No, I’m not name-calling. I don’t mean liberal devils. I’m referring to gathering material for a modern version of Ambrose Bierce’s classic The Devil’s Dictionary, concentrating on liberal linguistic contributions.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
I then suggested two new entries, which I repeat here as the first examples for my proposed Liberal Devil’s Dictionary:
The reservation of a specific number of positions for applicants from approved racial and ethnic groups, as distinguished from AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, a policy whose purpose and effect is to fill the same number of positions with applicants from approved racial and ethnic groups by giving them preferences based on their race or ethnicity.
PLAYING THE RACE CARD, v.
Low, base, racist tactic of calling attention to the race of a political candidate in order to elicit a) animosity, if played against one’s opponent, or b) sympathy, if dealt to one’s self or one’s favored candidate, a maneuver that pre-emptively employs this low, base, racist tactic to accuse one’s opponent of planning to engage in low, base, racist tactics.
In that spirit let me offer a few more possible entries:
LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, n.
The political, social, and economic terrain that will ensure that two or more teams with different levels of ability, experience, equipment, interest, attitude, coaching, etc. always achieve equal scores and win the same number of games.
Spending taxpayers’ money on members of public employee unions, as opposed to WASTEFUL DEFICIT SPENDING, which is spending taxpayers’ money for most other purposes, and GREED, which is allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money.
Description of projects to spend taxpayers’ money to promote the goals of radical environmental and anti-consumption groups, thus raising the cost of many every day necessities, in order to combat global warming (or, if necessary, cooling), as opposed to efforts to curtail borrowing and spending in order to reduce a growing debt and deficit that are uniformly regarded as, well, unsustainable.
Although my suggested liberal definitions might be regarded, in some circles, as biased, I think it could be beneficial to take them seriously. If, for example, all agreed that liberal social spending is an INVESTMENT, then perhaps we could agree that it is not generally regarded as a wise or prudent financial behavior for poor people — people without any money and deeply in debt, i.e., us — to borrow more and more money to buy additional “assets” with which they are already well endowed. Indeed, it might even be possible to suggest retiring some of those “assets” to reduce the debt.