“Amendments Are Not Absolute”
Inference: The Refuge of the Left
Something I have noticed about the rhetoric of the left is its reliance on euphemism, catch-phrases, and inference. It is almost as if they desire to conduct discussion through hashtags, alone. As I was writing this, I realized where I encountered this phenomenon before: George Orwell’s 1984, and “Newspeak.” By delimiting or contorting the “official” lexicon, conversations are conformed to its contours axiomatically. The difference between Orwell’s “Newspeak” and the left’s contemporary “neo-speech” is that Newspeak compresses meaning into unequivocal binaries, while neo-speech broadens meaning, and is intentionally imprecise, and therefore equivocal, but weighted with embedded implications.
A corollary is that precise, detailed definitions, and referring to them for meaning are anathema. This is actually a ramification of reader-response approaches, where, simplistically stated, it is the reader who determines the meaning of a text, or communique. What is unstated, however, is the progenitors of these euphemisms embed an implied internal reader that communalizes the “approved” inference within a superficial, self-virtuous lexical wrapper. It is the self-virtuous wrapper that grants the reader (speaker) an automatic morally superior position merely by invoking the euphemism. Thus, “equity,” “racial injustice,” “systemic racism,” and like-minded euphemisms simultaneously grant the reader/hearer an automatic inferential context connoted by the self-virtuous wrapper, and permission to abandon scrutiny into other implications implicit in the euphemism itself.
Imprecision Grants Equivocation
A euphemistic lexicon also grants the “official” speaker the opportunity to avoid unintended and unforeseen, but contextually accurate interpretations or implications that when pressed for clarification produces a “What I mean is . . .” response. An additional benefit of a euphemistic lexicon is that it grants the user the opportunity to expand the scope of the euphemism without limit, and in unconventional or unanticipated tangents. Thus, “infrastructure” expands from a conventional “hard-goods” interpretation, e. g., roads and bridges, to anything that refers to a “soft,” social organization framework interpretation. Under this lexical imprecision, a support group for the aged is as much a component of “infrastructure” as is a draw-bridge or highway overpass.
!President Biden’s recent “Amendments are not absolute” proclamation is a case in point. If pressed to defend whether his statement applies to the XIII Amendment abolishing slavery, for example, he can simply equivocate, and move in any of several possible directions. One possibility is to claim the Second Amendment, the immediate object of his claim, is a collective right, and is therefore only applies to “militias” the right to keep and bear arms: In other words, the military and National Guard, alone. Another possibility is to claim that the Second Amendment does not provide protection for illegal activity (duh), and therefore if legitimate federal authorities rule that certain classifications of firearms are illegal, those arms fall outside the scope, and protection, of the Second Amendment. In fairness, I must note that Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion of Heller v. District of Columbia, opined that rights are not unlimited. Had Biden used Justice Scalia’s argument verbatim, potential pushback could have been weakened substantially. (As I think about it, this may have been what !President Biden had been briefed to say, but his cognitive state may have reverted to the alliteration, instead.) Another tack to support the “Amendments are not Absolute” claim is to point out that Amendments can be revoked, as the XVIII Amendment was. True enough, but revocation requires another Amendment. Royal Presidential edicts are not enough.
A very recent leverage of the left’s intentional lexical imprecision occurred yesterday in the “court packing” arena. The euphemistic term “court packing” conventionally connoted expanding the number of judges or justices to grant advantage to a political party by appointing justices politically disposed to the President’s political bent.
The left distorted the conventional understanding to one whereby a reviled President of the opposing party filled naturally occurring vacancies with appointees disinclined to accede to their activist agenda. Thus, the President “packed the court” with politically unfavorable justices. As part of their “neo-speak,” lexical inversion, Congressional leaders can now claim their proposal to expand the number of justices on the court is, in reality, “unpacking the court.”
Select Race, Color, Creeds, and National Origins Grant Reprisal and Selective Indifference
A euphemistic lexical wrapper often seen goes something like, “Justice for [insert name of ‘victim’].” From the action and rhetoric of the euphemism’s vocalists in these instances, “revenge” is the implied substitute for “justice.” If one belongs to a protected category, and is involved in an altercation with another person from an unprotected category, the individual belonging to the protected category is axiomatically granted victimhood and reprisal status. Accounts of events, and justification for acts by persons in unprotected categories are irrelevant. An advantage of lexical imprecision is that protected classes can change by media proclamation, for groups and for individuals.
One case in point is police officers. While “people of color” are among the protected class, black police officers, who themselves are immutably people of color, are not.
The capriciousness of who may be in a protected class is nearly laughable. Where one Royal, millionaire person of color may “legitimately” claim to be persecuted, and be supported in her claim, another former constituent of the persecuted class concludes multi-million dollar purchases, and is castigated by others within the same persecuted class for doing so.
Selective disdain also is a phenomenon seemingly granted to members of the protected classes. When one is appointed to an office within the U. S. Government, the appointee takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution. . . .” Yet, if the appointee is a member of a protected class, that appointee is granted class-immunity from criticism for making contra-Constitutional statements in prior, non-government positions. It is as if the appointee’s former statements and actions are irrelevant to how he/she/zee/zim/zit/sheeit may execute his/her/zer/zimmer/zitter/sheeiter office. A casual observer might wonder if a political appointee who subscribed to a hypothesis that “Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities — something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards,” can set aside her biases, and render impartial policies and decisions required by virtue of her office.