too bad we can't take the strengths from each on and build our own.  If the spin could be removed from politics, we would probably have a better picture to work with.

I use the FairTax as a measure of the candidate.  For a candidate to promote the FairTax they are no longer beholden to a specific group, cause, agenda or person.  They are beholden to America.  I was really surprised none of the candidates, even brought it up as an alternative.

I will continue to watch the debates, and hope the good questions will be asked.  I hope the debates will continue for as long as possible.  I can't believe Florida has already started early voting. 

[Cord Byrd]

Following GW Bush's election in 2000 we were told by the party that GWB couldn't make the necessary changes because the Dems still held sway over congress.  The Party promised that if we just elected more Republicans in 2002 they would fix everything.  So like good soldiers we followed orders and elected Republicans in 2002, some of whom were not conservatives.  And what did we get, more spending, more bureaucracy and less liberty.

They count on most people having short memories, I do not.  They fooled me once, I won't be fooled again.

[Cord Byrd]

Unfortunately there is far too a often difference between Republicans and Conservatives.  I have been involved with Republican politics for at least 15 years.  There are some Party people who wouldn't know the difference between the Constitution and Mao's Little Red Book.  All they care about is moving up in the party because it is a job, they think they are important or they like being a member of a club.  They are not movement conservatives who are actually trying to promote the values of the Founders.  They will sell out conservative principles at the drop of a hat if it advances their career or the career of the politician they have hitched their wagon to. 

I cannot change the Democrats they are too far gone, but I will fight like a dog within the Republican Party and give them hell when they deserve it to try and set this country back on the right course.

[Patricia M. McBride]

Ken, progressives love the Huffington Post, and it is a good place to go to sharpen you blogging skills :). 

Thank you for the great commentary Cord, and like you, I also have a trust deficit which includes republicans currently running for president.  I think some of them are on the straight and narrow but have others I think will say anything to get elected (pretty scary stuff).

 

[Cord Byrd]

Thank you for the kind words, as long as I know people find them informative I will keep posting.