Can you have a meaningful dialogue if one of the participants in the conversation continues to redefine words?

When I was in college, as a young student of religion and philosophy, it was always impressed upon me that in order to have a meaningful conversation, we must define our terms. Whether the context was a critical paper, a debate on utilitarian ethics or a simple ad hoc discussion, the conversation could never progress without commonly accepted definitions of terms, a sort of rule book for definitions. When engaging in an exchange of ideas, the ability to communicate, defend or be critical of ideas is entirely contingent upon the foundation of meaningful words. If one party chooses not to accept this common foundation, the potential for progress and achieving a resolution is dead.

I have become increasingly aware of the practice in the current political climate to redefine words for political expedience. The foundation for this trend has been put in place by various segments of society including media and entertainment circles. Now, this trend is growing rapidly among liberal politicians. For political expedience, both Democrats and Republicans are contributing to the practice of falsely associating words with definitions that violate the traditional meaning of the words in both historical and cultural context. More troubling is that this assault on vocabulary has been promoted by media outlets, television programs and unchallenged by many Americans. 

Though this practice of redefining words and phrases is not an attribute traditionally associated with liberalism, it is well known by anyone who has tried to understand the modern liberal that they are more accurately defined, not by what they stand for, but by what they are against.  So it should come as no surprise that even the definition of words are being distorted to try and define traditional Americans out of existence.

Conservative values, traditional values, family values and American values are now being defined as extremist views.  Extremism is synonymous with radicalism which is defined as a departure from the usual or traditional. The problem with this view is that it is blatantly dishonest. The above mentioned values share some moral and ethical beliefs such as promoting abstinence, marriage defined as one man and one woman, pro-life, small government, the right to bare arms, capital punishment, rugged individualism and understanding that our unalienable rights come from God. These are moral and ethical beliefs that have been embraced and practiced by millions of Americans for over 200 years, yet the modern liberal is attempting to brand these views as extreme and out of touch. 

An example has been the attack on traditional marriage. History bears witness that marriage has been defined as one man and one woman for thousands of years in hundreds of countries and dozens of cultures. In the history of Western Civilization, marriage has been overwhelmingly accepted and defined as one man and one woman, however leftist liberals have launched an attack on marriage to redefine the meaning of the word to include homosexual relationships. There has been occasion when some have tried to include the practice of polygamy under the marriage banner, but those were never embraced by society or maintained legal status.  Though history records that homosexuality is nothing new, it also shows us that gay relationships have never been included in the definition of marriage.

In a second example, the Pro-Life position has always held the position that life begins at conception, therefore to terminate a pregnancy with an abortion is to terminate a life. It seems to follow, at least if you have static definitions of words, that the opposing view of being Pro-Life would be Pro-Death, however the term Pro-Choice has been invoked to emphasize individual woman’s right to choose diverting attention from the ending of a life. In addition to this misdirection, the left has labeled the Pro-Life movement as “anti-abortion” seeking to portray the Pro-Life movement as religious zealots who are attempting to infringe on the individual liberties of women. The problem with this straw man argument is that because life begins at conception, the Pro-Life movement is defending the individual liberty of the unborn child.

Continuing on, shortly after President Obama assumed office, he quickly began his assault on the English language in order to redefine controversial issues to be congruent with his political ideology. Some of these words and phrases include the War on Terror, Enemy Combatant, Torture, Stimulus and Czar.

Two months after taking office, the War on Terror was changed to “Overseas Contingency Operation.” Though America continues to fight two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Global War on Terror, Obama caved to war critics who felt the term misrepresents America’s enemies. The problem is that removing the term ‘War on Terror’ does not change the reality that the U.S. Military is still engaged in battles overseas with American lives in danger against a global network of Islamic terrorists who refer to America as the Great Satan and have vowed to destroy us.

There are many other examples from the new, far left Obama administration. For example, the Enhanced interrogation methods used by U.S. Intelligence agencies are now being called torture, though no interrogated suspect ever sustained effects traditionally associated with torture such as physical injury, dismemberment, broken bones, internal organ failure or death. Based on the new definition, not only do I believe in torture, but I have been tortured by my parents, grandparents, employers, teachers, and my junior high classmates.

Further assaults on vocabulary include pork barrel spending is now called stimulus instead of abuse of fiscal power, terrorists are called insurgents, illegal immigrants are now undocumented workers, and the president has now introduced fourteen Czars (and counting) to over see various programs on the political agenda. These Czars are being introduced as experts ignoring the definition of a Czar as one having great power and authority. What is more troubling about this term is the negative connotation of the word in history, specifically the Russian Czars who were violent dictators who executed their own citizens, banned free speech and seized a majority of personal property in Russia. 

The final example I will provide came from a movie. It is no secret that Hollywood does not hold any traditional values sacred, but I was shocked as I watched a movie called ‘The Golden Compass’, allegedly a children’s movie. In the movie, every person has a personal demon represented as an animal or some furry friendly critter. I will not pretend to know the motives of selecting the term demon to represent these companions, but I must conclude that the story makers are either severely ignorant of the term or have strategically inserted the word to introduce spiritism to children and put a friendly face on the occult. The definition of demon according to secular, non-religious dictionaries is “an evil spirit or a source or agent of evil to cause harm, distress or ruin.” In reading the definition, I have to wonder if the authors of this story were influenced by their own demons.

In closing, I will simply add that progress for any movement requires that words have meanings. For those involved in the culture war and concerned about preserving traditional American values, do not be misled by attempts to confuse issues, revise history or misrepresent conservative values. Know what you believe, why you believe it and challenge these antics to quickly see that they do not have answers. You may not have any influence over the carnival barkers of the left wing agenda, but you can have great influence on those going into the tent. You will know that you have been successful when you start receiving personal attacks, the liberal end game of every meaningful conversation.