Somehow, the stern, scolding voice of Julie Andrews, from The Princess Diaries, resounds in my head, "Manners matter!"
Why that should be stuck in my head today mystifies me a bit, though it probably shouldn't. Because I come before you not to discuss ettiquette, but semantics and the damage done.
Semantics matter.
I went to The Carpetbagger today and found out that the Republicans are, once again, trying to change their terminology, this time attempting to change the historical record as well. (The following is just an excerpt. You might want to read the whole piece.)
In 2003, Republican senators, specifically Trent Lott, came up with the approach. On May 7, 2003, the Washington Times reported, “The tactic would be so drastic in the usually congenial Senate that Republicans refer to it as their ‘nuclear option.’” A few days later, the LA Times reported, “Republicans have been discussing what they have referred to as the ‘nuclear option.’” A few days after that, Bill Frist’s home town paper, The Tennessean, noted that GOP senators have a “tactic they call their ‘nuclear option.’”
Notice the choice of words here; Republicans came up with the term and used it with reporters. It wasn’t Dems or GOP critics, but the tactic’s proponents who embraced what they called the “nuclear option.”
Then they changed their minds — and insisted reporters play along.
Just perusing the news from the last couple of weeks shows repeated examples of outlets misidentifying the “nuclear option’s” origins. The AP, NPR, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the LA Times’ Ron Brownstein (twice) have all framed the phrase exactly how the Republicans have asked.
[Schiavo’s] death may also intensify conservatives’ demands that Senate Republicans rewrite the chamber’s rules to eliminate the Democratic filibusters that have blocked confirmation of some of Bush’s federal judicial nominees. Critics call that the “nuclear option.”
But that’s not quite right. Everyone called it the “nuclear option” until Republican pollsters encouraged them to start using a phrase that sounded less apocalyptic. Since then, Republicans have toyed with the “constitutional option,” the “Byrd option,” “filibuster reform,” and even, according to CQ, the “Majority Rules Option.”
It seems that The Carpetbagger has no problem with what they call their option, he or she just wishes they'd stop making the press toe the line every time they change the terms of the debate.
I'm a little less sanguine about the "name change", personally. But I've always believed that the words we use are far more important than most people realize. Maybe it's the writer in me. Or maybe it's that I've seen the damage words can do.
I sometimes feel like the only person in the world for whom the phrase "politically correct" feels like a slap in the face. But it always has.
It's not a real phrase, to begin with. Given that politics in America spans a vast range of outlook and opinion, there can be no single "correct" version of anything "political". So "political" in this sense is used in it's alternate meaning of "cautious in consideration of the feelings and opinions of those around you". Somehow this is a negative quality. To be considerate of those around you is, somehow, seen, to be weak-minded and cowardly. And "correct" is even more perjorative in this phrase. Instead of meaning "true," "proper" or even "desired", it means "overly sanitized and less-than-honest".
When something is labled "politically correct," at worst it means you have been labled a cowardly liar. At best, you're considered overly cautious and uneccesarily polite.
This is obnoxious enough in and of itself, in the way it pretzles the language used. But the specific instances of what is labled "politically correct" are what bother me so much.
It's "politically correct" to support affirmative action. It's "politically correct" to denounce hate speech in public. It's "politically correct" to advocate for the rights of immigrants, minority religions, women, animals, equal rights and don't get me started on the ACLU (exactly why is it offensive to carry the card of an organization committed to defending the Bill of Rights?).
In other words, when you do anything considerate of others beyond your own social group, you are labled as weak-minded and wrong. To care about and actively lobby for the welfare of those less fortunate is now considered a social faux pas, not because it IS wrong, but because the Right has managed to hijack the language and make it SEEM wrong.
And we let it happen.
Back in the 80's, when the words were first coined, we laughed at them. "How silly," we assured each other. "Let them play," we said, "it's only words and can't hurt us."
But we were wrong, weren't we? To defend anything beyond God, guns and gumption these days is to be Politically Correct and that is a Bad Thing. Much better to be rude and wrong, so long as you're being "honest", isn't it?
So is it important that DeLay and company are trying to change the "talking points" away from "the nuclear option" to something more palatable?
Yes, it is. And it's time we said so. Before we're hijacked once again.
7:45:52 PM 
|
|
