Word Play and Political Demagoguery

To see a list of all commentaries, click the above picture.

Proof of Citizenship and the American Voter

Separation of Church and State - Part 1

Separation of Church and State - Part 2

Being a Constitutionalist

Introduction

It stands to reason that success in politics would require the ability to communicate ideas clearly in language that is understandable for the entire range of IQ’s. After all, clarity and directness are paramount for effective communication. One would think that failure to communicate well might naturally lead to a very short-lived political career. However, for a number of reasons, that does not seem to be the case in American politics. Indeed, there are many politicians on a certain side of the political aisle who seem to be able to pull off being completely ambiguous in their language without paying a political price. In fact, it’s not unreasonable to point out that, for those of a particular political ilk in America, vagueness has become their preferred political lane. It is what might legitimately be called strategic ambiguity.

It is also fair to say that if ambiguity is the chosen path, it is because healthy ideas and the well-being of constituents are of little concern. The focus is only on winning elections and gaining power by saying things constituents want to hear rather than honestly working on their behalf. This means there is a heavy measure of disingenuousness involved. Of course, this begs the question: If politicians spend so much time being vague in speech and ideas, who would be so gullible that they would buy in to their scheme? Sadly, the numbers are staggering.

Exactly what does strategic ambiguity look like? There are a number of terms that are consistently employed in the political arena that are intended to obscure meaningful debate. These terms are, to a large degree, undefined because they either mean different things to different people or they are simply immeasurable. Consequently, these terms are bandied about, but no one is supposed to question their legitimacy or relevance. Following is a discussion about certain terms or words that fall into this category. Note that this list is not comprehensive, but it will hopefully give readers a clue of what to listen for in political speech that is really nothing but gibberish.

Fair Share

The term fair share has been around for a while. In fact, available information suggests that it dates back to medieval times. It was used as an arbitrary measure when it came to dividing land, food, and other resources among the people. Throughout history, the concept of a fair share has been closely tied to issues of social justice and equality. In many societies, it was believed that those who had more resources should give back to those who had less in order to create a more equitable society.

In modern times, the idea of a fair share continues to be a topic of discussion when it comes to income inequality, taxation policies, and resource distribution. While the idiom is tossed about daily in political dialogue, no one offers a clear definition, and there is a reason for that. By embracing its imprecise character the term fair share can be disingenuously employed as a mechanism to hoodwink those among the electorate who are easily manipulated. The purpose is to persuade people that anyone who has more than them or earns more than them should pay a far higher percentage of their income/possessions to the rest of society, generally through higher taxes.

The terminology must remain unclear or it becomes impotent as a political weapon whose sole purpose is to build up animosity between financial classes. It is intended to make those who see themselves as poor view those with more resources through a lens of jealousy and anger. The politician then promises to make those who have more assets or income pay their fair share. However, in political circles, it is no longer just about forcing those who have more resources to pay heftily for the betterment of society. In American politics, paying a fair share is presented as just penalty for the rich simply because they are rich. Punishing them, it seems, is intended to offer a sense of satisfaction for those who see themselves as poor. Consequently, they will gladly vote for the person who promises to punish the rich for being rich.

Wealthy

Who is wealthy? It is an interesting question, but its relevance is a bit unclear. That’s because the idea of wealth is a bit of a sliding scale. To a person who earns $50K/year, another person who earns $150K/year may be considered wealthy. The person who earns $150K/year may well consider someone who earns $500K/year wealthy. There was a day when millionaires were considered wealthy by anyone who did not have that kind of money. Now, perhaps it is billionaires who enjoy that distinction. The term wealthy, it seems, means different things to different people.

Wealth and fair share seem to go hand in hand where politics is concerned. The political argument is that it is the wealthy individual who must pay a fair share. Thus we have dual ambiguity. Wealthy is undefined and fair share is undefinable. Like the term fair share, this term is aimed at driving a wedge between people in varying financial situations.

Affordability

Another term frequently invoked in political rhetoric is affordability. Similar to fair share and wealthy, it offers the opportunity to produce a narrative that is devoid of specific parameters. Consequently, defining this term is like trying to nail water to a wall. What is deemed affordable by one individual's standards might be considered unattainable or inexcusably excessive by another.

The lack of clarity regarding what makes something affordable is, of course, intentional. The purpose of the opaque character of the term is to impede productive debate on constructive policy initiatives. The goal is to characterize one’s political opponent as someone who doesn’t care about affordability, whatever that term means. Consequently, the word is used specifically due to its lack of clarity. The point is to convince the weak-minded that they live in a world lacking (undefined) affordability and persuading them to vote against that political opponent who purportedly does not care about their plight.

Fascism

It may be a surprise to many, but even the word fascism has become a political piranha with no bite. Perhaps no other term has been used more in recent years, but this term has lost all meaning. After all, if everything is fascism, then nothing is fascism. Recently a Trump hater (and there are many) began loosely throwing around the word fascists as a description of the Trump administration. When someone rightfully pointed out to that person the true character of historical fascism which involves control of mass media, either the intertwining of religion and government or limiting religious freedom as was attempted by certain governors during the Covid-19 outbreak, crushing free speech as was seen in the Biden administration’s collusion with social media, overtaking of the manufacturing sector of the economy, etc., the response was underwhelming. The person insisted that they weren’t talking about that kind of fascism.

Evidently fascism does not mean what it did during the reigns of Mussolini or Hitler, although many have called Donald Trump Hitler. They must mean that he is just not that Hitler. Consequently, the term is meant to simply scare voters into thinking that Donald Trump is something he is not. Again, the point is to employ a term that has countless possible meanings for different people without offering a clear definition.

What is fascism? Is it Trump’s plan to kill millions? No. Does Trump complain about a public media machine that hates him? Of course he does. The First Amendment recognizes free speech as a right, so he has that right. Has he made any attempt to take over the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy? No. So, if fascism has lost its meaning, the use of this term is pure political demagoguery meant to reel in those of low political IQ.

Climate Change

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the world was warned of the dangers of global cooling. In fact, on April 28, 1975, Newsweek published an article titled, “The Cooling World.” In that article, writer and science editor Peter Gwynne chillingly proclaimed the cooling of the earth with evidential data accumulating “so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.” Predictions were of shorter growing seasons for farmers, famine, and an impending new ice age beginning as early as the 1980’s.

While claims of a warming earth can be cited as far back as the early 19th century, the term “global warming” was first introduced in 1975. Ironically, that was the same year Gwynne’s predictions of global cooling headlined Newsweek. Of course, Gwynne’s weather predictions failed miserably, but this only served to raise concerns about global warming over the next two decades. Interestingly, 1975 was also the year the newest term – climate change – was introduced. Many ecological predictions about a changing earth were published. A google search revealed dozens of failed predictions. Here are a few of those expectations that failed to materialize.

1. In 1970, Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that civilization would end by the year 2000 if the climate issues were not addressed immediately.

2. Also in 1970, Life reported that in a decade, urban dwellers would require gas masks to survive the expected level of air pollution and that, by 1985, the amount of sunlight reaching earth will be reduced by half.

3. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

4. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

5. There was a prediction in The Guardian that Florida would be underwater by 2020, though the details of the flooding suggest that the author did not have the entire state in view.

6. In 1988 it was predicted that Maldive Islands would be underwater by 2018.

7. In 2006, Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, made claims of rising ocean flooding inland and destroying large cities like Manhattan in short order.

8. In 2007, Al Gore insisted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

9. In 2008, science writer Seth Borenstein echoed Gore’s warning about the Arctic.

10. In 2009, Prince Charles warned “Just 96 months (8 years) to save the world.”

11. Also in 2009, Gordon Brown, writing in The Independent, warned that “We have fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe.”

12. In 2014, a French Foreign Minister declared “We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Dozens of other examples could be offered, but you get the point. Historical warnings about the impact of global warming/climate change have consistently failed to materialize. In fact, a recent google search of global warming/climate change predictions that had transpired resulted in the following seven items.

1. In 2024, the earth’s global temperature exceeded the average temperature from 1850-1900 by 1.5o C. This purportedly matched climate models developed between 1970 and 2007.

2. In September 2024, Arctic sea ice extent was the sixth-lowest in the 45-year satellite record. This is in keeping with predictions dating back to the 1970’s.

3. Global sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1880. However, this claim is contradicted by other scientific measurements indicating that sea levels have actually risen less than an inch.

4. Over the past decade, wildfire seasons have become significantly longer in the western United States, Australia, and parts of Europe.

5. 2024 became the first full year above the 1.5°C mark (this is actually a repeat of item 1).

6. Ocean heat reached its highest on record in 2024, with the rate of warming accelerating and rising ocean CO2 concentrations driving up acidification levels.

7. The Arctic tundra region has shifted from storing carbon in soil to becoming a carbon source to the atmosphere.

There is a noticeable difference between the failed predictions and those that scientists insist have materialized. The common man can look and see that Manhattan and Florida are not under water. Similarly, it is rather common knowledge that the Arctic is not ice-free. If that was the case, it would have been headline news long ago. Where these other predictions differ is that they are immeasurable for the common man. Who among us can truly know whether the earth has warmed when compared to average temperatures between 1850 and 1900? Who among us has tracked or could track rising sea levels or measure the level of carbon in the soil of the Arctic tundra? The “facts” are delivered to the populace as truth, knowing that they are not provable and that the average man has no means to determine their validity or, if true, whether they can be directly linked to climate change. Their immeasurability is what one might call convenient.

The point is that the term climate change has for decades been employed in the political arena as a fear trigger. The lack of discernable evidence makes it a perfect tool for those who rely on obscurity. Consequently, the expression climate change has earned a place alongside other words and phrases that are undefined, making it a member of the world of strategic ambiguity.

Disinformation/Misinformation

A term that quickly rose through the ranks during the Covid-19 pandemic is the word disinformation. During that time, when an individual or group disagreed with a certain narrative, any information they published would be countered with the claim that it was disinformation or misinformation. No evidence would be presented that the information was incorrect. It was simply labeled as incorrect. However, quite often claims labeled disinformation have later been revealed as truth.

In 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, everyone was told to wear masks. In fact, many businesses refused to allow entrance without a mask. During that time, a number of naysayers insisted that there was no scientific evidence to suggest that those masks were helpful. At the time those claims were labeled disinformation. However, in 2024, Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted to Congress that the decision to require masks lacked scientific evidence.

Also in 2020, claims that the Hunter Biden laptop was a genuine piece of evidence were labeled disinformation. It was insisted that such claims were part of a Russian conspiracy. Later, however, it came to light that the laptop was not only genuine, but that those who had so quickly labeled claims of authenticity as disinformation knew the truth at the time. It seems, then that the charge of disinformation was itself disinformation. Hence, it is included among the family of misleading political speech.

Disenfranchised

Who among us has been disenfranchised? Much of the voting public likely are clueless about what the word even means. They simply trust that their representative knows the meaning and that’s really all that matters. What they don’t understand is that it is meant as a surreptitious insult to the very individuals it is intended to impress.

In a word, this term means cheated and it is commonly employed to explain how placing expectations on individuals is unfair. However, the word cheated lacks the necessary sophistication to impress listeners and it is also understandable. Consequently, the term disenfranchised fits much better when attempting to follow the guidelines of strategic ambiguity.

Recently the term has been used to point out how unfair it would be to expect certain groups of people to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote or present picture ID when showing up to vote. The claim is that poor people and minorities (Blacks, Latinos, etc.) would be disenfranchised (cheated) since they are evidently incapable of securing the necessary paperwork that everyone else is expected to provide. Indeed, that does sound a bit disrespectful. In essence, they are saying their constituents cannot handle simple responsibilities that are expected of others while hiding behind the term disenfranchised.

Conclusion

There are those in the political arena who have built their entire career on the foundation of strategic ambiguity. Their political vocabulary consists of vague terminology and empty platitudes. Terms like fair share, affordability, and disinformation are intended to mislead constituents and impede constructive discourse.

There are, of course, a host of other words or slogans that easily fit the category of political demagoguery. For instance, racism (a word so overused that essentially everything is racist), equity (the notion that everyone should realize equal outcomes both socially and financially), and existential threat (suggesting that the very presence of the opposing party is a threat to America’s existence), are terms employed to avoid any discussion over meaningful policy issues.

Sadly, this tactic has proven effective for many politicians who have no substantive ideas and no plan to honestly serve their constituents. What is even more disappointing is that these individuals have vast numbers of ill-informed followers who have no clue that they are being manipulated by people who care only about their vote and not about their well-being. It makes one wonder how so many could become so easily swayed by hollow slogans that they would believe in a class of politicians who have no class at all.

See below for contact information

This book will truly enhance your understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Click the button below to check it out.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________