Thursday, November 1, 2018

Quickies: “Radical”

     Much has been written about the corruption of language for political purposes. Start with George Orwell, who certainly knows the subject. Real-world examples abound, especially today. Just now, one in particular stands out:

     GQ columnist Julia Ioffe said Monday on CNN that President Trump has "radicalized" many more people than ISIS ever did. Republican commentator David Urban took offense and demanded that CNN host Jake Tapper condemn what Ioffe said.

     "I think this president, one of the things that he really launched his presidential run on is talking about Islamic radicalization. And this president has radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did," Ioffe said during a CNN panel discussion on the synagogue massacre.

     The colloquial meaning of radical in describing a political position is roughly: “This position is unacceptably far from the norm.” (See here.) “The norm,” of course, refers to “what we’re accustomed to.” However, the word carries a connotation of violence: a radical — note the use of the word as a noun that refers to an individual – is someone who’s willing to use extreme measures to get the political results he wants.

     The legacy media have taken to describing President Trump’s positions on trade, the borders, religious and civil liberties, and so on as radical. But those positions are:

  • Advanced non-violently;
  • Traditional for America;
  • Highly popular.

     But according to Julia Ioffe, the president has supposedly “radicalized” us who support him. What can this mean?

     Which side of the contemporary political face-off has been willing to use extreme measures to get what it wants? Which side has used violence and intimidation to suppress the other’s public events, rallies, and presentations? And which side has a growing wing – including the supporters of the presidential contender who came in second in its nominating contest – that explicitly calls for the replacement of the still-somewhat-free American economy with socialism?

     When the meanings of the words we use are corrupted, communication becomes impossible. When communication is impossible, so is peaceful discourse.

     The Left has gone all in. Alea iacta est. They have crossed America’s political Rubicon in both word and deed. The final reckoning can’t be far off.

     Be ready.

1 comment:


I have tried to talk with them. It's outright impossible.

I was at the bank; I know the banker, she knows I'm in a STEM field.

She said she was scared of climate change; I said I wasn't, though I used to be. To a thinking person, that's an opening: "Really? Why?"

But these NPCs don't think. They regurgitate.