Labeling is a word bomb. It plants a name on an individual and sets off all the negative shrapnel we link with that name. Instead of understanding the individual, we are distracted by the associations with the bomb, the connotations of a word like ‘unpatriotic.’  https://wtucker.edublogs.org/2019/10/16/downshifting-the-rhetoric/

About eight months ago I challenged speakers and writers of all political stripes to “Disarm Your Language.”  It was only a blog, so I doubt if anyone from either Party considered it, but it was a non-partisan appeal to speakers across the spectrum to back off the name-calling.

I am skeptical that the Republicans will actually hold a “more positive” convention this week. It is not in their DNA to avoid labeling their opponents as “anti-” something or “socialist” or “radical left.”  Their critique of opposing candidates leaps toward name-calling and glib descriptions light on evidence.

Most of us had mothers who told us that name-calling was wrong. Did they tell us why it was wrong? Because it put a person in a category with negative associations without evaluating if all those associations were true. That sounds a little weak and dry, compared to “It’s rude” or “not nice,” but it suggests that names that are even half-accurate are offensive.  For example, if we call a plump person “fatty,” that doesn’t mean actually they are thin, but rather not deserving of all the connotations we place on the word “fatty.” The cruelty of a label is that it could be half right without being half-deserving.

So when a candidate is branded “socialist” we imagine that the candidate wants to strip away all of our economic freedom in order to benefit low-income people. Yet few people object to social security, which is a forced program to take money out of our paychecks to save toward the retirement of those without investments.  It is a form of socialism we endorse. But that is not what voters imagine “socialism” to be.  It is a “word bomb” as I describe above.

Anytime a speaker uses the word “anti-“, he or she is labeling or using a word bomb. Candidates who support “Black Lives Matter” are going to be called “anti-police,” and yet I see policemen walking arm-in-arm with protesters holding “Black Lives Matter” signs. The label intends to brand a group or candidate to evoke our negative reaction. We need to question labels such as “anti-military,”  “anti-God,” “anti-life,” “anti-American” or “anti-family.” Word bombs.

Both parties throw the “-ism” and “-ist” labels around, neither with justification. The Democrats love to label people “racist,” “sexist,” or “elitist,” and I have never felt the labels are wholly justified.  Candidates may have advocated some “racist” policies, but maybe they also contribute to the NAACP.  Some favorite Republican “ists:” “socialist,” “leftist,” “communist,” “anarchist,” “atheist,” and “extremist.” Disarm these words!

I don’t defend Democrats who are equal offenders with labeling.  It is casual slander from either party, and it deserves our contempt. But, as a matter of priority, the Republicans are on the stage tonight. Hold them accountable!

Down with the labelers! The bigoted and irrational! No tolerance for labelism, the scourge of language! And your mother says: “It’s not nice!”