Our dissolving political lexicon

In times of political uncertainty and concern, words lose their meaning, and that which was once concrete dissolves into the abstract.

This sentiment, expressed in George Orwell’s 1946 treatise “Politics and the English Language,” is as true today as it was 65 years ago. Today, the public is bearing witness to the destruction of language. Words that once had one meaning are now being transformed to mean something completely different.

In 1946, Orwell lamented the deaths of democracy and fascism. He did not lament their literal deaths, because in reality they still existed, but rather their expressive deaths. The two words once had precise, concrete meanings and changed to represent something less precise.

Democracy no longer meant government by the people but rather “good government.” Likewise, fascism no longer meant an authoritarian, nationalistic system of government, but instead just “bad government.”

Our own contemporary political lexicon contains many of these words. Words that once meant something but now mean nothing due to political overuse. The word “rich” once characterized an income level sufficient to meet expenses and then some. Today, rich means nothing. It means “millionaires,” “billionaires” and even those making significantly less.

Rich is whatever the speaker wants it to be: The couple making $250,000 (living in a high-priced urban area) that still has to take out loans to send their three children to college and the CEO with two private jets.

Just as “rich” lacks meaning, so does “poor.” Poor was once used as a word to describe someone without enough money to meet essential needs. Now, according to the United States Census Bureau, 42 percent of poor people own their own homes, 80 percent have air conditioning, two-thirds have cable, close to 75 percent own a car and most never go hungry at any point during the year.

By this definition, which is used by the United States government, I’m poorer than most poor people, and I don’t consider myself poor. Most of us don’t define poor the way the government does.

“Marriage” is another word that means nothing today. Marriage once essentially represented articles of incorporation for starting a family, raising children, et cetera, with a convenient legal system to shut down the corporation (i.e., death). Today, with 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce, marriage means little more than a loose partnership between two people who love each other.

“Uncivil” has been a word thrown around a lot lately in the political sphere. It once meant disrespectful and impolite. Uncivil is Thomas Jefferson calling John Adams a “blind, bald, crippled, toothless man” and Adams responding by alleging that during a Jefferson presidency, “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced.” Uncivil is Sen. Roger Griswald (CT-Federalist) attacking his colleague Sen. Matthew Lyon (VT-R) with a cane following a 1798 congressional debate regarding international relations. Uncivil is not merely disagreeing about public-sector unions or universal health care.

Chances are, if you’ve been called uncivil, you’ve also been called a “radical,” which is another word whose true meaning has dissipated. If you look at the root word of radical — radix or radic — you will find that it is Latin for, strangely enough, “root.” Radical used to mean someone who desired to get back to the root, or origin, of something. In politics, it meant someone who wanted to return to basic or founding principles.

However, the way politics have progressed, someone wishing to return to founding principles is crazy or, its newly anointed synonym, radical. Like radical, the word “patriot” has experienced an interesting transformation. The word once meant someone loyal to his or her country and its principles. Today, it means unquestioning support for one’s government, no matter its actions.

And finally, a favorite on college campuses, “diversity.” Diversity once conveyed variety but today is used strictly in reference to melanin. Ask any college administrator if the student body is diverse, and I promise the answer will contain no reference to the most important type of diversity — diversity of thought.

These words, in many cases, were manipulated to achieve political gain.

While in the end you may not be able to reverse the course these words are already on, you can, echoing the words of Orwell, at least make sure your own habits don’t succumb. Like the last leaf on a tree before winter, be that stubborn holdout who refuses accept what may be inevitable.

­— nperrino@indiana.edu