As successful writers know, word choice affects effectiveness, and often has consequences. Many of us also know some words in political discourse and organization names spread false impressions or half truths about positions, policies, etc., or project flaws on others. Four egregious examples are how “freedom,” “liberty,” “radical,” and “crooked” are abused for political gain.
According to Oxford Languages (https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/), freedom means: “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint,” and that aligns with common usage. Further, Oxford defines liberty as: “the state of being free within society from oppression imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views,” and that also aligns with common usage.
Yet, in current political discourse and organization names many who use (or shout) “freedom” and “liberty” really mean for some only, while they fight to hinder and restrain freedoms for others and oppress their liberties. This hypocrisy is most glaring in how some politicians, advocacy organizations, and media fight reproductive freedom and liberty for women (contraception, pregnancy termination, and perhaps IVF), and romantic and sexual choices and civil rights for LGBTQ+ communities.
Many examples exist, but a great overall example is from Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus who warned: (as quoted in “Mike Johnson’s silence on abortion leaves House conservatives fuming. Again” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Meredith Lee Hill in Politico, 1/18/24) “The majority of the Republican conference” will be “disappointed and upset” if Johnson doesn’t do more to fight for the anti-abortion policy riders that conservatives have demanded since last year.
The same gall occurs when politicians and organizations want to ban books and other items they consider offensive from public schools and libraries even though many people want the freedom and liberty to access them.
Returning to Oxford Languages, a radical is “a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims.” However, in recent years players on one side of the political spectrum have accused the other side of being radicals (including using “radical” as a prefix to a person’s name) while seeking at least three radical reforms. First, the U.S. Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, whether or not an “insurrection” was about radical reform to U.S. governance, including the peaceful transfer of power every American should cherish. Second, the attempt to deny Muslims entry to the U.S. was a radical effort to reform who is allowed to visit or immigrate here. Third, the threat to withdraw from NATO represents a radical reform to security arrangements among North Atlantic nations in place since 1949.
No dictionary citation is necessary to discuss the abuse of “crooked” in current political discourse. The prominent politician who frequently uses “crooked” as a prefix to the name of other politicians or public servants faces 85 felony counts across four indictments. While, of course, the indicted politician is innocent until proven guilty, labeling others crooked is at best childish name calling to score political points, and could be an unsavory stew of hypocrisy and sanctimony. It also might be like throwing stones at a neighbor’s brick house from the porch of your glass house.
Several other examples of deceptive language also draw interest. “Values voters” is meant to distinguish people who base voting decisions on values versus other considerations. However, I would argue that most voters across the political spectrum base their choices on values (AKA ethics, principles, morals). In reality, the term “values voters” is used to camouflage social conservatives’ desire to force their life’s beliefs and choices on others whose values are “wrong” or allegedly do not consider values sufficiently important.
Similarly, “family values” and “traditional family values” each sound positive and wholesome, but beg the questions whose family, what type of family, and whose traditions? Without making any judgements it is easy to acknowledge the existence of multiple types of families, and myriad sources and observances of traditions. So here too we find certain segments of the body politic using a term to allow freedoms and liberties for some population groups while at the same time hinder or restrain others.
One other example of language deception is to couch opposition to the right to choose an abortion as “pro-life” but also favor capital punishment. Similar, less obvious examples include being “pro-life” and against most or all safety laws for guns, transportation, food, and clean air and water; being opposed to stem cell research (for life-saving therapies); and more inclined to support war over diplomacy.
So, as the old saying goes, don’t believe everything you read and hear.