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.

By definition, history, and even insurance actuarial tables young adults have longer to live than people in older age groups. While no one has complete control over how life will proceed, young adults (generally those aged 18-34) have much longer to live with the results of their decisions, and those made by their families, communities, states, and countries. Our complex nation and world include many important issues that impact all age groups. Major issues that affect young adults either uniquely or much more than older age groups include a long-term comfortable and safe climate; sexual and reproductive health and freedom (e.g., unwanted pregnancy, disease transmission, contraception, abortion, choice of partner, assault prevention); the costs of education, housing, and raising children; and the potential to serve in armed services combat. While young adults might need to be more environmentally prudent than their parents, grandparents, etc., they and their offspring will feel the rewards. While sexual caution and good decisions are both smart and at times challenging, calling for abstinence among most young adults is a little like calling for ocean waves not to break on shore. While many parents and other relatives help with the costs of education, housing, and raising children, young adults bear most of the costs. While it is admirable for young adults to serve to defend our homeland and foreign allies, and provide disaster relief around the globe, it likely is best to be ready but not actually deployed in combat. So, how can young adults (or anyone) in the U.S. influence the laws, services, information, and climate that impact their lives? They can initiate or join advocacy, education, and communication efforts. They can lead or join rallies, meetings, discussions, etc. And, of course, they can register to vote, make sure their registration is valid, and VOTE. In the U.S. voting is a right, as is choosing not to vote, but when young adults do not vote it could help elect candidates more likely to harm versus aid their age-specific interests. As for the structure of U.S. elections with partisan-drawn district lines and the Electoral College, EVERY VOTE MATTERS. In recent history many state and local races were won by less than 1% of the vote; and in presidential races small margins determined which candidate received some states’ Electoral College votes, that in turn, impacted who won the White House regardless of who won the popular vote. For whom to vote is everyone’s private choice, and no one can be forced to reveal or explain their votes. When deciding for whom to vote, all voters have access to many sources of information, inspiration, fear, and warning. When sorting through the crowded information landscape to guide voting decisions young adults can focus on who is likely best for their age-specific interests. They can consider who will favor better policies for Earth’s climate (there is no Planet-B); sexual and reproductive health and freedom; the costs of housing, education, and raising children; and responsible use of armed conflict. Further, the two-party system has dominated U.S. elections since roughly the 1850s and that seems unlikely to change soon. In 2024 young adults who vote for candidates outside either the Democratic or Republican party can make an important statement, but like the decision not to vote, it could help elect candidates more likely to harm versus aid their age-specific interests. Finally, while young adults (and everyone) should be angry and sad by events in Israel on 10/7/23 and the aftermath in Gaza, recent reporting indicates some will consider that awful situation as the only factor for whether to vote, or for whom. However, rarely does anyone get to vote for the “perfect” candidate who would work for everything the voter desires. In 2024 if young adults base voting decisions solely on their anger and sadness it too could help elect candidates more likely to harm versus aid their age-specific interests, and at this point, support unknowable actions in the Middle East.