As the US Presidential inauguration draws near, the chattering classes are asking: Kamala Harris warned voters that Donald Trump was a fascist. How could so many voters have missed the message?

In fact millions of American voters had “tuned out”. My unscientific analysis of current trends in political messaging suggests the public is soon fed up with silly smears and “weasel words.”

Weasel Words

Weasel words are a single word or phrase used to create the impression that something specific has been said, when the words are vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant. Examples include phrases like “scientists say”, or “he is a denier.” Using weasel words permit the user, if challenged, to deny any specific meaning, because their statement was never really specific.

Here are some of the examples with my observations about them.  Feel free to add your own examples in the comments below.

Misinformation/disinformation

Most accusations of misinformation or disinformation are not really about information at all. They are about opinions with which someone, often a government or journalist disagrees. Likewise, “fact checkers” are really opinion checkers. 

But they can’t just say “I disagree with their opinion” because the response would be “So what?”.  Then they would have to justify their disagreement. That takes work. Instead, they want to give the impression that the other side is ignorant or dishonest. Hence the pejorative labels “misinformation” (which imputes ignorance) or “disinformation” (which imputes dishonesty).

Pejorative labelling of opposing arguments is dismissiveness — disrespect for them personally versus disagreement with their opinion.  And adding an “ism” (as in “climate denialism”) is name calling without having to explain why they think the denial of their opinion is wrong. “My opinion is so obviously the only right one that if he disagrees he is knowingly dishonest and guilty of ‘denialism’.” Such labelling demonstrates either impatience or rudeness or insecurity in one’s ability to defend one’s views – or perhaps all three.

Anti-misinformation internet laws are like anti-blasphemy laws in jihadist regimes.  They prohibit, censor or punish speech that those in power dislike or see as a threat to their power.

Debunked

Something I have previously disagreed with in writing is now debunked.

Crisis

“Crisis” has now become so overused as to mean little more than a concern I have that I want to trigger you to become alarmed about.

My truth

A euphemism for my opinion.  Truth is not possessed, it is expressed.

Free Market Capitalism

There are virtually no unregulated markets in modern capitalist countries.  The market is not totally or even substantially “free”. But “free” sounds great, even if it means nothing.

Marxism and neo-Marxism

Unless the discussion is about a proposal to nationalize the means of production it isn’t Marxism, old or new. But it’s a useful smear.

Unprecedented

Something a journalist didn’t know about e.g. extreme weather that has happened before, but not within the short time period in which the journalist is comparing.

Record, or on record

Often a supposed record temperature in climate change reporting. By choosing a short, arbitrary starting date (after 1940) or an atypical location (as in the Regan Airport) the ordinary is made to appear extraordinary, and scary.

Also used to attack grocery chains for making “record profits”, supposedly at the expense of consumers.  However, as our population has been growing rapidly through immigration, and immigrants also have to eat, the sales volumes at grocery stores have been expanding.  Unless the stores’ net income per dollar of sales or per dollar of invested capital has been decreasing they will learn record profits every year. Thus, the accusation can be repeated annually. 

Socialism

So vague as to be meaningless. Does government paid Medicare, social assistance and progressive income tax constitute socialism or just a modern developed country?

Far right/far left

We seldom see someone labelled right or left today without the word “far” in front of it. Often a smear.

Genocide

That is killing any significant number of people I sympathize with by people I hate.

Nazi/Fascist

Anyone I want to smear when far right or far left aren’t strong enough to express my dislike..

Racist

Anyone with white skin who opposes affirmative action programs like DEI.

Colonialism/settler

Anyone who isn’t self-identified as indigenous and who I want to attack by labelling them “oppressors”.

Reconciliation

A never to be achieved psychological state of total peace and friendship, to be pursued endlessly by obeying what is demanded by the persons with whom reconciliation is sought.  It is a costly process with no markers, no end state and no limits.

Justice for a deceased person

Justice is for the living. Demanding justice for the dead is seeking revenge through the law for the punishment of someone who killed someone. Revenge is understandable, but let’s call it what it is.

Reduce the Use

How to reduce our use of such words? Just say: I disagree with their opinion about X because …. . Or: I believe that to be incorrect because ….

Before Canadians become too smug, and think this dismissive language is just an “American” thing, there is a similar reaction against “weasel words” here. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s poll ratings are the lowest ever, despite all of his “weasel words” thrown at the Leader of the Opposition.

Candidates are often elected with less that 50 percent of the popular vote. It’s not that voters love the elected candidates, they just dislike them a bit less than the incumbents. Hence the saying that governments aren’t elected, they are defeated. Weasel words don’t prevent that.