Shakespeare’s Juliet raises the question in the
often-mislabeled “balcony scene” (there is actually no balcony, just a window).
A little earlier, she is spotted by Romeo across a crowded room at her family’s
big party to which he has obviously not been invited. He approaches her and makes
a romantic speech replete with religious metaphors, they kiss twice, and both are
in love. Only then do they learn that they are members of the two Verona families
who have been enemies for as long as anyone can recall. Having returned to her
room, Juliet laments to the moon, “O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore [that’s why, not
where] are you Romeo?”
Unaware that Romeo has scaled the garden wall and is
listening to her lament, she continues:
‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy.
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name, which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
So in 21st-century parlance, the speech would go
something like this:
Dammit, why do you have to be a Montague? ANY other family in the world would be fine, but YOU had to come from the one family that’s off limits! And why should that be a problem anyway? You are who you are, regardless of the name you’re called. If we called a rose a skunk, it wouldn’t change the sweetness of its fragrance. The essence of a person or an object is in itself, not in the word assigned to identify it. This romance isn’t going to end well because I’m a Capulet and you’re a Montague, but those are only words, not who we are.
Well, as usual, Shakespeare nailed it; yet 400 years later, we’re still put off by words. When my daughter was a child, she hated potatoes; she wouldn’t touch a baked potato, mashed potato, or au gratin potato. But she loved French fries, couldn’t get enough of them. I long debated whether I should let her in on the secret that French fries are potatoes cut into sticks and dunked in hot oil.
When reality is unpleasant, we resort to euphemism to ease
the discomfort of talking about it. We often say someone has “passed away”
because it’s less jarring than saying the person “died.” I had a hair stylist
years ago who one day ended his own life. The person who informed me of his
death said that he had “passed away.” I’m not criticizing her attempt to be
sensitive, but somehow the language didn’t fit the reality. Dying peacefully in
one’s own bed seems more consistent with “passing away”; hanging oneself in
one’s place of business is a whole different feeling. In fact, death can be
referred to euphemistically by many expressions: “bought the farm,” “bit the
dust,” “kicked the bucket,” and a long list of others. The question is why we
feel the need to use alternate words for the same reality.
Saying you were let go from a job is easier on the ego than admitting you were fired. Having a negative cash flow sounds so much less catastrophic than being broke. Calling someone frugal or economically prudent sounds more flattering than saying they’re cheap. Breaking wind sounds classier than farting. Over the hill is easier on the vanity than admitting to being old. Calling a jail a correctional facility puts a more positive spin on a negative reality. When parents decide to “have the talk” with their children, “the birds and the bees” induce less nervousness than “sex.” And our high school friends who had been intimate were more likely to confide that they had “gone all the way” than that they had “had sex.”
Language is powerful. Not only can it mask reality, it can sometimes shape reality. I heard a sermon this morning about attitudes 40-50 years ago toward countries like Viet Nam and Cuba. Many of us were taught that people from those countries were our enemies because they were communists. “Communism” is such a trigger word that the very mention of it creates animosity and enemies where they don’t otherwise exist. We now trade with both Viet Nam and Cuba, love our Vietnamese nail techs, and have opportunities to forge friendships and partnerships with people on the island of Cuba, just 90 miles from the southernmost American city.
Since taking office in January 2017, Donald Trump has had
journalists searching their thesauruses for ways to describe the lies he tells
every day. In these uncharted waters, journalists are struggling with a new
reality and how best to label that reality in terms that both respect the
office which all of us have been taught must be respected, yet also tell the
truth about the current occupant of the office. It just doesn’t feel right to
say “The president lied,” so we get the whole thesaurus list of alternatives:
falsehoods, false statements, untruths, and many others. With the New York
Times tally of provable lies now topping the 8000 mark, most journalists are
opting for the raw truth: the president lies.
So call it a French fry and it’s yummy, call it a potato and “No, thanks!” Call it escargot and the connoisseurs will line up at your door, call it sautéed snails and ewww. An omelette du fromage sounds way more elegant than cheese and eggs. The same people who order mountain oysters might pass on a plate full of bull, pig, or sheep testicles; but surprise, surprise: they’re the same thing. Black pudding might sound divine when you’re picturing a rich, creamy dark chocolate confection, but you’d probably change your dessert order quickly when you learn it’s really made from pigs’ blood. Words matter!
The biggest lie most of us were told when we were children is “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me!” We’ve also told that lie. We said it to the bully who taunted us, but little did we know how those words would haunt us. A broken bone hurts, but it heals; flesh wounds are painful, but they grow together leaving barely a scar to show where they were. Unkind, hateful, or spiteful words can linger in our memories and cause pain years later. A hard punch might feel good by comparison to harsh, soul-crushing words. Words matter a lot!
As the 2020 primary race is heating up, the bugaboo word of
the year is “socialism.” The very mention of it stirs fear and anger in the
hearts of millions (mostly Republicans) and evokes visions of peace,
prosperity, and equality in the minds of millions more. Some see bread lines
while others see enough for all; some see free loaders living off the state
while others see health care and peace of mind for every citizen; some see a welfare
state while others dream of a place where no one has to worry about how they’re
going to pay for basic necessities and human rights.
The problem is not so much with the facts and concepts as
with the word. It doesn’t help either that many people these days have no
capacity for analysis, critical thinking, or seeing a subject from more than
one angle. The world runs on talking points, not logic. We talk but we don’t
listen, or when we do listen, it’s really just a polite pause before launching
our next talking point. Conversation has virtually ceased to exist, if by
conversation we mean listening to what another person says, absorbing it,
understanding it, giving it a moment of serious reflection, and then uttering a
thoughtful response. Hence, calling one’s philosophy “democratic socialism”
makes about as much impact on those for whom “socialism” is evil as announcing that
you’re serving “Moroccan Fried Beef Liver and Onions” to a table full of
confirmed liver haters. Dress it up, give it a fancy name, and it’s still
liver–or socialism.
Many fear socialism because they equate it with communism.
Socialism, simply defined, is “a
political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the
means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by
the community as a whole.” Ideally, of course, such a system would insure
an equal slice of the pie for every individual citizen, but we all know that
things don’t always play out according to the ideal. Communism, simply defined,
is “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading
to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and
is paid according to their abilities and needs.”
A website called Investopedia
offers the following comparison among the systems of communism, socialism, and
capitalism:
Communism and socialism are economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. The two are interchangeable in some ways, but different in others. In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people — all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need. Nothing is obtained by working more than what is required. Communism frequently results in low production, mass poverty and limited advancement. Poverty spread so widely in the Soviet Union in the 1980s that its citizens revolted. Like communism, socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production. Workers receive what they need to produce and survive, but there’s no incentive to achieve more, leaving little motivation. Some countries have adopted aspects of socialism. The United Kingdom provides basic needs like healthcare to everyone regardless of their time or effort at work. In the U.S., welfare and the public education system are a form of socialism. Both are the opposite of capitalism, where limitations don’t exist and reward comes to those who go beyond the minimum. In capitalist societies, owners are allowed to keep the excess production they earn. And competition occurs naturally, which fosters advancement. Capitalism tends to create a sharp divide between the wealthiest citizens and the poorest, however, with the wealthiest owning the majority of the nation’s resources.
As you can see, both communism and socialism have their downsides, but capitalism doesn’t come off looking so good either. The United States today is seeing the end result of centuries of free enterprise. The divide between the richest and the poorest is the widest it has ever been, and the middle class has virtually disappeared. The Willy Lomans who have spent their entire lives chasing the American Dream find themselves in old age without the ability to retire or to pay their bills, not for lack of hard work but as the result of a system that has rewarded the wealthiest and penalized the poorest.
Yet those most affected by the inequity are the loudest critics of any changes that might better their quality of life, because they are often the most easily duped by rich, powerful leaders who want to preserve their wealth and power at the expense of those on whose backs their wealth was amassed. Those who want to keep the 99% poor and vulnerable are evil but not stupid; they know what buttons to push to keep the masses voting against their own best interests. Just label an idea socialist and you’re guaranteed a majority vote against it.
A February 24, 2019, article in the
HuffPost bears the headline “Republicans Have Been Smearing Democrats as Socialists
Since Way Before You Were Born.” The latest round of accusations from Trump and
others that this or that progressive idea is socialist may seem new to many;
but according to the article, it is “the oldest trick in the book.”
Contemporary political conservatism has been focused on blocking social change that challenges existing hierarchies of class, race and sex since its founding in response to the French Revolution. Socialism emerged as the biggest threat to class hierarchies in due time and conservatives have called everything they don’t like socialism ever since.”
”Every single political actor since the late 19th century advocating for some form progressive social change ― whether it be economic reform, challenging America’s racial caste system or advocating for women’s rights or LGBT rights ― has been tarred as a socialist or a communist bent on destroying the American Free Enterprise System.
Examples begin with William Jennings Bryan in 1896 and
center on the president most famously accused of socialism: Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, who by the way was elected to four terms and was the reason term
limits were imposed on the presidency. So it would appear that not everyone was
frightened by the accusations that the New Deal was a socialist agenda aimed at
destroying America.
Never one to pass up an
opportunity to further deceive and control his base, Donald Trump is tossing
around the S-word a lot these days. Just this week, in his two-hour speech to
CPAC (two hours of his rambling, whining, and childish, churlish attacks would
send me to the psychiatric ward!), Trump made lavish use of the S-word to
discredit congressional Democrats–certain ones in particular–and any proposal
that threatens to upset the imbalance of power that keeps people like him in
control. Among other things, he said:
“Socialism is not about the environment, it’s not about justice, it’s not about virtue. Socialism is about only one thing — it’s called power for the ruling class, that’s what it is. Look at what’s happening in Venezuela and so many other places.” (reported by CNN)
Power for the ruling
class? Isn’t that what we have now and what he’s determined to protect?
So you want to kill an idea? Want to defeat a progressive
candidate? Call them socialist, and millions of people will jump to your side.
Yet how many citizens and voters know what they’re objecting to? A March 29,
2012, article in Daily Kos lists 75 organizations and programs that currently
exist in America which, by definition, are socialist. The list includes our taxpayer-funded
military; our public schools which guarantee equal access to education and are
paid for by tax money; public libraries, also funded by tax payers; police,
fire, and postal services; congressional health care, provided by your tax
money for the people who spend their days and nights fighting to be sure you
don’t have access to the same quality healthcare you buy for them; Social
Security; Medicare and Medicaid; public parks; sewer systems, which I’ve never
heard anyone complain about; public street lighting; and about 62 other things
which most people would never think to label as socialist but in reality are
just that.
So what is it about socialism that makes it so scary? Is it
the individual benefits of it? Obviously not. It’s the word. A rose by any
other name would smell as sweet, and socialism by any other name is still
socialism and would still bring the benefits of equal access to necessities and
human rights. What’s in a name? A lot of power but not much logic.
I’m not advocating for the United States to become a fully socialist country; I am advocating for my fellow citizens to start thinking and stop the knee-jerk reactions to words that scare them because they’ve been conditioned to fear rather than think. I’m advocating for my fellow citizens to reject either-or/black-white comparisons and consider reasonable shades of gray alternatives. Our democracy depends on it.
