The Annoying Practice of Faddish Words in American English

 

Why did it become better to “reach out” to someone instead of “contacting” or “calling” or “getting in touch” with the person?

Certainly, the term is not concise in the way that contractions are (e.g., aren’t, can’t, I’m).  That’s an important consideration if language is viewed as communication only - sparseness in expression avoids the inefficiency  as well as ambiguity.  But, of course, language is more than that.

Deficient though “reach out” is from a utilitarian perspective, it does carry an emotional tune.  Is it coincidental that the term was integral to singer Diana Ross’ hit song of 1970 “Reach Out and Touch (Somebody’s Hand)” or that AT&T ran commercials in 1987 featuring the song as backdrop to the lyrics “Reach Out and Touch Someone”?

The problem with its use, apart from its excessive length, is that is implies that there is good faith being exercised by its user (the line is so appealing after all).  An illustration:  a politician is accused on a TV broadcast of something disagreeable but no defense or counter view is offered except for the observation by the news anchor that “we reached out to the person but have received no response”.  Enough of this faux thoughtfulness!

Another idea.  Is the accident on the interstate a problem for drivers in the backup or merely an “issue”?  I know, as a conservative, I’m vulnerable to the attack from the avant garde for being insensitive.  Problems can be difficult to overcome; having issues sounds less serious.

The problem (I’m sorry,”issues” won’t do) with euphemisms is that they impede communication and can be ambiguous.  “Issue” used to mean, exclusively, a subject involving different points of view (as in, the propriety of placing a traffic circle at the road exit has become an issue which requires resolution).  So what’s the issue at the accident scene?  Is right of way disputed?  There is merit in calling a spade a spade.   

How about the free and indiscriminate use of “awesome”?  If everything is, nothing is.

Here are two more silly expressions in vogue which themselves drive The Sensible Conservative nuts. 

“Push back”.  Why is physical force implied when the person is simply responding with a different view on the issue (forgive me)?

Or how about “walk back”?  Does that mean backing up as in retracing steps?  That’s a confusing expression which typically is used to note that the person “walking back” is trying to correct a false or misleading statement – in the opinion of the user – previously made.  “Setting the record straight” does the same thing without the opinion

 To be sure “walk back” is shorter.  But in this instance clarity should prevail over conciseness.  

Can a Partisan Have an Open Mind?

 

 

It’s hard.

I define partisanship in a political sense.  One who is a partisan is  committed to a particular view or affiliation out of belief and/or loyalty.  Nancy Pelosi, for instance, is undoubtedly a firm believer in the leftward policies of today’s Democratic Party.  And even if she weren’t, her role as a party leader demands that she display loyalty to it.

When challenged on policy or affiliation, a partisan cannot be expected to view the merits of the opposing view objectively.  He or she, after all, already has “made up his/her mind” and so responds defensively.  For emotional or other reasons, the partisan finds it very difficult to consider that the challenge may be meritorious.

Simply put, if a person has reached a conclusion in a political vein, he finds it very difficult to change his mind.  People want to believe that what they do believe is indeed right and true.  And that attitude is usually founded on an emotional commitment.

As first and foremost emotional creatures, we humans are loath to admit we were wrong about something to which we developed an emotional allegiance. 

So when our belief about matters that are close to us are questioned, our almost automatic reaction is to defend our stance, seeking  reasons why the challenge can be ignored.  We are not interested in considering the subject.  Our emotional comfort depends upon our success (at least in our minds) in mounting a successful defense.

The objective difficulty with this approach is obvious.  Since we are looking only to bolster our position, not seek support for the opposing view, or give it fair consideration, our inquiry is prejudiced. 

We have already closed our mind.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

The Danger to Democracy

 

Simply put, it is the opportunity that the broad electorate has to put its own selfish interests ahead of the community’s.

Or, in language of fables, it has the ability – and strong temptation – to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

These thoughts are prompted by the action of Democratic party leaders who want the Federal $600 weekly payment to unemployed workers to continue.  This, despite the common sense fact that paying money to people who are not working is a disincentive for many to return to work. 

Further, given that the national debt is already well above twenty trillion dollars, this expenditure means spending money the government doesn’t have.  So money printing presses go into overdrive and the prospect for inflation accelerates.

Yet who can challenge the appeal of getting money for “free”?

Republicans are put in the difficult position of trying to retain whatever public popularity they can while arguing for both fiscal and social responsibility.

In this day and age, we use the term “democracy” in a loose sense to describe a self-governing society in which citizens have the right to vote for members of their government.  Classically, however, it meant that all eligible members of the citizenry (slaves, women and children excluded) were the government and determined policy by a defined majority.

But historically, majority rule in the classic sense has proven to be short-lived.  The majority exploits the minority which rebels and the government collapses, followed by dictatorship and autocracy.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to thwart that tendency of democracy by providing structure for a limited (restraint on popular will) government that is more correctly labeled a Republic (rule by representation, not the public directly).

Of course, spending other people’s money or having others pay the costs of what one wants is popular (doing what is right or proper may have less appeal).  The Democratic Party makes it a practice to go for the popular --  Republicans are placed in the role of trying to limit “excessive” spending.  A public perception of GOP stinginess is the consequence.

Inevitably, for short-term political reasons, Republicans give in at least partially and the fiscal insanity continues.

The survival of self-government, our Founders knew, is dependent upon responsible leaders and citizens.  The absence of such today is obvious.

Thus, there is substantial reason to question the longevity of the American Goose.