Well, at least we can agree on the word ‘election’

PETER CALLAGHAN; THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Last updated: October 2nd, 2008 12:41 AM (PDT)

I mean, we’re having this big election – one that is considered a watershed election like 1960 or 1980 or 2007 – yet we seem to use different dictionaries. We speak past each other. We use buzz phrases to identify allies and sniff out enemies.

Most of us speak English but we have different vocabularies. We are – as is often said of us and the British – divided by a common language.

For instance, I say bailout and you say rescue. I say deficit and you say shortfall. I say recession and you say correction. New blood, inexperienced; maverick, loose cannon.

If we could call the whole thing off until we agree on terminology we probably should.

Language certainly matters. Voters are more likely to support a concept known as “death with dignity” than one labeled “assisted suicide.” Given the politics of the day, Dino Rossi does better in polls if his party is given as “GOP” than when he’s called a “Republican.” And Rossi thinks it is important to call his opponent Christine while she prefers to be called Chris.

It goes on. Most voters favor “affirmative action” but oppose “race-based preferences” and quotas. Are those equal rights or special rights? No wonder the rivals in that debate talk as much about the labels as the concepts.

And in 2004 Tim Eyman went to court so voters wouldn’t be told his gambling initiative would be legalizing “slot machines.” Perhaps in recognition of the euphemism involved, the judge at least required that the ballot contain quotation marks around “electronic scratch ticket machines.”

It lost anyway, but Eyman isn’t alone. Each year, initiative proponents and opponents battle in Thurston County Superior Court, bickering over the words and descriptions used in the ballot statements.

So you say revenue and I say taxes; you say congestion pricing and I say tolls. You say HOT lanes and I say Lexus lanes. You say investments and I say spending. You say incentives and I say loopholes. You say public-private partnerships and I say subsidies.

We should call the whole thing off until we can find a lot more neutral words, if not neutral voters.

And then there’s the bias hunt. Both the right and the left have been trained to launch such safaris to root out hidden prejudice in the media. It’s my experience that whenever there’s a bias hunt, the hunters find what they’re looking for. Sometimes both extremes find it in the exact same words.

Nonetheless, the choice of words and terms is a leading indicator of insidious bias. So if you say pro-choice you must be on “their” side. If you say pro-life you must be on the other side.

OK, how about pro-abortion? Sorry, that’s biased because no one is pro-abortion, they’re only pro-choice. How about anti-abortion? That’s biased because we’re not anti-anything, we’re pro-life.

Often these conversations come from lobbyists/interest advocates who represent special interests/public interests who are pushing the politicians for earmarks/member-specific-budget items or some other issue.

Maybe they’re for free trade/fair trade, or tort reform/malpractice reform, or want changes to the death tax/estate tax or are worried about global warming/climate change.

If the politicians don’t do what they are asked, these interests might sponsor negative ads/contrast ads in the next Top Two/Cajun primary that might make the politicians flip-flop/see the light.

Where does it end? I say high standards and you say high-stakes testing. I say peacekeepers and you say occupiers. I say preconditions and you say preparations.

I guess since we need each other so, at least until the election, that we better call the calling-off off. Maybe we can then calm down and gather together in peace and harmony around the Christmas tree/holiday tree.

Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657

peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics

Originally published: October 2nd, 2008 12:41 AM (PDT)