Language In Decay – The Left And The Ambiguity Of Meaning Phil Scott December 6, 2016 1 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Reddit Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr Words matter; what you say, how you say it, and when you say it can change a message’s meaning. Habitual misuse of words has consequences. It’s important to choose words carefully and correctly in order to make your message accurate. However, some people misuse words on purpose to conceal what they really mean or to dodge an uncomfortable question. This is done by selecting words that leave the intended message ambiguous and open to interpretation. The use of ambiguous language is often employed to convince others of a cause or in justifying a belief. Intentional vagueness can eventually transform into outright manipulation. An example applying vague and often time manipulative, language can be observed in broadcasts and news pieces by politicians and the media during this year’s presidential election. Both liberal and conservative oriented sides are not completely innocent of such word use. However, it has become more obvious that the political left is utilizing ambiguous language in both news media and political rhetoric. Situations where they use this language have become widespread across numerous issues where the political left argues for their rights. Arranging Rights When debates for certain rights use words that can be defined in different ways, the debate’s meaning are at best, vague and are left up to the party arguing for the rights. Liberals tend to demand a symbolic definition of the word ‘’rights’’ that suits their interpretation best. This is especially true when it comes to the constitution and its amendments. The political left considers the constitution a ‘’living document’’ that can always be interpreted differently at different times. Should there be no objective meaning to the words contained in our Constitution, then there are no impartial rights to which we can universally refer. Such actions suggest that the political left’s goal is to exercise power through judicial and executive interpretation of language. A recent example of this can be seen in President Obama’s statement that ‘’the next Supreme Court justice is going to be somebody who doesn’t reflect my understanding of the Constitution.’’ Rights, in this instance, are simply what the political left actively interpret and force on others. The left has a pattern of manipulating language when it comes to rights. When considering their constitutional interpretation in discussing rights, the political left refers to natural rights as written by Locke and Hobbes and incorporated into the constitution or human right, as declared by the UN. Free Speech Affairs When we hear the political left debate for their rights, it tends to remain in the context of a demand to do what they see fit. For example, protestors proclaim their ‘’right to free speech.’’ Protestors burning the American flag happily refer to their rights to free speech. Those same protesters are quick to reprimand President-elect Donald Trump and his supporters for their ‘’hate speech’’ in suggesting a temporary halt on Muslim immigrants from the Middle East or demanding a wall be built to halt illegal immigration and drugs entering the U.S. ‘’Make America hate again’’ is a popular slogan ushered in by anti-Trump activists on social media. As the political left has demonstrated, ‘’rights’’ talk is of great use to those who wish to express or enforce their understanding on others. It is this arrangement of the word “right” that the political left uses to its advantage on sensitive social issues. Abortion absurdity Another topic that sees a considerable amount of language manipulation is abortion. It is a hot button topic that fundamentally separates the left and right sides of the political aisle. While not a point of subject matter that either party ubiquitously supports or denies, conservative politicians tend to be pro right and their counterparts across the aisle have a pro-choice view. When it comes to abortion rights, democrats are expected to support a pro-choice stance. However, that support is often expressed through carefully crafted language. The left leave many words open to interpretation in order to achieve a desired outcome. A commonly ambiguous word they use in this debate is, once again, ‘’right.’’ The left demands for this right on a most fundamental basis. Yet what exactly do they mean in this debate when using the word “right?” When Hillary Clinton affirms at a UN Conference for Women that ‘’it is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families’’ – what does she have in mind? Natural rights as accepted by our founding fathers? Surely this is not what she means, since according to Locke’s natural rights which state ‘’If my life is threatened, I need not respect anyone else’s rights, I may do whatever is necessary to preserve myself.’’ – yet Clinton supports an absolute pro-choice position, so this isn’t possible. The UN declaration of rights is again improbable, it declares ‘’everyone has the right to life.’’ In fact, Hillary believes that abortion is a constitutional right, and thus she claims an ‘’unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.’’ Ironically, this doesn’t fit with the narrative most liberals’ push, in that there is no essential understanding to the words of the constitution. Once again the left demonstrates their view of the Constitution as a something to be brushed off as but a living document up for interpretation. Marriage mania An additional social subject that the left has declared open to interpretation is that of marriage. Like abortion, the political left leaves the words defining marriage indistinct at best and absent at worst. For them, it changes depending on the context. When calling for the right of same sex couples to get married and bidding for it to be sanctified by a church, do they mean that the right is bestowed upon them by God? If that is their reason for such a stance, then they may wish to take a look at how the Christian Bible defines marriage. The concept of marriage by God is that of one male and one female in a holy union where the power of God is bestowed up them. This union ideally represents the Christian deity’s life giving and moral nature. This bestowment by God is only feasible in a heterosexual union. Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the only method of bonding that corresponds to the means that allow offspring to be created. Some may still claim that by ‘’right’’ they do mean that same sex marriages are bestowed upon us by the constitution. To the political left, we are all given the rights of ‘’life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’’ – well, except for unborn babies. That constitutional understanding would solve the many objections to same sex marriage. Sadly, the left falls into similar patterns as before by applying their interpretation of the words “liberty” and “happiness.’’ The metaphorical tip toeing around these words by the political left are akin to an immature mentality, in which they decide on interpretation of issues in an impromptu manner. Could conservatives not argue for these constitutional rights allowing us to protect our own ‘’life’’ and ‘’liberty?’’ They could, but they do not, because the second amendment already provides this very right to us. It is nothing odd that the political left has its problems with the very second amendment, wanting to ruling on our right to own arms. (I suggest reading ‘An Insight Into The Second Amendment by Trevor Rush) Resulting fate As shown above, be it either through accusations or arguments made by liberals- arguing for a right or accusing others for infringing upon them, the result is a glaring state of hypocrisy. The cries for fairer rights cherry pick from the source that suits them best and accuse others of looking to the same source for their rights. Calling on freedom of speech when burning a flag – accusing Donald Trump of hate speech when shaping domestic policy. Accusing Trump of fear mongering- fear mongering about a Trump presidency. Avoiding calling a fetus by the word human in order to deny it human rights. Arguing in favor of humanity for abortion and deny humanity to the unborn child. One can find numerous examples of the paradoxical cries from the left side of the political spectrum. It is important to not rely on ambiguity to argue one’s position, lest one find themselves labeled a hypocrite. The fate of our times results in an endless flow of information through social media and the news. Political debate has devolved in to name calling and bigotry, where one will be berated as a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, a white supremacist simply for supporting a political candidate. Such an inflammatory approach to debate has brought on a time where the meaning of words has been manipulated to chastise those that hold a different opinion. These unjustified accusations have brought on a time where defining rights and laws has spurred into loose and ambiguous interpretation. In the words of Donald Trump, ‘’we are a country of laws, we either have a country or we don’t.’’ I do hope that we can hold Mr. Trump to his word and believe his stance on enacting and protecting our fundamental rights and laws as they were written and meant to be understood. I am optimistic that he will do just what he says.