Last Updated:September 16 @ 08:22 pm

Sowell: A Political Glossary

By Thomas Sowell

Since this is an election year, we can expect to hear a lot of words -- and the meaning of those words is not always clear. So it may be helpful to have a glossary of political terms.

One of the most versatile terms in the political vocabulary is "fairness." It has been used over a vast range of issues, from "fair trade" laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. And recently we have heard that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of taxes.

Some of us may want to see a definition of what is "fair." But a concrete definition would destroy the versatility of the word, which is what makes it so useful politically.

If you said, for example, that 46.7 percent of their income -- or any other number -- is the "fair share" of their income that the rich should have to pay in taxes, then once they paid that amount, there would be no basis for politicians to come back to them for more -- and "more" is what "fair share" means in practice.

Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that the government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government.

"Racism" is another term we can expect to hear a lot this election year, especially if the public opinion polls are going against President Barack Obama.

Former big-time TV journalist Sam Donaldson and current fledgling CNN host Don Lemon have already proclaimed racism to be the reason for criticisms of Obama, and we can expect more and more other talking heads to say the same thing as the election campaign goes on. The word "racism" is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything -- and demanding evidence makes you a "racist."

A more positive term that is likely to be heard a lot, during election years especially, is "compassion." But what does it mean concretely? More often than not, in practice it means a willingness to spend the taxpayers' money in ways that will increase the spender's chances of getting reelected.

If you are skeptical -- or, worse yet, critical -- of this practice, then you qualify for a different political label: "mean-spirited." A related political label is "greedy."

In the political language of today, people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be "greedy," while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give it to others (who will vote for them in return) show "compassion."

A political term that had me baffled for a long time was "the hungry." Since we all get hungry, it was not obvious to me how you single out some particular segment of the population to refer to as "the hungry."

Eventually, over the years, it finally dawned on me what the distinction was. People who make no provision to feed themselves, but expect others to provide food for them, are those whom politicians and the media refer to as "the hungry."

Those who meet this definition may have money for alcohol, drugs or even various electronic devices. And many of them are overweight. But, if they look to voluntary donations, or money taken from the taxpayers, to provide them with something to eat, then they are "the hungry."

I can remember a time, long ago, when I was hungry in the old-fashioned sense. I was a young fellow out of work, couldn't find work, fell behind in my room rent -- and, when I finally found a job, I had to walk miles to get there, because I couldn't afford both subway fare and food.

But this was back in those "earlier and simpler times" we hear about. I was so naive that I thought it was up to me to go find a job, and to save some money when I did. Even though I knew that Joe DiMaggio was making $100,000 a year -- a staggering sum in the money of that time -- it never occurred to me that it was up to him to see that I got fed.

So, even though I was hungry, I never qualified for the political definition of "the hungry." Moreover, I never thereafter spent all the money I made, whether that was a little or a lot, because being hungry back then was a lot worse than being one of "the hungry" today.

As a result, I was never of any use to politicians looking for dependents who would vote for them. Nor have I ever had much use for such politicians.

---

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.8/10 (91 votes cast)
Sowell: A Political Glossary, 9.8 out of 10 based on 91 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

12 Comments

  1. thegreatricardoComment by thegreatricardo
    June 26, 2012 @ 3:10 pm

    Oh, how I love Dr. Sowell’s way of making everything so easy to understand. It’s a shame that he’s too! damn smart to run for a Political Office.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (19 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 26, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

      He’s also 82 years old but you wouldn’t know it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)
  2. prairelivingComment by praireliving
    June 26, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

    One term that was missed is bigoted. Which, to the best I can tell as a political definition is anyone who holds a different belief in what is right (very often morally) than you do and is usually thrown about by the left/liberals to dismiss any ideas, thoughts, or comments from anyone who is on the right or conservative.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (11 votes cast)
  3. LAPhilComment by LAPhil
    June 26, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

    I gave this column 10 stars. It’s a great collection of all the liberal political cliches and the ways politicians use them to further their agendas.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (12 votes cast)
  4. kjb199Comment by kjb199
    June 26, 2012 @ 6:15 pm

    I think the key take-away point is the third paragraph to the article: A concrete definition of “fair” (or any other hot-button word) will destroy its flexibility and its ability to be used against target groups. These words tug at the heart, yet offer nothing for the head.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (10 votes cast)
  5. Allen SComment by Allen S
    June 26, 2012 @ 6:16 pm

    Thomas Sowell has been one of my favorite writers and always respect what he writes and what he stands for politically. He makes things so clear when the left is always mudding the water.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)
  6. RME KRNLComment by RME KRNL
    June 26, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

    Dr. Sowell, once again expressing things simply, succinctly and elegantly. Thank you, Dr. Sowell.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (9 votes cast)
  7. Bill from MiddletownComment by Bill from Middletown
    June 26, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

    Gotta love the “Sowell Man”!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 26, 2012 @ 8:58 pm

      The “Sowell Man”. Not bad!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  8. siquijorislandComment by siquijorisland
    June 26, 2012 @ 10:20 pm

    More people need to read yu daily so many things could get fixed.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  9. CharieComment by Charie
    June 26, 2012 @ 10:40 pm

    ***If you said, for example, that 46.7 percent of their income — or any other number — is the “fair share” of their income that the rich should have to pay in taxes, then once they paid that amount, there would be no basis for politicians to come back to them for more — and “more” is what “fair share” means in practice.***

    With the Liberals nothing is ever enough. If they find a snail darter to get the vapors about, right behind it is the spotted owl and then the smelt and then the gnarl footed hare of the northwestern escarpment or some danged thing. It’s all a way of making us kowtow to the Socialist way and that still won’t be enough – it will go on to the Communist way and next they’ll want us all in gulags because we’ve ruined the freakin’ planet.

    Sorry, I went to a talk on Agenda 21 tonight and I’m a little upset. lol

    I’m so sick of their want, want, want that I could scream! There’s no end to them and how Dr. Sowell who has been among them and seen them for what they are for so many years keeps his sanity is way beyond me. And he’s seen for generations that they actually do reproduce! Woe!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • bgintnComment by bgintn
      June 27, 2012 @ 11:20 am

      You forgot,

      Their vision of America is Logan’s Run. They will one day have us all living in giant habitrails, prevented from being outside infecting nature.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "As a long time night owl, I heard enough in the first 12 hours of the Benghazi attack to see..." Comment by bowler1hat
    Posted in More Evidence of Benghazi Cover-Up
  • "Ms. Schlafly for over 50 years has been giving us spot on commentary! Back when she was supporting Barry Goldwater..." Comment by soxtory
    Posted in Immigration Chicanery
  • "It is my opinion that if Obama cannot silence his critics by casting out numerous misdirections that his media swallows..." Comment by bowler1hat
    Posted in Prickly Narcissist

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer