Saturday, November 29, 2008

Language for Conservatives to Avoid

Language is important to conservative Americans because America is a land of written law. Liberals try to change the law by changing the meaning of words. Therefore, it is the duty of conservative Americans to conserve and defend our English language.

The corruption of our language has also benefited liberals more generally because incorrect or imprecise language decreases knowledge of civics. Less knowledge of civics allows for the wider acceptance of policies contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States, as well as other bad policies.

More precision in language also improves communication and demonstrates greater knowledge. Moreover, it is always prudent to strive for accuracy and truth. Therefore, I welcome edits from readers and suggestions for language that better serves the cause of liberty.

The post will be the first of a series suggesting examples of words or phrases that should be avoided, especially by conservatives. The first two may seem innocent, but help to erode the principle of federalism established by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States of America that limited the powers of the federal government and recognized the sovereignty of the states that formed the Union:

Nation, national, nationwide (when referring to the United States of America)

A nation is a people united by birth, that is to say, their nativity and patrimony (or heritage). In other words, a nation is like an ethnic group. As Americans are comprised of many ethnic groups, the U.S. is neither a nation in the original sense of the word, nor a nation-state, which is a state based upon ethnicity. The U.S. is not even a state, which is a sovereign, independent political entity, but a union of states. Although nation has come to have a similar meaning to country, the U.S. is not a country, either, for the same reason it is not a state. The reference to the U.S. as a "nation" was as part of a beautiful metaphor in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Alas, the term has become acceptable usage, even though it is revolutionary if taken literally. Better examples of phrases to describe the U.S. include the following: the Union, the Federal Union, the Republic, or the States, instead of the Nation; American, instead of national; and across the Union or throughout the States, instead of nationwide.

"All levels of government, federal, state and local"

The phrase implies that the relationship between the federal and state governments is the equivalent as between the state and local, that is to say, as if the states are created by the federal government, just as the local governments are created by their states. However, the relationship is not equal because although the states created the federal government, the states were not created, in turn, by their local governments. States are not like provinces, which are subordinate administrative subdivisions, as local governments are to states. The federal government and the states are not levels of government, but two sovereigns. Therefore, a more precise phrase is "both the federal government and the state and local levels."

Perhaps you can be creative in thinking up other accurate phrases that take back our language from liberals by avoiding chipping away at federalism, as well as that educate our fellow countrymen.

3 comments:

lizknight said...

I was curious about what you thought concerning the use of the words 'one nation under God' in the pledge of allegence, referring to the United States.

The Definitive Word said...

Your question is timely, as the Pennsylvania priest who proposed the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance just died today. The phrase is straight from the Gettysburg Address, as I referred to in my post. In that great speech, Lincoln was employing a metaphor throughout (e.g. "fathers," "nation," "conceived," "new birth"). It was a good rhetorical device, as it is only figuratively true that we are a nation.

My point is to remind us that it is not literally true. It is not so much that it is wrong to use the term, but that it is wrong that this distinction has mostly been lost in our language, just as it has been in policy. The language and policy are reinforced by each other. Therefore, a good way to begin to change the policy is by restoring our language.

The Definitive Word said...

I should add that the Pledge of Allegiance reflects my point because it refers to "the Republic," for which the flag stands, not the country or nation.