Please stop using the "C" word
June 2, 2024
For those of us who have strong political views, it’s hard to comprehend that there are some people in the United States who blissfully bury their heads in the sand and don’t pay much attention to what the differences between the two major political parties really are. Chances are, most of those somewhat apolitical people are comfortable enough (white, middle class or above, heterosexual, etc.) that they don’t need to bother themselves with the ugliness of online political discourse, believing that their lives will be relatively unscathed no matter which party prevails in any election. We need those people to understand, at least to some degree, just how stark the choices are in November 2024.
Language is important. It sets the framework for how we think of people and issues. As a subscriber to historian Heather Cox Richardson’s “Letters from an American,” I admire her use of language, and think we should follow her lead. For example, whenever she mentions Fox News, she first states the proper name, Fox News Corporation with FNC in parentheses, and then refers to them as FNC for the rest of the piece. This acknowledges their legal, accepted name, but then refuses to lend them the credibility they would inherently receive by repetition of the word “news” as if they actually report facts instead of spewing right-wing propaganda/rage-inspiring infotainment.
Liberals often berate the mainstream media for effectively normalizing the extreme actions of dangerous people like Trump and his followers, but the default language nearly all of us use contributes to a general both-sides-are-the-same malaise that may very well lead to the victory of convicted felon and aspiring autocrat Donald Trump. The most insidious example is our constant use of the “C” word—“Conservative.” Even the most liberal-leaning publications are guilty of using the word over and over again, and in doing so, bestowing upon extremist right-wing politicians the word’s feel-good, aww-shucks, salt-of-the-earth connotations.
What’s even more frustrating is that the feel-good C-word label, when applied to today’s Republican party, is factually untrue. The dictionary definition of conservative is: “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Moderate, cautious.” The MAGA movement is seeking to overthrow nearly 250 years of Democracy and the system of checks and balances as established by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. And they’re enthusiastically doing this in their worship of a convicted felon and serially bankrupt former reality TV game show host. In interview after interview conducted at Trump rallies, red-hatted cult members praise their dear leader while emphatically stating that they want a big change, something different…that they’re tired of the status quo. They openly state that they want to do away with Democracy, saying loudly and proudly that they want Trump to usher in an authoritarian regime like Putin has in Russia. What is “moderate and cautious” about that???
And yet, the “conservative” label is repeated over and over again when describing today’s Republican politicians, lulling the country’s somewhat apolitical swing voters into a false sense of security.
At times the label gets outright confusing, like when articles describe politicians as being part of the most “conservative” wing of the Republican party, which leaves me scratching my head. Since “conservative” is a synonym for “moderate,” it’s unclear whether the authors are talking about the most hardline right-wing/ultra-MAGA members of the Republican Party, or some who might be on the more reasonable side. “Radical Conservative” is an oxymoron. There’s no such thing as a “radical moderate.” Today’s Trump-worshiping Republicans ARE radical. They ARE extremists. That fact is constantly obscured by the highly misleading “conservative” label.
I’d love to see more mainstream and cable news media push back and ask for clarity if a guest referred to a Republican politician as “conservative.” The host could simply ask, “When you say ‘conservative,’ are you talking about MAGA?” or “When you say ‘conservative,’ you’re actually referring to someone who unconditionally supports Trump?” (I saw Nicole Wallace on MSNBC once respond this way to a guest who had used the “C” word, and I wish more newscasters would follow this example.)
If middle-of-the-road, swing voters whose main concern is the cost of groceries and gas go to the polls in November being faced with the choice of a politician labeled “liberal” or a politician labeled “conservative,” (i.e., moderate and cautious), then the obvious choice for them is going to be the “conservative” Republican. (Especially since right-wing media has effectively equated “liberal” in many voters’ minds with “financially irresponsible.”) Swing voters may opt for an authoritarian billionaire-led takeover of Democracy based on the false assumption—repeated constantly in even some of the most liberal media sources—that today’s Republicans are “conservative.”
But even for some of those non-political people, some idea of just how fanatical the MAGA movement is may have seeped into their consciousness. They may know on some level that MAGA politicians in Congress are more apt to beclown themselves in their lickspittle servitude to convicted felon Donald J. Trump than to do their jobs serving their constituents, and they may be turned off by that. These voters may understand on some level that MAGA representatives in Congress are chaos agents, who constantly threaten to grind the government to a halt. If given the chance between a politician labeled “liberal” and a politician labeled “MAGA,” the choice of which person they trust to reduce their grocery bills might become a little more nuanced, giving Democrats more of a chance.
Using the MAGA term (which they chose themselves) is more neutral than calling them “fascist,” even though that IS what they are by definition. Fascism: “A philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Labeling Republicans “fascist” (even though it’s true) will probably cause most apolitical swing voters to roll their eyes, thinking that calling a party “fascist” is the same as calling it “Nazi.” Since no Republicans are (yet) clamoring to murder minorities in gas chambers, the fascist label is likely to come across as Godwin's Law hyperbole, and may backfire.
There are other options between the extremes of the “C” word and the “F” word. Right-wing. Reactionary. Regressive. But, again, I think we should just use the label they’ve given themselves. MAGA. It’s such an ugly word that immediately conjures up images of the January 6 insurrection. Whether you pronounce it maggoty-MAGA or MAH-gah, it still has a Nazi sound, like the noise a swastika might make if it could speak.
Even though it might be more difficult because it’s so ingrained, eliminating use of the “C” word is just as important when it comes to describing members of the Supreme Court. After all, even I, a liberal, can see the appeal of a Supreme Court that’s described as “conservative.” Donning my “originalist” hat, I imagine that the Founding Fathers had envisioned a panel of moderate jurists not beholden to popularity or political expediency, who can impartially call balls and strikes when interpreting the laws of the land…it’s easy to imagine “conservative” justices as wise and stable jurists who are able to move the country along with the times in a measured, prudent manner with the long-term future in mind.
But that’s not what we have now, is it? Now we have the reactionary, regressive Federalist Society Court, selected and feted by billionaires to take a sledgehammer to our fundamental human rights. So why should we give them the benevolent cloak of the word “conservative” to describe them? As with MAGA congresspeople, the description is not only flattering, it’s also untrue.
Two of the current Justices, Alito and Thomas, can legitimately be labeled as MAGA based on their refusal to recuse themselves in cases involving Trump and the insurrection despite their wives’ enthusiastic support of and participation in the attempt to overturn Democracy. But I understand that, as accurate as that description may be, using the MAGA label for the Supreme Court justices may come across as sounding biased. But a more neutral-sounding accurate way to describe the six justices appointed by Republicans is to label them the Federalist Society Justices. (Possibly FedSoc for short.) This conveys that they’ve all been essentially handpicked by non-elected billionaire Leonard Leo. Which is true.
I have no idea how the November election is going to go, and I’m honestly terrified, but I’d still like to imagine a scenario in which enough women are pissed off about Republicans taking away their reproductive rights that they show up in huge numbers and generate a big blue wave. A longshot, I know, but if we ever do gain the presidency along with the numbers in Congress to reform the Supreme Court, that should be one of our first priorities. But Democrats’ continued use of the C-word to describe the Federalist Society court is a form of self-sabotage, ending any chance of accomplishing that goal even before we have a chance to begin. Middle-of-the-road, apolitical types who hear that Democrats want to put an end to the overreach of the “conservative” court are going to assume that it’s just sour grapes on our part, that we’re trying to radically alter the third branch of government to enact our own agenda. Even if many of them dislike the Court’s recent rulings, they’re going to think that Democrats wanting to UN-pack Leonard Leo’s court is radical and unfair if they think of that court as merely “conservative” rather than the enactors of the goals of a cabal of monarchial reactionary fundamentalist Christian billionaires.
It's even MORE self-sabotaging if we try to make the rallying cry of court reform, “PACK THE COURT!” Please, please, please, please, please…no. Just, no. We liberals realize that the Supreme Court has already been unfairly packed by Leonard Leo via MAGA Mitch McConnell. But to everyone else, if you say “Pack the court!” you may as well be saying “Rig the court for liberals!” And that framing is likely to turn away any moderate voters. And not only is “Pack the Court!” self-sabotaging, it’s also inaccurate. Again, the court has ALREADY been packed. We’d be better off, logically and politically, saying we want to UN-pack the court. Or better still, “Reform the Court,” which can encompass both rooting out rancid corruption and also re-forming the court in terms of number, term limits, and how and when justices are appointed. Some news about the MAGA justices Big Salmon Alito and Clarence Thomas being wined and dined by billionaires may have gotten through to some middle-of-the-road voters, so “Reform” may seem reasonable…much more reasonable than “Pack (i.e. rig) the court!”
We should learn the lesson of how important language is from the “Defund the Police” debacle. Liberals had good ideas that would provide a more holistic approach to justice and fairness, and we had the goodwill of many Americans who, in the wake of George Floyd’s horrific murder, understood the need for real change and reform. And then we packaged those ideas with a slogan that was guaranteed to alienate and terrify all but the most well-informed liberal voters. To the majority of Americans, the “Defund the police” signs held at rallies may as well have said “Abolish the police” or “Starve/punish the police,” which strikes most middle-class suburbanites (understandably) as radical and frightening.
In response, in the runup to the 2020 election, mainstream Democratic politicians like Biden had to bend over backwards and double-down in their support of police to offset this terrible messaging and attempt to assuage the fears of moderate voters. And in the process they likely chased away some voters whose priority was real, meaningful justice reform. We should try not to make that mistake again.
So, at the risk of coming across like the word police, here are some suggestions I’d like to see liberals use to more accurately describe the state of politics today:
Instead of “conservative,” say “MAGA” or “right-wing”
Instead of “conservative firebrand,” say “Hardline MAGA” or “Ultra MAGA”
Instead of “conservative Supreme Court Justices,” say “Federalist Society Justices” or “reactionary justices”
Instead of “traditional conservative values,” say “fundamentalist Christian values.”
Instead of “Pack the court,” say “Reform the court”
Instead of “Fox News,” say “FNC” (after spelling out Fox News Corporation once)
(One exception when the conservative label could reasonably be used is when discussing the depressingly few Republicans who have stood up to and spoken out against Trump and the insurrection, like Liz Chaney, Adam Kinzinger, and Judge Michael Luttig. But I would advise carefully evaluating if someone really deserves the “conservative” label before applying it.)
The right-wing MAGA crowd is obviously going to keep referring to themselves as “conservative” because they know it benefits them. Why wouldn’t they want to hide their extremism from moderate voters by using a reasonable-sounding (but highly inaccurate) label? But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to repeat and reinforce it through our own speech and writing. After all, the right wing also flatteringly refers to the January 6 insurrectionists as “patriots,” but we don’t adopt that language and amplify that false narrative ourselves. So why should we keep doing that with the “C” word, continuously reinforcing the idea that any of these hardline MAGAs are reasonable, serious, moderate legislators? Until any politicians truly are “cautious, moderate,” we need to almost completely abolish the use of the C-word from our vocabulary.
Changing our language may seem like a small step, but I think it’s an important one. And in this close election with such high stakes, any and every step is important. We need to do whatever we can to make sure the reactionary MAGA extremists don’t get the chance to take over and destroy Democracy. Please don’t help them give apolitical swing voters warm and fuzzy feelings by echoing their framing of themselves and their policies as “conservative.”
