When Words Take Strange New Meanings

As of Monday, February 20, 2012

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty says, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Alice replies: “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

It’s hard not to be constantly reminded of that quote when you’re listening to what passes for political discourse these days. Humpty Dumpty, in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” was an absurd, pompous, self-important buffoon who had a fine disdain for the actual meanings of words. These days, he’d be a politician.

Take, for example, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s recent address at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. At several points during the speech, he referred to conservatism as the “majority view” in the United States and the country as a “majority conservative” country.

The fact-checking website Politifact, which should know better and usually does, rated Rubio’s claim as “mostly true,” while admitting that the 2011 Gallup poll found that only 40 percent of Americans identified themselves as “conservative.” Another 35 percent, according to the poll, identify as “moderate,” while 21 percent consider themselves “liberal.”

Now, I’m just a simple country lawyer, and it’s been (mumblemumble) years since I took high school civics, but I seem to recall that a “majority” meant over 50 percent. Forty percent is what they call a … let me think … a plurality. Calling 40 percent a majority isn’t mostly true; it’s completely false. It’s like examining the statement “two plus two is five” and calling it “mostly true.”

On the other hand, when Ron Paul stated that a majority of Americans favored a return to the gold standard, Politifact pointed to a poll that showed 44 percent support for that plan, and labeled the claim “false.” So 44 percent is not a majority, but 40 percent is. Through the looking glass indeed.

(Of course, to the American right, everyone not hard-right conservative is not only liberal, but “leftist” — which does not, as it turns out, mean “any political opinion with which I do not agree,” no matter how angry they get when you point that out.)

Another word that no one seems to know the meaning of anymore is “amnesty.”

Recent attempts at immigration reform that include some sort of path to citizenship for people who are here illegally frequently run into a firestorm of hysteria over granting “amnesty to illegals.” As another famous fictional character once said, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Amnesty, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals.” Pardon, in the same dictionary, means “the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty.”

Not a single immigration reform plan submitted or supported by either party contains anything like amnesty, as it’s defined. The Immigration Reform Act of 2007, for example, allowed those here illegally to apply for U.S. citizenship after paying $5,000 in fines and $2,000 in processing fees and passing a background check. A more recent plan demands the payment of fines and back taxes, as well as community service, for illegals to be able to eventually get citizenship.

Believe me, if you were in court and I told you “Congratulations! You got amnesty! Just pay five grand in fines and two grand in court costs and do a hundred hours of community service and we’re good to go,” you’d most likely fire me on the spot. And rightly so, because I’d clearly have no freakin’ idea what that word means.

And yet the so-called “liberal” media — people who are supposed to be in the word business — let immigration opponents toss the word around without questioning anyone about such a blatant misuse.

Maybe, like Alice in the story, they’re just so puzzled and confused by the looking-glass world of political rhetoric that they can’t think of what to say. Or maybe they’ve just given up.

After all, when you’re dealing with people who can look at a health insurance reform plan that leaves the vast majority of the insurance market in the hands of very large, very wealthy corporations and call that plan “socialist” with a straight face, you’re clearly dealing with people who, like Humpty Dumpty, not only don’t know what words mean, they just don’t care.

Dusty Rhoades lives, writes and practices law in Carthage. Contact him at dustyr@nc.rr.com.

More like this story

JER 3 months ago

But Dusty, what can you expect from folks who make outrageous statements and, when confronted with the lie, say things like "That comment was not intended to be factual". These are simply people throwing word bombs, hoping the letter and syllable shrapnel will do some damage.

And speaking of words being spoken: Did anyone notice at last weeks CPAC gathering that they were evidently expecting President Obama to show up as a guest speaker? That is the only explanation I could find for the installation of the teleprompters at the podium. We all know from constantly thrown word bombs that only Obama needs a teleprompter to get his message delivered. Conservatives certainly don't need to read from a script, do they?

dustyrhoades 3 months ago

Thanks, JER! And thanks, jpb for "laugh out loud funny" and for, as usual, coming up with some comment that's (a) wildly off topic and (b) a complete fabrication of what people are saying.

dustyrhoades 3 months ago

that differential in cost will likely be small and should have limited, if any, impact on the price you’ll pay at the pump.

And let's not forget: the Keystone Pipeline, if they started work tomorrow, wouldn't be completed for years. Anyone who tells you gas prices are going up because the White House refused to be bullied on the Keystone Pipeline is full of it.

As for the Zombie Lie that gas prices are going up because Obama's not allowing drilling:

After declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Drilling rigs have rushed into the nation's oil fields, suggesting a surge in domestic crude is on the horizon. The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadrupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world. "It's staggering," said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. "If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years." There are doubts that energy independence is that close. But many say the booming shale oil fields in Texas and North Dakota and the growth of deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will allow the nation to cut its reliance on oil imports significantly over the next couple of decades.

http://www.chron.com/business/article/U-S-oil-gusher-blows-out-projections-3341919.php

justpissingboy has the worst case of Obama Derangement Syndrome this side of Rush Limbaugh, but he is, as usual, fact free.

wrich49 3 months ago

"Inconceivable!"

dustyrhoades 3 months ago

"You keep using that word..."

dustyrhoades 3 months ago

Inconceivable! High Quality by WhatTheEfffff

wrich49 3 months ago

The Princess Bride....one of my all time favorite movies. I've watched it soooo many times with my neice, nephew, and granddaughter. ALL of your readers should watch it.

OldSpook 3 months ago

Actually, I believe Mr. Obama is correct in not allowing off-shore oil drilling and/or the pipeline from Canada for three very simple reasons. 1st, we have so much refined product in this country that we are now selling/shipping the stuff to China and India. 2nd, Mr. Obama's Washington has allowed the heavily regulated oil industry to raise prices by 85% since Jan 2009. (U.S. Energy Information Administration) And 3rd, I really do not trust the big oil companies that own Washington politics not to screw up and dump millions of gallons of crude on our beaches much less across the country.

Courseaire 3 months ago

Moderates don't count (or at least split between the two), so when you compare the conservatives to the liberals, the conservatives have almost a 2 to 1 advantage and therefore a majority statistically.

Arestorer 3 months ago

To bad for you,that you cant take Moderates out of the Election...

dustyrhoades 3 months ago

Of course you can manufacture an advantage if you assume facts that are not in evidence.

Courseaire 3 months ago

DR - I used facts in evidence, I just discounted facts that are not relevant as any true statistician would. I could have split the moderates 2 to 1, but generously gave the liberals half of them.

dustyrhoades 3 months ago

You assume "conservative/liberal" is a binary state, not a continuum.

Courseaire 3 months ago

I'm pretty sure there are 50 states and I gave you extra.

Courseaire 3 months ago

And for those taking the quiz on the other Blog - you have inTeststate.

Courseaire 3 months ago

...or too many of their meds.

dustyrhoades 3 months ago

by dustyrhoades

Courseaire 3 months ago

DR - Now that's funny!

madstork 3 months ago

AGENDA 21

jimt 3 months ago

Maybe Madstork will enlighten us with regard to the point he is trying to make when he writes: AGENDA 21. He's used it in three separate blogs now. Still can't fathom his point in any of them.

dustyrhoades 3 months ago

Fnord