Re-Defining Politics
Photos
A lot of Republicans have a saying—you’ve probably heard it—that goes like this: “I believe that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.”
That’s how candidates state their position, specifically using that phrase: “the definition of marriage.”
I teach English, so I’ve always found that an odd way of stating your approach to a complex issue. It seems very odd to me to reduce this discussion to semantics, and to structure your argument as though you were in the board room of Merriam-Webster. You don’t often observe that in other issues.
And I really don’t think that framing arguments like this is a wise strategy.
No English teacher would approach teaching vocabulary by saying each word only has one, strict definition that everyone accepts. To do so would hamstring a student’s ability not only to grasp the language, but a fundamental understanding of reality. That’s why we teach things like connotative meanings and denotative meanings: to get across that both our language and thoughts are complex.
Therefore, defining this issue through defining a word is an impossible task, because words change over time: New ones show up, old ones go away, and they substantially evolve.
Kind of like marriages, actually.
Another (hyphenated) word the GOP sticks by the definition of is the puzzling “pro-life.” It’s a euphemism that describes people who are, more succinctly, “anti-abortion.” Nobody in the nation is “anti-life” (well, except maybe serial killers).
Nor, for that matter, are many people “pro-abortion.” I don’t know all the women in this world, but I would imagine the vast majority of them do not include “abortion” on their list of hobbies or turn-ons. I’m sort of assuming the centerfold for Playmate of the Month does not usually say, “I enjoy long walks on the beach, hanging out with friends, and a relaxing abortion in my free time.”
And, speaking of abortion, the Republicans are also concerned with the definition of the word “life,” and when it begins.
Now, I’m pretty much on the record as stating that life doesn’t begin at conception; and that, to murder something, that thing would have to have been able to sustain life on its own in the first place. But that doesn’t mean I can’t step back and admire the anti-abortion protester’s manipulation of the language to decide that a bundle of cells at conception qualifies as someone with rights.
However, I have to admit that kind of sucks. Because once we start assigning rights to microscopic objects that can’t sustain life outside the body (but are technically alive), it’s only a matter of time until I go to jail for tossing out a snot rag.
Anyway, regardless of how I personally feel about the definition of “life,” or the euphemism “pro-life,” or the word “marriage,” words are starting to fight back against the GOP.
Lately, they’ve gotten in trouble trying to define the word “rape.” I had (heretofore) never considered this a very controversial word to define, but the GOP went out and tried to make it one anyway (whether by choice or by accident).
The thing about this word is that the GOP not only wants legislation to define one of the possible outcomes from a rape, but some of them don’t seem to understand what the word and its modifiers mean in the first place. They start splitting hairs about whether a “forcible” rape makes it a “legitimate” rape. Then Todd Akin came along and seemed to believe that a woman’s body itself was aware of that distinction linguistically and conceptually, and so it simply shut down certain biological processes in response.
But just when you thought Todd Akin was the only Republican with his foot in his mouth over the word rape, now there’s GOP candidate Tom Smith (PA) who equated rape as synonymous with “having a baby out of wedlock.” And the more the Paul Ryans, Todd Akins, and Tom Smiths of the party start discussing a word that (in and of itself) our culture took for granted as communally understood, the more people start to question if this party really knows what they’re talking about.
I didn’t frame this argument of solving political problems by literally changing the definitions and meanings of words. The GOP did. And so it shouldn’t surprise them when these discussions backfire, and words end up hurting their party.
Because if people start thinking the GOP doesn’t really understand what words mean, as expressed when they can’t define a word as simple as “rape”; then the electorate is going to wonder if they’re a credible authority on the more complex issue of “marriage.” And it’s not much of a further leap, then, to think that they really don’t have a grasp on the meaning and definition of the even more complex definition of “life.”
And then it would just be a matter of time before people start asking questions about other words the GOP takes for granted.
Like what "small government" really means.
You can now follow Patrick on twitter @PatrickInPublic
Kristen V. Erickson
9:53 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Patrick, have you seen the Samantha Bee bit on The Daily Show? You will enjoy it, if you haven't seen it already.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-29-2012/rnc-2012---the-road-to-jeb-bush-2016---the-republican-platform
Maer
11:47 am on Thursday, September 13, 2012
Well written, good job!
Tim Torrence
1:48 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
It is always good when people equate one or a few people with an entire group. Because one person says something and is a member of that group everyone in that group must believe the same thing. That is good to know. Every man in America just applauded your line of logic. Guys it is no longer wrong to sexually harass women in the work place. It is no longer wrong to actually have sex in your work place. It is no longer wrong to lie about it to your wife, your daughter, and everyone else in the country. Break out the cigars boys, only we aren't smoking them, we have other uses for them. Right Monica? Don't worry Patrick and the entire Democrat party has told us in no uncertain terms that women are not really people they are simply objects to be conquered so we can have our way with them.
Patrick Giusto
5:28 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
Tim,
Your sarcasm is noted; and, as always, appreciated. I understand where you're coming from on this, but this is not a generalization about Republican voters. It's directed at the politicians and platforms in the party. And while I understand that you're upset that I've generalized, this is a party matter. The GOP is not hiding or distancing themselves from these stances. The pro-life stance, complete with lack of recognition of exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother, has been in the GOP's platform for decades now.
As you point out, Todd Akin and Tom Smith ARE only two members of the party-- but you have to recognize the types of personhood bills they were discussing are being proposed and pushed by the GOP in several states. And if they were concerned about their reputation, the convention-- seeing as how it came just weeks after Akin-- would have been an excellent place to slightly alter their platform. Or... maybe not nominated a guy that co-sponsored a personhood bill with Akin.
Finally, don't disregard the fact that we're not far apart on this. The whole point of the last few paragraphs is to point out that people individuals like Ryan, Akin and Smith have brought these issues to the forefront in how people observe the GOP. Say what you will about Akin and Smith being nincompoops as individuals, it still started the snowball rolling into a larger discussion of the party credibility, and whether or not they've become too radical.
Tim Torrence
10:09 am on Saturday, September 15, 2012
Remember bills that the Democrats propose on the subject of abortion. If a fetus / child / baby / zygote or whatever you chose to call it, survives an abortive procedure the medical personnel are required to finish the job. Remember that Democrats propose that medical personnel are required to perform these procedures even if they find them to be against their personal beliefs. No matter how extreme you believe the Republicans become the Democrats become just as extreme. The issue is not that they are becoming extreme the issue is your inability to admit that the people you support do exactly the same things you say make the people you do not support just as extreme. Remember the party of women chose their national convention to place the only President to admit he used his position to sexually harass an intern in a prominent roll. Remember the party of women chose their national convention to do a video tribute to their hero Senator who drove a woman over a bridge and then left her to die. Honesty is honesty you cannot get away from it no matter how fast you run. I understand that when you talk politics and social issues you are used to debating people that come with a set of talking points counter to yours because that is the norm. I do not fit that mold. There are a few of us in this country that have the ability to call both sides out.
Patrick Giusto
8:38 am on Sunday, September 16, 2012
Tim,
I don't expect that you've read every single thing I've written, so I'll give you a pass on this logical fallacy you've created for me. I'm not a Democrat. I even wrote a blog literally titled, and explaining, "Why I'm Not a Democrat." In it, I say I am liberal, and am sort of forced to support the Democrats in our political system-- but the absolute, number one most important issue is education, and the Democrats have been in agreement with the Republicans in privatizing and destroying our schools. You can see it right now in President Obama's inaction in helping the Chicago teachers on strike; you can see it in that same strike from Rahm Emanuel; and you can see it again with Democrat Frank Jackson in Cleveland.
But education is not the only issue I've hammered the Democrats on. Between the blog and my twitter feed (hooray for my 28 followers!), I've berated the Democrats for being weak in not getting at LEAST a public option, criticized their campaign strategy, and mocked them for not getting a bigger stimulus.
I really think you're looking at this through the lens of thinking I'm two-dimensional, and seeing what you want to see. Yes, I hit the Republicans harder, but that is because I believe they have become radicalized, and have done this with exceptionally ridiculous rhetoric and denial of fact. They're just easier to hit, frankly. But the Democrats are by NO MEANS free and clear of ridicule.
I do, as you claim to, call both sides out.
Tim Torrence
1:48 pm on Monday, September 17, 2012
A) Just like you, I'm sure, I am a registered Democrat. Therefor it is your party.
B) The Democrat Party has also adjusted their pro-choice stance by eliminating one word from their platform. They removed the word rare. This was overlooked with all the anti-God and anti-Israel rhetoric going on. So Democrats now do not want abortions to be rare to go along with the finances pushed on those who cannot bring themselves to support a pro-choice stance.
C) The federal government cannot step in to this Chicago strike unless the public welfare is put at stake or the strikers' civil rights are being violated. So far neither has proven true.
D) Private education has proven itself better than public education for decades now. Even children who come from the same lower class, broken home, etc who attend these private and charter schools prove themselves capable students when based on every measure. That argument falls on deaf ears when it comes to the general public and you know this.
James Thomas
2:52 pm on Monday, September 17, 2012
Patrick,
"Guilty, Guilty, Guilty"
you may not be a "Democrat" but you are a progressive Liberal and therefore guilty of the greatest "guilt by association McCarthyism". As Mark Slackmeyer of Doonsbury says "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty"
MZ
7:20 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
"sustain life on its own"
So a five year old is ok to murder? How about a mentally challenged 20 year old? What about the 90 year old on oxygen? None of them can "sustain life"on their own. Neither probably could you without the creature comforts you enjoy.
How about the term pro-choice? Are you arguing that it isn't synonymous with being pro-abortion? If the choices are having the baby, or terminating the pregnancy, aren't we splitting hairs? What is the other choice?
What is at term for consensual sex with a minor again? Is that statutory rape? If a 18 year old has sex with a consenting 16 year old, is that "legitimate rape?"
If marriage isn't what the definition says it is, then perhaps as an English teacher you could take a crack at educating all of us as to what the proper meaning of the word marriage is. I know you said it was complicated but I am sure an English teacher could offer up something for us unlearned masses.
Perhaps you are saying that words don't have meanings or definitions and that they can mean whatever one wants them to mean. It's hard to tell from your post.
Phyllis Stager
11:59 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
Well said, MZ. How about that 'right' to go ahead and kill a living botched abortion product? Even though it is no longer a part of the woman's body (over which she is in total control), it has been established and backed by our President that the aborter may go ahead and kill it.
I looked and looked for alternative definitions of marriage on online dictionaries and they all start with a legal union of a man and a woman. I have nothing against Civil Unions with all the legal privileges of marriage.
Tim
9:44 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
We've already re-defined "marriage" so many times, and I expect that to continue. Inter-racial marriages, wives no longer property of husbands, government control of marriages instead of religious control, etc.