Even though it’s important – particularly in a world with slippery politicians – to define words and terms accurately, I haven’t focused on this issue.
Indeed, a quick search through my archives shows that the only glossary I’ve ever published was this humorous list of financial terms.
And the only dictionary I’ve ever published was this clever example of Republican-to-English humor by a leftist.
Fortunately, Thomas Sowell is taking this issue seriously and he has two columns addressing how certain words are distorted to advance a statist agenda.
Here’s some of what he writes in Part I. He starts with the elastic definition of “racism.”
“Racism” is another term we can expect to hear a lot this election year, especially if the public opinion polls are going against President Barack Obama. Former big-time TV journalist Sam Donaldson and current fledgling CNN host Don Lemon have already proclaimed racism to be the reason for criticisms of Obama, and we can expect more and more other talking heads to say the same thing as the election campaign goes on. The word “racism” is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything — and demanding evidence makes you a “racist.”
I also like his assessment of “compassion” and “greed.”
In the political language of today, people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be “greedy,” while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give it to others (who will vote for them in return) show “compassion.”
But my favorite from Part I is “hungry.”
A political term that had me baffled for a long time was “the hungry.” Since we all get hungry, it was not obvious to me how you single out some particular segment of the population to refer to as “the hungry.” Eventually, over the years, it finally dawned on me what the distinction was. People who make no provision to feed themselves, but expect others to provide food for them, are those whom politicians and the media refer to as “the hungry.” Those who meet this definition may have money for alcohol, drugs or even various electronic devices. And many of them are overweight. But, if they look to voluntary donations, or money taken from the taxpayers, to provide them with something to eat, then they are “the hungry.” I can remember a time, long ago, when I was hungry in the old-fashioned sense. I was a young fellow out of work, couldn’t find work, fell behind in my room rent — and, when I finally found a job, I had to walk miles to get there, because I couldn’t afford both subway fare and food. But this was back in those “earlier and simpler times” we hear about. I was so naive that I thought it was up to me to go find a job, and to save some money when I did. Even though I knew that Joe DiMaggio was making $100,000 a year — a staggering sum in the money of that time — it never occurred to me that it was up to him to see that I got fed.
Now let’s shift to Part II of Sowell’s glossary, which focuses on the meaning of “access.”
Politicians seem to be forever coming to the rescue of people who have been denied “access” to credit, college or whatever. But what does that mean, concretely? …To take a personal example, Michael Jordan became a basketball star — and a very rich man. I did neither. Was that because I was denied “access” to professional basketball? Anyone who saw me as a teenager trying to play basketball could tell you that I was lucky to hit the back board, much less the basket.
Sowell explains why this debate matters.
When statistics showed that blacks were turned down for conventional mortgage loans at twice the rate of whites, that was the clincher for those saying that “access” was the problem and that racial discrimination was the reason. Since this fit the existing preconceptions in many quarters, what more could you want? Other statistics, however, showed that whites were turned down for conventional mortgage loans at nearly double the rate for Asian Americans. By the very same reasoning, that would suggest that whites were being racially discriminated against by banks that were mostly run by whites. …Statistics on the average credit ratings of people in different racial groups likewise seldom saw the light of day. The average credit ratings of whites were higher than the average credit ratings of blacks, and the average credit ratings of Asian Americans were higher than the average credit ratings of whites. But to lay all these facts before the public and say, “We report, you decide” might well result in the public’s deciding that banks and other financial institutions prefer lending to individuals who were more likely to pay them back.
Fans of Professor Sowell can read more of his work here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And you can see him in action here. A truly gifted public intellectual and (thankfully) a prolific writer.
[…] P.S. As a big fan of Professor Sowell, I’ve cited his columns more than 20 times. My favorite examples of his writing can be viewed here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And you can see him in action here. […]
[…] more than 20 times. My favorite examples of his writing can be viewed here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] Fans of Professor Sowell can read more of his work here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And you […]
[…] more than 20 times. My favorite examples of his writing can be viewed here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] more than 20 times. My favorite examples of his writing can be viewed here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] P.S. As a big fan of Professor Sowell, I’ve cited his columns more than 20 times. My favorite examples of his writing can be viewed here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And you can see him in action here. […]
[…] Using “society” as a metaphor can elide over important changes. (Edited: Daniel J. Mitchell) […]
[…] more than 20 times. My favorite examples of his writing can be viewed here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] more than 20 times. My favorite examples of his writing can be viewed here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] more than 20 times. My favorite examples of his writing can be viewed here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] more than 20 times. My favorite examples of his writing can be viewed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] Fans of Professor Sowell can read more of his work here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And you […]
[…] Fans of Professor Sowell can read more of his work here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And you […]
[…] Fans of Professor Sowell can read more of his work here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And you […]
I would like to see politicians get called out more when they use the word “Invest.”
That word implies that there will be a return on the investment. When you talk about investing in education, then you should look at the chart Cato throws up almost once a week that shows education spending per pupil going from $40,000 to $150,000 from 1970 until now, compared to test scores staying the same. If the spending really is an investment, then that’s a bad investment.
If you pay to fix a bridge, you are not “investing” in infrastructure. It might be a necessary expense, but there will be no return on investment.
Even if they were using the word correctly, it would mean they are putting money into a venture that holds some risk with the hope of getting back more money. That’s not something I want people doing with tax dollars.
Left or Right, any time I hear a politician saying they want to invest, I am biased to think they want to waste money.
[…] Jonah Goldberg has a book on language, but here is Thomas Sowell talking about the left advancing statism through language distortions. […]
@aharris, Yes, we’re basically in agreement on the entire issue.
Such people have a thought, see that it makes sense, although often only too superficially, and stop there. They don’t continue thinking it through, seeking for implications and where it might lead.
Why do they stop? Because they believe they are right. This suggests they’re arrogant, they believe that since they don’t make mistakes, they must be right. So they ignore all the evidence which demonstrates the very evident problems with their positions, and accuse the clear-sighted of bias – or worse. They seize on anything purportedly supporting their case, and ignore the mountain of evidence against it. Krugman and his carefully chosen Estonian evidence to demonstrate that austerity doesn’t work seems to be a very good example. Useful idiots indeed!
I imagine some are sincere, although others must have a hidden agenda. They refuse to see that they are making fools of themselves to anyone who can think objectively. Their hypocrisy suggests that their desire to be right gets in the way of integrity and commitment to the truth. It’s actually self-sabotage, see http://www.LifeStrategies.net/self-sabotage – which is very common and comes in many, many forms.
The democrats who say single payer is the fair thing for health insurance ignore the obvious parallel that if this is true for obamacare, then it should also be true for food. The government should therefore take over the responsibility for paying for the nation’s food! Just imagine how many people would starve…
@crisbd, I am familiar with a couple of these statists. It isn’t so much arrogance as it is a lack of critical thinking. They fail to go beyond stage one which is something Dr.Sowell mentions in his _Applied Economics_. They go from A to B and stop there. So, if A causes B and B is good, then the policy must be good. They usually fail to think any further to the second and third or fourth degree implications of what they advocate.
So when you argue that B will be bad in the end because it will likely cause C and/or D, they will tell you you’re lying or hateful and refuse to see what you’re saying even if you come with a mountain of evidence backing up your arguments. And, later on if C and/or D really happen or E or F come along that nobody saw but they can clearly be traced back to B and are bad, any politician or so-called intellectual can make up any excuse for those problems that they want and the statist will buy them even if you come along and can directly link C, D, E and/or F painfully clearly back to B because they will remain firmly convinced that B was good, right and just.
Stalin isn’t the only one who called these people useful idiots.
Reblogged this on Talon's Point.
Some of these people are just arrogant, but I also know that some are sincere in thinking that they’re right.
They’re gullible, they get an idea and think that just because they’ve had the thought, it must be right. Then they stop thinking, ignore all evidence to the contrary, and insist they’re right. This is known as BEING RIGHT.
It’s just one of many self-sabotage strategies, see http://www.LifeStrategies.net/being-right
The trouble is, he himself adopts the main distortion of language of the SELF-DEFINED “left”: he calls them “the Left”, which means that he implicitly accepts their claim to be the party of the people.
Reblogged this on New England Objectivist Society and commented:
A worthwhile read
He is a very good writer enjoy and usually agree with his articles. You should make this viral it is very good.