Liberals writing own Devil’s Dictionary
by Melvyn L. Fein
Columnist
April 27, 2013 11:09 PM | 1134 views | 5 5 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Just a bit over a century ago Ambrose Bierce published “The Devil’s Dictionary.” A humorist by trade, Bierce intended this as wry commentary on the passing scene. Often more cynical than amusing, its definitions are still frequently on target.

For instance, Bierce defines “optimism” as “the doctrine, or belief, that everything is beautiful, including what is ugly, everything good, especially the bad, and everything right that is wrong.” This gives the flavor of how he turns meanings on their head, while providing insights into human nature.

Among his other definitions is “politics,” described as “a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.” Similarly he defines “twice” as “once too often” and “truthful” as “dumb and illiterate.”

Nowadays we are being treated to an analogous reworking of the English language. This one is being perpetrated at the hands of liberal Democrats and is not intended to entertain, but to persuade. In short, familiar words are being given new definitions in order to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.

Typically crafted by being tested in focus groups, these definitions are more about connotation than denotation, more about atmospherics than substance. They are linguistic gymnastics that advertise, not inform. They are the equivalent of Madison Avenue’s use of “new and improved” to mean “a smaller quantity at a higher price.”

So let us start with a sample of familiar definitions. One of the more common involves the word “balanced.” Whenever a liberal Democrat utters this word it basically means “unbalanced.” It is tantamount to saying “the other side should do it our way.”

The recent usage has entailed depicting hugely increased taxes as exactly matching invisible spending cuts. Listeners can identify this sort of legerdemain whenever they encounter every Democrat who pops up on television spouting precisely the same language.

Incidentally, this mindless repetition is usually described as “remaining on message.” Moreover, politicians are proud of it. The more discipline they show, the more professional they apparently feel. This is probably because they understand that the endless duplication of misinformation transforms dross into gold, i.e., into a facsimile of truth.

Anyway, this process of turning the language inside out is proceeding at a breakneck pace. So for exhibit number two I present “bipartisan.” Once upon a time bipartisan meant that two parties worked together to produce a compromise satisfactory to both. Now it means they may not even be talking to one another.

Thus, when liberal Democrats assert that they are being bipartisan, they mean that Republicans “should do it the Democrats’ way.” As with “balanced,” the word always tilts to their side of the ledger. Evidently what Republicans want is partisan because they want it, whereas what Democrats want is not because it is in the interests of the public and therefore neutral.

Another word that has been twisted totally out of shape is “transparent.” Once upon a time transparent meant that you could see through something. With respect to politics, it implied that ordinary people would be allowed to witness government decision making first hand.

In fact, Barack Obama told voters they would be allowed into the room when important choices were being discussed. This became non-operative during the political machinations that led up to ObamaCare. The resultant horse-trading was too disreputable to open the doors for anyone.

What then is the liberal definition of transparent? Essentially, “We will let you see what we want you to see and not what we don’t want you to see.” Moreover, we liberals will certainly not provide accurate information about the Benghazi cover-up. That might make us look bad and so we won’t even permit you to talk with the survivors. And so the melody plays on. It’s the same old music, but with freshly mangled lyrics. Stay tuned. There is more to come.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D., is a professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University.
Comments
(5)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
frogbreath
|
April 29, 2013
Here are some good words which have taken on terrible meaning because of progressive defintion:

social justice, fair share, tax cuts, evolution, creationism, immigration, free enterprise, welfare, religious freedom, right to life Second Amendment and the Constitution.
Samuel Adams
|
May 02, 2013
You have to add the words "comprehensive" before words like immigration. That word is the hallmark of liberals.

When you hear the word "clearly" (used more often than not by Hilary Clinton) that should be a red flag that people are trying WAY too hard to make you believe their lies.

And Obama has taken socialist vision and created a whole new lexicon for the American White House. Doorknockers (a community organizing term); Organizing (i.e. for America, for Obama, for Lucifer, for Alinsky); "spread the wealth around," the bogus "top one percent;" "voting rights" (meaning the Black Panthers can stand outside polling places with clubs, according to Obama and Holder, but poll workers cannot ask for a driver's license) are just a few.

Don't forget "czars" (radical left political appointees who could not pass a background check); "Arab Spring" (meaning rise of radical Islam); "they are only Chechens" (meaning, they must've acted alone and not because of Islam); "workplace violence" (meaning we are going to ignore this act of terrorism because only military people were killed); "TEA baggers" (meaning Obama is going to use a sexually crass term to demonize American citizens who want an end to irresponsible spending and socialism.

It's endless.
Only Words
|
April 28, 2013
Here are 2 words from the far rights' Devil's Dictionary:

Mission Accomplished.
Laura Armstrong
|
May 02, 2013
This phrase, put on a banner by the sailors onboard the aircraft carrier to denote that their cruise was almost finished, has been misconstrued and used for years by liberals who wanted to show Bush, again, was wrong and to detract from the warm welcome he ALWAYS receives from our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. Also to detract from his arrival on the carrier as a fully qualified military fighter pilot, looking pretty good in his flight suit, even to the gays on board (that's for you Foley). If Only Words compared the war records of both president's eight years in office, when all is said and done, Obama has been a miserable failure, neglecting overseas operations and the military and Bush is still a winner. Look at casualty rates, buddy, and tell us how they compare. Worse, look at the economy and resulting death and destruction of personal wealth and declining means of minorities, and tell us again how blacks and hispanics benefitted by having Obama in the White House.
anonymous
|
May 05, 2013
"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." - Bush, May, 2003.

When he received an advance copy of the speech, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took care to remove any use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished" in the speech itself. Later, when journalist Bob Woodward asked him about his changes to the speech, Rumsfeld responded: "I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it's too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back... they fixed the speech, but not the sign."
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides