Elections change things, so it should be no surprise that last week’s mid-term balloting has ushered in a whole new slate of political clichés, some of which are already grating on the nerves.
Those voters who monitor the news channels know by now that we are about to enter a period of bipartisanship and political cooperation in which the people who were calling their opponents liars and cheats two weeks ago will seek to find “common ground.” A new day has dawned, and we are told that agreement is just around the corner on immigration, health care, operating deficits, energy policy and even the war in Iraq.
It is said that these noble ends will be accomplished by the new Democratic congressional majorities because they will govern not from the left, but from the political center.
The phrase “compassionate conservative” has therefore officially been retired and will be replaced with what may also be thought an oxymoron: “moderate Democrat.”
Voters have no choice but to get used to the new terminology that will be applied to the war in Iraq. Democrats who campaigned on the goal of “getting out of Iraq” will, for the short term at least, be referring to “appropriately phased troop drawdowns” and “regional governing arrangements,” terms intended to blur the prospect of an American retreat.
The rancorous election campaign has mangled several words and phrases that may never be the same again. Inaccurate references to the notion of “checks and balances” have multiplied. Some political operators have claimed the term practically requires that the House and Senate be controlled by a different party than the White House. Of course, no such worry has been expressed over the fact that Democrats in Colorado will now control both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office.
In fact, the term “checks and balances” has historically referred to the way in which one branch of government serves as a check on the other two. Those checks, built into the Constitution, exist no matter which parties are in control of the various branches at a particular point in history.
Some other familiar words have also suffered recently – for example, immigration and migration. These last two are not the same thing, yet when President Bush recently met with the new president of Mexico, he reported that they had discussed trade and “migration.” Migration is the term so beloved by former Mexican President Vicente Fox, who liked to refer to the illegal movement of Mexican nationals across the U.S. border as “migration.”
But the use of that term is utterly inappropriate in any discussion of the recent wave of illegal immigrants who have invaded the United States. One can migrate (or move) from Oklahoma to North Dakota. “Immigration” is the act of leaving one’s own country in order to settle in another, with the important caveat that the receiving country typically has a choice in the matter.
Thus, treating the problem of illegal immigrants as though they were simply wanderers who had arrived in these parts is not a good start even in the new age of “bipartisanship.”
Finally, there is the modifier “sustainable.” President Bush has used it to refer to the U.S. goal of building a “sustainable or lasting democracy” in Iraq, but Democrats own the word and apply it to nearly everything.
Some Democratic leaders are already plotting to build a “sustainable party majority” in Congress. Others, especially those who call themselves “environmentalists,” have used the word to refer to almost everything except population growth.
In fact, if a Democrat wants to appear sophisticated and worldly these days, he or she need do no more than put the word “sustainable” in front of every term such as “sustainable energy policy” or “sustainable public transit program.”
The point here is that the new crop of clichés and political catch phrases don’t seem much of an improvement over any of the ones they may replace.
There are no consolation prizes in politics. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, then-President Bill Clinton and his fellow Democrats didn’t like it very much. Now that the tables have turned, why should Republicans be any more generous?
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.
