What's in a Name?

Communication in general and political discourse in particular are deteriorating rapidly because of terminology. The use of words that conceal rather than reveal is growing geometrically in this politically correct age.

A leading example is in the area of discussions about government policy concerning abortion. The anti-abortion faction that believes that abortion is simply murder of an unborn child does not want to appear to be negative, so they are not "anti-abortion"; they are "pro-life". Who could be opposed to life? The implication is that any who oppose them have no regard for life.

In perfect symmetry, the pro-abortion crowd, who want no restrictions on a woman's option to kill her fetus before it is born, do not refer to themselves as "pro-abortion"; they are "pro-choice". They avoid the implication that death is involved, and characterize the decision to abort a child as just another female choice, similar to hair color or breast augmentation. Anyone who opposes their viewpoint opposes "a woman's right to choose".

The damage this causes is subtle, but fatal to any reasonable discourse. It starkly polarizes an issue that is affected by myriad subtle factors, and about which a reasonable discussion would be appropriate. "I am right and you are a murderer". "No, I am right and you hate and want to subjugate women".

There are plenty of other examples:

Insurgent - Calling a fanatic who entices children to strap on explosives and go to a public place to murder as many people as possible an insurgent minimizes the horror and insanity involved. Insurgent, because of its etymological roots, connotes a popular uprising, a replacement of the existing order by new leadership surging in and replacing the old guard. Fidel Castro and Benigno Aquino were insurgents. Calling murderous fanatics insurgents leads to the illogical position that menacing prisoners with dogs and making them wear women's underwear are somehow more reprehensible than the murder of civilians and beheading of prisoners that got the fanatics detained.

Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, Neocon - It used to be that liberal and conservative were fairly concise labels that summarized the general political outlook of a person. A conservative had a working assumption that government exists as a referee to arbitrate when citizens come into conflict, there was nothing wrong with the status quo, and that any changes proposed by government should be examined skeptically and adopted reluctantly, to conserve what is good. A liberal saw problems in society, assumed any change would be an improvement, and looked at government as the solver of problems. Over time, "liberal" became connected in the mind of the public with being liberal with other people's money. Liberal became a negative descriptor, so liberals took to calling themselves "progressives", implying their opponents are against progress. Since "liberal" had become a pejorative and "conservative" had not, liberals soon took to using the term "neoconservative" or "neocon" to label their opponents. Neocon carries overtones of knee-jerk reactionism, probably because of its similarity to neolithic.

When we stop using these code words, perhaps we will be able to regard our opponents as merely persons with a differing opinion, instead of evil incarnate. If we avoid the euphemisms, maybe we can discuss our differences while respecting our opponents, and the nasty and abusive tone in politics can be toned down to a discussion of differences and a compromise that both sides can live with.