By Michael Liebowitz
My thesis is simple: Words matter.
Consider the following: When debating whether to adopt the U.S. Constitution, there were, generally speaking, two camps. Those who wanted a stronger government favored accepting the Constitution, while those who preferred state sovereignty and a loose confederation of states opposed it. Traditionally, the latter were called “federalists.” Then an interesting development occurred; the proponents of the Constitution took to calling themselves “federalists.” As a result, the traditional federalists were then called “anti-federalists”, not a very appealing appellation. Anyway, the new federalists prevailed.
At the turn of the 20th century, advocates for a bigger government and greater intervention in the economy were known as progressives.” The term “liberal”, on the other hand, referred to someone who advocated representative government, the rule of law, free markets, and individual freedom. At some point, however, the word “progressive” fell into disfavor, and the big-government crowd appropriated the term “liberal,” turning it on its head. Soon enough though, “liberal” itself became a term of disparagement; so the radicals went back to calling themselves “progressives.”
Now, consider the word “democracy”, which means majority rule. This is an idea the Constitution’s framers never supported. They understood that majorities could be every bit as oppressive as kings; so they built structures into our system of government to limit majority power. In fact, “democracy” isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Nevertheless, American politicians on both the left and the right frequently employ such phrases as “our democracy”, “democratic structures”, and “democratic norms”. It’s been a silent coup for democracy’s proponents.
A further example of both the power and misuse of words
pertains to disagreements about how the Constitution should be interpreted. One side, called “originalists”, argues that it should be interpreted according to the meaning of the text at the time it was written. The other side, “the judicial activists” favors interpreting the Constitution according to modern usage and evolving standards of decency. This latter group contends that the Constitution is a “living” document. The famous originalist and Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, once said that calling it a “living Constitution” was an interesting tactic, as it put him in the position of defending a dead Constitution. Justice Scalia understood the power of words.
In each of these cases, it was the side that controlled the language that was most successful in advancing its cause. Obviously, the terms they employed weren’t the sole reason for their success, but it would be naïve to underestimate the importance of those terms.
“Equity” is the latest fashionable term. It seems that with every news broadcast comes reports of inequities. Whether referencing health care, education, income, etc. we are assured that inequities exist and they need to be remedied. But what does equity actually mean? The relevant definition is: “The state, quality. Or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair.
Now, consider the policy recommendations of the apostles of equity.
They want the government to force some to pay for the health care of others, compel some citizens to finance the education of others’ children, and make business owners pay a minimum wage. The latest demand for equity in Connecticut concerns the legalization of marijuana. Some are insisting that equity require that particular groups, those “justice impacted” by marijuana prohibition, be given priority in obtaining licenses to sell the weed.
My question is: How is any of that equitable?
When the state puts its hefty foot on the scale to favor certain voters at the expense of others, it is neither fair nor just, let alone impartial. Only a master of prestidigitation could convince fair-minded people otherwise.
As a libertarian, it pains me that advocates for big government have been able to get away with this for so long. And it doesn’t help when people claiming to be proponents of freedom adopt the same tactic. For instance, in the current debate about whether zoning laws should be controlled by state or municipal governments, those who prefer local governments have claimed “it’s a matter of individual choice, and the free market should decide. Now, any advocate of liberty should understand that it’s irrelevant which government tells people what they can or can’t do with their own property. Either way, individual rights are violated, or free markets are hampered. In other words, neither side is promoting liberty.
So, what can be done?
First of all, we need to realize that words have meaning. Second, as much as possible, we should be clear and exact in our political discourses, thus leaving little room for misunderstanding. Intelligent people can disagree, but their disagreements shouldn’t spring from a deceptive (or merely inaccurate) use of language.
Michael Liebowitz #252419
Osborn C.I.
P.O. Box 100
335 Bilton Rd.
Somers, CT 06071
