More on Political Language

Stemming from my earlier post on the importance of political language, I have some more observations that touch on the same subject.

Lately, the President and Democrats have tried to paint Tea Partiers as "extreme" and "rigid" in their political thought.  These types of words to describe one's political opponents in politics are nothing new:  it's just that they used to come with nouns attached.  In modern speech, we have tacitly begun dropping the noun and acting as if the adjective suffices.

For example, what used to be called tyranny is now today called a dictatorship (as if the unjustness of that regime stems from one man dominating all conversations). Also, the change in the meaning of the word culture is very instructive as well (culture used to mean a person with good taste.  A person with tastes in things low, e.i., drugs, prostitution, etc., would obviously not be considered cultured.  We are now taught to value all tastes equally with no ground to tell the high from the low.  As is the common refrain today, "Who are we to put our values on anyone else?").

To say that someone holds an extreme or rigid position does not say anything about the position itself.  Lincoln held rigidly to certain positions, e.g., the unjustness of slavery.  The Founders could be described as both rigid and extreme in their views on what makes government legitimate.  Adolph Hitler's political thought was both extreme and rigid.  The same can be said of the politics of Saddam Hussein.  Obviously this kind of language clouds and distorts more than it helps.  

This drift in language certainly has damaging and degrading effects on our politics, especially on a people that ground their politics on the laws of Nature and Nature's God.