Growing up, when someone called you something other than your given name, we usually complained, “stop calling me names.” Name-calling was usually an act of ridicule or disrespect.
Feeling a bit contrarian, my focus in this piece will be about name-calling that glorifies people, groups, or concepts, in my opinion, unjustifiably.
I’ll start with the title used for people that oppose abortion. These people in their movement are called pro-life. Such a title implies a high, lofty principle of caring about preserving all living things. Does a person that justifies or condones the killing of unarmed Black men, women, and children deserve to be called pro-life? How does one account for those who support the brutal and archaic death penalty practice? By extension, do people who faithfully vote for politicians promoting policies leading to untimely deaths, or diminished quality of life have a high reverence for life? Don’t those people disqualify themselves as pro-life? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call them anti-abortion so that an honest debate could occur?
I am not an expert on Socialism, but I’d like to bring someone else into the conversation. Ludwig von Mises is considered one of the most influential economic and political thinkers of the 20th-century states; Socialism aims to transfer the means of production from private ownership of organized society to the state. Despite this obvious basic tenet of Socialism, proponents of Socialism will argue that various social services or welfare programs managed by the government are examples of Socialism.
A significant number of supporters of Socialism make the argument that Social Security and public schools are examples of socialist programs. I refer you back to Ludwig von Mises’s definition of Socialism. Socialism refers to an economic and cultural system, not individual government programs or government interventions. Instead, programs like Social Security, public schools, and Medicare could be described as a nation’s response to needs and problems caused by and ignored by our capitalist system. In some cases, there are government programs that, therefore, are better suited for government administration. There is next to no evidentiary support that the formulation of these programs was driven by socialistic ideology.
I have worked and lived in countries in Latin America for more than 15 years, and I have some advice for politicians interested in the votes of emigres from Latin America. I believe many of these people have lived in countries run by politicians that either declared themselves socialists or aspired to create socialist economies. A lot of them have developed a deep animus toward anything associated with Socialism. Why do you think it’s so effective when the right hangs the socialist tag on anything Democrats say or do? Get away from the socialism good/capitalism bad narrative; instead, demand that capitalism as we practice it be held accountable, regulated, and only assisted when there is a predominant benefit to our citizenry. And for the haters, no, the Affordable Care Act or Medicaid For All is not a step in the direction of Socialism.
Republican politicians and jurists love to call themselves “constitutional traditionalists” and “strict obstructionists.” It is a bald-faced lie that needs to be exposed. Their positions on the interpretation of the Constitution have nothing to do with a principled stand on the founders’ original intent. Nor do their positions have anything to do with reverence for the rule of law or individual freedoms. It is about acquiring and wielding power at its corrupt core, and it has always been about that power. Instead of pursuing the better angels of our nature, they continuously take advantage of the demons of our past.
Voting Rights for U.S. Citizens are enunciated in the Fifteenth Amendment. It states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.” Republican politicians and jurists have worked nefariously to violate this amendment, all based on deceitful claims of voter fraud. Is it a sign of fidelity to the Constitution when you’re guilty of creating rights from whole cloth for fictional “persons,” corporations (Citizens United) that bestowed constitutional powers to them more significant than those possessed by actual citizens?
Their actions aren’t based on an anachronistic interpretation of the Constitution or even an ideological debate. Their interpretation of the Constitution is egocentric, and they use it to gain and retain power.
We should stop trying to identify individuals and groups politically; we’re awful at it. Right-wing politicians and voters have been able to shield themselves for decades from criticism by cloaking themselves as conservatives. This term gives them respectability and reliability they have not earned. For decades, much of what they have promoted and accomplished has been quite radical and regressive.
There are times I find myself at odds with using the term progressive. As a child of the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements, I am stunned by how many progressives exhibit a microwave vision in some cases; an “I’m going to hold my breath until I get my way vibe.” About progress. Progress, significant progress, is never a snap your fingers proposition. It always requires effective strategy, steadfast recognition of a range of options, and, yes, patience. My message for progressives who plan to use their votes as leverage with the Democratic Party is that taking that approach could result in regression instead of progress.
One of the most egregious cases of classification misappropriation is when individuals self-identify as patriots. It reminds me of when people speak about themselves in the third person. I don’t have a problem with people self-identifying. It’s important to know thyself, but the designation of a patriot is one of those terms that can’t be self-proclaimed. Requisites of being a patriot are sacrifices and support for your country. No one can convince me that insurrection is patriotic, nor does threats of violence and sabotage to efforts to defeat a global pandemic based on disinformation pass the test. If your allegiance to your country is based on whether your team is in power and not on the efficacy of a policy or position, you’re no patriot.
Paraphrasing a well-worn idiom, “you can’t judge a book by its title.”
Views: 186