‘Woke’ And Other Bogus Political Terms

JUN 24, 2023

ROLLAND KIDDER

This was the title of a recent article in the Financial Times that caught my eye. We see this word a lot these days, but there are also a lot of similar words of what I would call political “slang” that get thrown around–and I often wonder what exactly they do mean.

I had assumed, for example, that “woke” actually referred to people formerly called “liberals” or “reformers.” Such people were usually looking to government for various kinds of social change. However, this article defines “woke” as “the number one meaningless word which is used to signify ‘any acknowledgment of racism or sexism’, ‘expressing an opinion while black or female’, or just ‘a new thing that I don’t like.’ “ However you define it, it seems that “woke” is a word meant to be a negative description, by those using the term, of someone who takes a position somewhere on the political spectrum other than where they are.

Another such political term, according to the article, is the word “witch hunt.” It no longer refers to the actual hunting for witches, as in the old Salem witch trials. Instead, it is a word that “has become the first refuge of any political scoundrel in legal trouble.”

Or, what about this word–the “media,” or sometimes phrased “the mainstream media?” I had always thought that this word applied to major newspapers, radio and TV networks, and such organizations as the Associated Press. However, it is used now primarily as a term to describe a concerted, organized, purported effort at disinformation. The article says that so used “it is a meaningless word because there are countless very different media, which don’t act in concert.”

One more example–the words “fake news.” It used to mean that what we thought was real news, was being made up, sometimes being created by “trolls producing false content that masqueraded as news on Facebook.” But, today, the article states, these words have been “repurposed” by some politicians “to mean any news story inconvenient to the speaker.”

What this article pointed to, in my mind, is the fact that labeling people or issues with simple words or slogans is, in fact, a means to avoid real communication. What we need is actual dialogue and discussion in our body politic…not sloganeering.

For example, instead of stating ones’ position as being “woke” or “anti-woke,” why not actually have a discussion of an issue at stake? A good starting point might be to talk about something contentious, like illegal immigration. Why is it happening? What about those awaiting a decision on the legality of their entry, i.e. if not legally a “refugee,” do they still qualify for asylum? How do we protect the border? Do we need new legislation to deal with the problem? Should Texas be sending busloads of those crossing the border to other places? What happens if they come here? Etc.

Handling controversy in this way, through serious discussion and dialogue, is the American way of doing things. We may never agree but, at least, we can come to an understanding of our disagreement; and, perhaps, can find some common ground in the process.

As to one or two-word political “sloganeering”–I have had enough of it. It is not good for the country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

History Continues To Repeat Itself

LOCAL COMMENTARIES

JUN 3, 2023

ROLLAND KIDDER

 

I know that most believe that we are living through one of the most contentious periods in American history. Yet, after recently re-reading David McCullough’s biography on John Adams, I was again reminded of how acrimonious politics has been throughout our nation’s history.

Adams, as we know, was one of the founding fathers and was elected as our second President in 1796. Though a rather “low-key” kind of guy, he was constantly vilified by his opponents, and was actively opposed even by his own Vice President, Thomas Jefferson. On his last day in office, one newspaper reveled in his departure, hoping that once he returned to his home in Braintree, Massachusetts “Mrs. Adams may wash his befuddled brain clear.”

The acrimony in our politics had begun even earlier during George Washington’s second term. The revered Washington had come to be referred by some as the “American Caesar,” and Thomas Paine had called him a “hypocrite in public life.” Washington, tired of criticism and wearied of politics, decided not to seek a third term. In his view, the developing “party system” of politics was not good for the country.

After becoming President, Adams, a Federalist, soon faced opponents even within his own party from men like Alexander Hamilton who wanted him to be tougher, support Britain and go to war with France. Adams, however, believed the young nation needed to stay out of war, and so he eventually concluded a treaty of peace with France. Old “friends” like Jefferson even accused him wanting to make the Presidency into a monarchy akin to that of the English King. Adams wanted no such thing.

And then there were political “upstarts” at the time who came out of nowhere and who had little philosophy of government other than self-promotion. They were especially despised by Adams. One was Aaron Burr, described by Adams as “seeing this dexterous gentleman rise like a balloon, filled with uninflammable air….”(Does that not remind you of some present-day politicians?)

At least, in the early days of the country, most political differences were couched in arguments alleging noble ideas. The Federalists were pushing for a strong central government in order to bolster the prospects for the new United States. Almost immediately, there emerged the “Anti-Federalists” (eventually referred to as democratic “republicans,”) who believed in strong government at the state level but wanted a weaker form at the federal level. Much of that feeling was founded on the fear that the commercial north would try to dominate the rural (and slave-owning) south through the power of the federal government.

Interestingly, these old political breakdowns still sound familiar today. Fear still prevails in the south and in rural America, that the nasty federalists (now Democrats) from the north will try to impose their “big-government” will on the “freedom-loving people” of the south (now primarily Republican) and “never the twain shall meet.”

I suppose that we could argue all day about the intrigue and bitterness that characterized politics in the early days of our county. But, that is the point. Contentious politics has always been with us and, probably, always will be.

What the American people have done in the past and still have to do, is sift through the accusations and acrimony of politics and find the nuggets of unity underlying our system. Underneath the veneer is that love of country and freedom under law which, despite our differences, has made our democracy work.

Ours is a history that continues to repeat itself, and there is no way we can duck our obligations as citizens today to ensure that the system, as imperfect as it is, keeps working.

Rolland Kidder is a Stow resident.