-
The Loss of Trust
June 18, 2013 | 32 comments
-
Sex and the Military
June 12, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Economics vs. ‘Need’
June 11, 2013 | 29 comments
-
Historic Rescuers
June 5, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Abstract Immigrants
June 4, 2013 | 31 comments
The Public Policy
A Political Glossary
Racism is like ketchup. It can be put on anything.
Since this is an election year, we can expect to hear a lot of words — and the meaning of those words is not always clear. So it may be helpful to have a glossary of political terms.
One of the most versatile terms in the political vocabulary is “fairness.” It has been used over a vast range of issues, from “fair trade” laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. And recently we have heard that the rich don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes.
Some of us may want to see a definition of what is “fair.” But a concrete definition would destroy the versatility of the word, which is what makes it so useful politically.
If you said, for example, that 46.7 percent of their income — or any other number — is the “fair share” of their income that the rich should have to pay in taxes, then once they paid that amount, there would be no basis for politicians to come back to them for more — and “more” is what “fair share” means in practice.
Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that the government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government.
“Racism” is another term we can expect to hear a lot this election year, especially if the public opinion polls are going against President Barack Obama.
Former big-time TV journalist Sam Donaldson and current fledgling CNN host Don Lemon have already proclaimed racism to be the reason for criticisms of Obama, and we can expect more and more other talking heads to say the same thing as the election campaign goes on. The word “racism” is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything — and demanding evidence makes you a “racist.”
A more positive term that is likely to be heard a lot, during election years especially, is “compassion.” But what does it mean concretely? More often than not, in practice it means a willingness to spend the taxpayers’ money in ways that will increase the spender’s chances of getting reelected.
If you are skeptical — or, worse yet, critical — of this practice, then you qualify for a different political label: “mean-spirited.” A related political label is “greedy.”
In the political language of today, people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be “greedy,” while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give it to others (who will vote for them in return) show “compassion.”
A political term that had me baffled for a long time was “the hungry.” Since we all get hungry, it was not obvious to me how you single out some particular segment of the population to refer to as “the hungry.”
Eventually, over the years, it finally dawned on me what the distinction was. People who make no provision to feed themselves, but expect others to provide food for them, are those whom 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 the taxpayers, to provide them with something to eat, then they are “the hungry.”
I can remember a time, long ago, when I was hungry in the old-fashioned sense. I was a young fellow out of work, couldn’t find work, fell behind in my room rent — and, when I finally found a job, I had to walk miles to get there, because I couldn’t afford both subway fare and food.
But this was back in those “earlier and simpler times” we hear about. I was so naive that I thought it was up to me to go find a job, and to save some money when I did. Even though I knew that Joe DiMaggio was making $100,000 a year — a staggering sum in the money of that time — it never occurred to me that it was up to him to see that I got fed.
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thomas Sowell
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/26/a-political-glossary
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 6.26.12 @ 6:42AM
I can't understand how people who weigh 300 lb. can be classified "hungry," although likely what made them so fat was their continuous hunger. Perhaps someone ought to teach them to control their appetite, instead of demanding that I take from my unemployment insurance to be sure they put on that 301st lb.
Brooksifier | 6.26.12 @ 8:18AM
If in the '50s blacks had listened to Sowell's type of pablum defense of the status quo, they'd still be sitting in back seats of buses, they'd still be lynched.
Anthony| 6.26.12 @ 8:57AM
You are a classic leftist fool, Brooksifier. You can't begin to comprehend the wisdom of Dr. Sowell and the dignity he and other blacks posessed during those very troubling times in the '50s and beyond.
You fail miserably to comprehend how the black family unit has disintergrated under decades of the Democrat Party's plantation mentality for blacks. They have been made wards of the welfare state, crumbs for votes.
As bad as segregation was, the black family maintained its dignity, a sense of self worth, and the understanding that despite the unfairness, education would elevate their children to a better life.
Believe me, it wasn't phony white leftists like you that took on Jim Crow laws and forced white America to live up to its expectations, it was men like Thomas Sowell.
You couldn't hold a candle to this man.
Riff Raff| 6.26.12 @ 11:02AM
Brooksifier (aka Brooks) is a seminar poster. He gets his talking points from others. He can't really think for himself. His job is to make sure Blacks know their place and stay on the Democrat Plantation, and to remind uppity Blacks who they should be grateful to.
Brooks reminds me of plantation owner Eric Endicott in the movie "In the Heat of the Night" who cares for the "darkies" in his employ the way an animal trainer cares for his trained monkeys. If anyone were ever to be lynched, it is Brooks who would supply the rope.
Anthony| 6.26.12 @ 11:21AM
Ah, I thought that might be Brooksie in disguise. I thought I recognized his brand of infantile churlishness.
Brooksifier | 6.26.12 @ 2:19PM
"As bad as segregation was, the black family maintained its dignity, a sense of self worth"
Yowser
yowser
Yowser
Anthony| 6.26.12 @ 2:23PM
Yep, it's Brooks all right. The moron clinched it.
PolishKnight| 6.26.12 @ 10:07AM
Appleby, I call this the "squeaky wheel is the greasiest" paradigm. Since the classical squeaky wheel gets the grease, then it makes sense for a wheel to squeak louder the MORE grease it gets while the most essential gears that just happen to be in locations that are hard to hear (and service should something go wrong) are neglected.
For example and I hate to grind on this but it just occurred to me: Upper class suffragist white women on the Titanic rowing away comfortably while the boat sank were great at complaining at how oppressed they were while the working class Irishmen in the bowels of the ship sank to their doom. Women and children first has been replaced with Democrat special interests first! Good for them. At least they know the rules of the game!
Appleby| 6.26.12 @ 2:47PM
Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote a series of SF books (the Darkover Series) that spoke strongly on the subject of the way women liberate themselves in truly partriarchal societies. She included those women who strongly resented liberated women because they broke up the great racket the rest of them had going on. It's hard to make they guys think you're just a simpering southern belle without enough brains to pour p--- out of a boot with directions on the heel when your sisters are out there fending for themselves. The women who rowed away from the Titanic let the mask slip because hey, when it's life or death, you just hope nobody notices. As the other side of that argument I give you "Unsinkable" Molly Brown. And of course Scarlett O'Hara herself, who was no slouch at getting her way playing both sides of the street, as it were.
Incidentally, it may interest you to know that only two shipwrecks in documented history show the majority of those saved were women and children: Lusitania and Titanic. In every other case it was every man for himself.
Von Mises Jr| 6.26.12 @ 7:47AM
The more I read about socialism, the more obvious it is why it is described as dialectical materialism. It is ultimately about covetousness and envy of other people's things.
It is a denial of the more sublime and spiritual for the worship of other men who will give you other people's things.
So a whole new vocabulary is needed to hide the fact that you want other people things, and you are really not a dirt bag. But if you will not aspire to higher ideals, provide for yourself and your offspring, and spend your days filled with envy for other people's things, it is clear to me that you are a dirt bag.
Dagny Taggert| 6.26.12 @ 10:02AM
Another favorite term the left has grabbed and bastardized: "Access to." Listen to liberals crow about lack of "access to" education, birth control and healthcare. Of course all citizens have access to these items; but to the left, unless it's free then there's a lack of "access to...."
JD| 6.26.12 @ 12:23PM
I just want access to what I earn.
PolishKnight| 6.26.12 @ 10:15AM
I have a friend whom I got into a debate over politics with (and politely let him get the last word and end it) and I noticed a trend with leftists: They insist upon engaging in the most dishonest, cruel politics imaginable and when they're winning, they're super happy. Then, when they lose or face someone getting the better of them, they rage at how cruel the "world" is and especially their opponents.
In other words, "fairness" and "compassion" in their view is like that of a 1 year old baby with an adult intelligence: Their worldview is that others exist to please and service them since their special existence is what makes the world go round. They think they're God (in the old testament kind of way.)
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.26.12 @ 11:01AM
Have you ever noticed that when a leftist starts to lose an argument on the facts, they try to turn it personal?
Albertus Magnus| 6.26.12 @ 11:30AM
Yes. And since they start to lose VERY early in the discussion, the personal attacks start very early. For some of them, it is the first thing they write.
Drunken Sailor| 6.26.12 @ 11:42AM
Now guys, do you honestly expect Brooks and Purp to understand you are talking about them? Remember, with Liberal Trolls you must keep it simple so they can get the talking points down. Don't confuse them with theory or implications.
Appleby| 6.26.12 @ 2:50PM
Yep. I have noticed that with one particular troll who, realizing he cannot force me to vote for the candidate of his choice, has descended to calling me names. I am ignoring him, because I know the old Chinese proverb "He who slings mud, loses ground."
Petronius| 6.26.12 @ 12:03PM
The clincher is the one Dr. Sowell leaves out: Truth. liberals prate and brag of their "power to redefine things." But Truth is absolute. That doesn't stop the Liberals. To them, it's what they want it to be even though it is one of Comrade Stalin's stubborn "facts". Purp will tell you.
JD| 6.26.12 @ 12:27PM
They consider truth to be subjective. Except, of course, that their subjective truth applies to all "subjects."
That's why they practice the Doctrine of the Big Lie. They don't just consider it their opinion that deregulation caused the "Great Recession". They've been treating it as unquestioned fact for years, as surely as the date of Lincoln's birthday. Though there was never any substance behind the claim other than their ideology's wishful thinking, after a few years of preaching it, they now treat anyone who disagrees with the same incredulity as one would treat a person who argues that Babe Ruth was Japanese.
scotchieguy| 6.26.12 @ 1:26PM
Here is my "moderate" sister's response when I sent her the brilliant piece:
Our opinion of Mr Sowell differs greatly. A silly, trite and arrogant piece.
Interesting he didn't think to define 'civility' or 'dignity' or
'opportunity' or 'substance' or 'modesty'. To suggest that people are free
loaders and playing the race card is insulting and so very Republican. And,
really heartless to suggest that people who are hungry have a choice-- one
out of 7 people need a food bank today. Perhaps Mr. Sowell should go to a
food bank when a middle class wife and mother who is working a FT job goes
to the food bank because her husband has lost his job and they can't make
ends meet. This is happening all over affluent suburbs in DuPage County in
Chicago, and Fulton County in Atlanta, and Orange County in LA. Really
horrible example he uses. Social service agencies are closing their doors
due to lack of $$ and people are becoming destitute and homeless or on the
fringe and food insecure. Food banks are one of the lifelines for people
today. Hungry is not a choice or due to being a loafer for most.... Where
is this man's compassion?!! Frightening frankly that he has such disregard
for his fellow citizens. Pulled himself up from his boot straps as a young
man and walked to work. Good for him! And that qualifies him to pontificate
on the virtues of the human character and his suggestion that most don't
have any character?? Wow. Really unbelievable and cruel.
TrueBlue | 6.26.12 @ 2:17PM
My response to that would be:
What do those people buy/own that they don't really need? Do they still have cable? Are they still buying TVs? Did they have any money saved up to cover the possibility that one or both could lose their jobs? How many car payments are they trying to make? Are they renting, have a home loan, or do they own their home? What are they buying for food as necessities?
If they have cable, why? It's not necessary, and in many cases even basic is $64 a month they could be spending on food. If they have more than one car payment, why? Having more than one car is a luxury, and also increases their insurance payments. I hope they haven't been spending money upgrading their computers or phones, $400+ per item is a LOT of food. My wife managed to feed our household with barely more than $8-10/day, even though we can afford more. Always healthy meals too.
If they are renting, have they considered renting a home over an apartment? In many cases apartments actually cost more, so it's something to look in to. If they have a home loan, did they get that loan knowing it would put them in a very perilous position given the economic uncertainty if one or both of them lost their job? Did they have several months of paychecks saved just in case something went south?
TrueBlue | 6.26.12 @ 2:17PM
One of the things that always annoys me is how people will whine and moan about how hard things have gotten for them, but they never planned ahead. Most people seem to live paycheck to paycheck, always expecting life to go their way, and then when things suddenly don't they scream for help like it's the responsibility of everyone else to assist them because of their inability to plan things out.
Skippy| 6.26.12 @ 2:18PM
Holidays must be lotsa fun around your house.
Butch| 6.26.12 @ 2:41PM
Scotchie: I'll bet a lot of people on this site can do the Ambrose Bierce update on what your sister complains was omitted by Dr. Sowell. I'll take a stab at it.
Civility--complete acquiescence to the left without complaint
Dignity--receiving someone else's hard-earned income withhout that ever being pointed out
Opportunity--outcomes guaranteed by government guns
Substance--any leftwing idea, however far-fetched; ant., vacuousness--America's founding documents
Modesty--not pointing out that he did it and so did 99 percent of American citizens over its history
I'll even add one, since she mentioned it
Food insecurity--the prospect of having to give up the deluxe cable package, or the home wi-fi connecting four computers, or the four Iphones in order to afford food.
JD| 6.26.12 @ 3:36PM
My favorite game to play when I'm told of the "millions of victims" is to ask for one of their stories. I never seem to be able to find a person who can tell me a story that doesn't immediately make it clear that his problems are his fault.
Bill84728| 6.26.12 @ 2:14PM
Orwell, in Politics and the English Language: "All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia."
Vincent| 6.26.12 @ 2:19PM
I recall a story that Larry Elder recited on his radio show that demonstrated a typical problem. He told of a black police officer that called in, who described the events of a disturbance call he responded to. Apparently a young black man had caused havoc at a relative's house. When the officer responded, he was met by a barrage of insults from one of the people at the house, including calling him an Uncle Tom and various other "sellout" synonyms. The officer then described how he responded, reminding the woman that people back in the 50s and 60s protested and fought for the rights and abilities to be considered equals in this country, which included the ability to work as peace officers alongside all others, without discrimination. So now he has that job, and the thanks he gets is to be called an Uncle Tom? Isn't equality what you wanted, Ma'am? She apparently realized quickly her hypocrisy, and apologized to the officer.
As we all know, without the "call for racism" by certain people in the media, and the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, they'd either have nothing to report or have no job. The need to apply racism on anything, like ketchup, is more despicable than racism itself.
JD| 6.26.12 @ 3:43PM
The left considers "regulation" to be like ketchup more than it does "racism". Have a problem? Just add "regulation!" It solves ANYTHING!
We don't even need to understand the regulation, or even specify what it is! We'll just pass a law saying "there shall be MORE REGULATION!" (add 2000 pages of filler text) and let some unelected committee decide what the rules will actually be.