10/31/08: Give us the message, spare us these words

In the past few months, we’ve been subjected to a lot of campaigning, much of which has become unhelpfully negative, especially recently.

I’m not interested in limiting free speech or becoming the “word police,” but from my perspective, there are some words that have lost real meaning during all this campaigning and mudslinging, and I propose a moratorium.

Here are words I think we should suspend.

Terrorist: We should stop using this word on each other. It’s just common sense that if Barack Obama wanted to destroy America the way al-Qaida operatives destroyed the World Trade Center, he would have been found out by now. We’ve had him in our sights for almost two years, and the best we’ve come up with linking him to terrorism — and domestic, not foreign terrorism, at that — is a tenuous connection to Bill Ayers, who, whatever his past, is now an honored educator.

Either Obama doesn’t have Islamist terrorist connections, or we are extremely poor detectives. If it’s the latter, we may have bigger problems on our hands than we’ve supposed.

Maverick: Besides the objection of the actual Maverick family in Texas, the word “maverick” isn’t really appropriate to describe the policies of a politician or, especially, a team of politicians. And if it is, it shouldn’t be.

We’re not electing Best Cowboy; we’re trying to elect a president, who will have to work within the system the Founding Fathers set up. Saying we’d like to go back to the original plan laid out in the Constitution isn’t “maverick”-like. It’s conservative by definition.

Defense: We should stop using this to describe anything related to the Bush Doctrine — that is, the idea pre-emptive strikes against sovereign nations are a good idea.

This is not defense.

Objections to that statement usually fall into the “best defense is a good offense” category.

OK, maybe. But we call that “a good offense.”

I also propose we stop referring to the “Star Wars” national missile defense system as “defense” until some of those missiles start actually hitting their targets.

Alien: Of course we can continue to use this word to describe E.T., but there’s no reason to continue to use it to describe immigrants. The repercussions for the global economy after America’s recent financial crises should make it clear we’re living in an interconnected world.

No human is from outer space, in other words.

Most people who object to the word worry that “alien” makes immigrants sound scary. I’m less worried that the fright factor of this word will rub off on immigrants, though, than that it will wear off through overuse, making it useless for “War of the Worlds” type movies, books and other media.

Imagine Will Smith in “Independence Day” coming toward the audience, fiery explosions in the background, for instance, to confront your hardworking neighbor or grandparent or a factory worker educated and skilled enough to perform open-heart surgery on you if you were in his country.

Not very thrilling, I’d say.

All the Joes: The opposite of “alien,” the Joes are supposed to make us feel connected to the down-home lifestyle and values they apparently represent. We’ve been introduced to all kinds of Joes: Joe the plumber, Joe Six-pack, Joe Cool, cup of joe. Maybe they do represent “real America,” but I’ve had enough of them.

Note, however, that Joe the plumber has inspired a “new” national habit of designating people by their work titles; this is Chinglish creeping into common use. I approve of that in general.

I just wish all of us regular Joes would get a rest.