The Meaning of Words

by Sam Huntington

Not long after the conclusion of French national elections, an American journalist asked a random citizen, “What do you think of the election of a socialist?” The older man replied, “I do not care; I refused to vote.”

The journalist persisted, “Why didn’t you vote?” The man replied, “Because both candidates are imbeciles.”

Now, thanks to campaign rhetoric by François Hollandé, we have new insight into the mental acuity of those who favor socialism. Responding to a journalist’s question how Monsieur Hollande’s so-called growth agenda will strengthen the French economy, he responded, “By increasing taxes, of course.”

Of course.

What politicians mean to say depends on the manner in which they craft their words. It isn’t so much what you think the words mean, but rather what politicians think they mean, and the context used providing “deniability” at some later point. Or, perhaps, a later claim the politician was simply misunderstood. Apparently, this is an international phenomenon.

A few days ago, Chicago thug and Obama campaign chair David Axelrod responded to a Romney campaign ad by asserting, “… we must not return to failed economic policies; America cannot afford more tax cuts.”

Our first guess is that Mr. Axelrod is smoking funny cigarettes again, but our more sophisticated analysis is that he is merely playing the lawyer’s game. Lawyers are wordsmiths. It is part of their vocation to use words in various ways to communicate different meanings. In this sense, lawyers are “tricksters.” They use words to trick people into believing one thing, when in fact the lawyers mean something entirely different. They often seek to circulate disinformation and obfuscate issues. And by the way, this is intentional, supporting two agendas. In the first scenario, if they can trick citizens into voting for them without using outright lies, they stand to win elections. In the longer-term, they seek to frustrate citizens so that they will eventually lose faith and choose not to vote. Rather than displaying any interest in what the liars in Congress are saying, citizens will flip over to another channel and watch something really stimulating, such as American idol.

But here is a good example of political obfuscation: “America cannot afford more tax cuts.”

Axelrod offers the proposition that all Americans must pay more in taxes so that government can continue ruinous spending. He too pursues a "growth agenda."  In this sense, Axelrod is correct. We cannot afford more tax cuts if most Americans think we should continue spending money that no one has, driving future generations into despair and increased dependency upon government. Undeterred by American values, Axelrod and Obama propose that once government spends every penny we have —when the national treasury is defunct— government will continue to bribe voters with even more entitlements by borrowing from foreign governments.

More than two-hundred years ago, French historian Alexis de Tocqueville warned us: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

Is this the sort of government Americans want?

We have a different proposition. America can afford more tax cuts. What America cannot afford is more deficit spending. This bears repeating: a free-market loving country CANNOT sustain shortfall spending.

While the law assesses penalties whenever individuals write bad checks, there is no prohibition for the federal or state governments. They just continue writing bad checks because they realize that eventually, the American people will have to make good on those bad checks. Do politicians feel bad about this? Not at all; after all, we voted for them. Lyndon Johnson served as president between 1963 and 1969; we are still paying the debt accumulated from his presidency.

Making good on debt in the near term means that all of us may have to do with less “free stuff” until we can reduce the national debt. We should, and must reduce spending on programs not authorized by the United States Constitution. We can begin with Health and Human Services, matters that belong to the states, and other wasteful bureaucracies, such as the General Services Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

Making good on debt in the long term will force our citizens to pay exorbitant sums of money in interest to nations who hold our debt. Some of these nations are dangerous to our future, China being one of these.

Again, why should we do that?

People such as David Axelrod and Barack Obama should worry us. They have no hesitance pandering to people who aren’t very bright —who don’t know what words mean, to achieve their socialist agenda. Most high school graduates today don’t even know what socialism is, so here’s the short version. The effect of socialism is more government, less personal liberty. More government bureaucracy making decisions, less individuals making decisions on matters that affect them, and their families. American socialism means trusting government to do the right thing when every thinking American knows government isn’t trustworthy.

Our November elections are critical to America’s future. More than determining who our president is, or our senator, or our representative in Congress, the November elections will tell us whether the American people deserve to be free.