I frequently point out here that news people - in failing to consider what words mean - are failing to describe reality, which is their job.
Yesterday, the Albuquerque Journal offered a magnificent example of what I am talking about. One Dick Polman of Knight-Ridder wrote about conservatives opposed to President Bush's war policy.
The story was competent until, near the end, Polman wrote a paragraph that began:
"The pro-war conservatives, however, denounce the dissenters as out to lunch and on the fringes of power; by contrast, conservative hawks crafted Bush's war polcy and dominate much of the conservative opinion empire......."
"Pro-war conservatives" Nope.
"Conservative hawks"? Uh-uh.
A White House that wages an optional war and embarks on it without - even in defiance of - allies Republican and Democratic Presidents have enjoyed since World War II (60 years!) may be a lot of things, even correct. But it cannot be described as conservative.
(Conservative, if it means anything, means cautious and respectful of precedent.)
Perhaps Mr. Polman has never heard of or dislikes the phrase "neo-conservative," which is fairly popular these days. Fine. Surely, though, he knows "far right." Or "radical right." How about "imperialist" or "Wilsonian idealist"? Or....well, you get the idea. There are many ways to describe the White House policy on Iraq, after you exclude "conservative."
I wonder. Should we begin a national drive to raise money to buy dictionaries for the language-impaired?
Posted by Arthur Alpert at January 31, 2005 09:34 AM