Which political ideology, or party, more often wears a mask?  This question is of great import, because to determine which political ideology more frequently espouses better policies, one need not look much further than which side more frequently masks their agenda.  It stands to reason that if a party is arguing for a perceived good, there is little need to mask it.  Indeed, euphemisms and demagoguery are less useful -- or for that matter, used -- when one's plain rhetoric can adequately explain to the public what good their policies will bring.

Although this is admittedly not a simple inquiry, to which the exceptions are likely legion, I submit that the political left more regularly masks their true intentions from the American public.  For leftists are afraid that the people will reject many of their policies out of hand if they were to in fact state their intentions with greater candor.

Before moving forward, however, let me be clear what I am not saying.  I am not saying that people on the right never engage in demagoguery and euphemisms.  Indeed, I would not say this because first, it is not true and second, because I believe that would be a terrible idea; we need both.  Politics would be far too out-of-touch and vulgar if we were not to cautiously engage in such sophistries for the greater good. 

Because I am sure  that sounds odd being that this essay’s main point is to in fact scold such indulgences, allow me to flesh this comment out a bit.

Demagoguery is not always bad.  We in fact need people playing to the “common” concerns of the more "common" folk.  Without these efforts, many if not most of the public  (including myself) would be lost  in jargon which bans their minds from engaging the key issues of the day.  It seems clear that we must employ some form of responsible populism or demagoguery – the type which explains how something that may seem irrelevant actually does affect us in a very important way.  A government’s need to be fiscally responsible to stave of inflation seems a good candidate for such efforts.  Alone it sounds boring and unimportant to many people.  But when it is couched in terms of wasteful spending of our tax dollars, the point drives home with a more common and thus widely accepted force. 

Euphemisms also have their place. A responsible use of less offensive or vulgar rhetoric is a ploy in which we must occasionally indulge. Take the Secretary of Defense. This cabinet position was once known as the Secretary of War. And although that may also be an accurate description -- because defending our people frequently requires that we go to war -- it seems that the modern label does a better job explaining, without at the same time offending or provoking.

Now that I have taken a long but relevant digression, I return to point out at least two of the masks the left too frequently employs: “Resources” and “Fairness.” Both of these innocuous terms are just that, innocuous; that is likely why the left uses them.  I believe, however, that they serve to cement my proposition that the left not only does, but must, employ such rhetorical camouflages.  For if they do not, the American people would have abandoned their underlying policies long ago.

We first come to “resources.” Who wants fewer resources to do good for the country?  Can one really have too many resources?  But when people say “resources,” what they really mean is “power.”  Indeed, when some person clamors for more government resources to reign in big business, for instance, they want nothing more than to give the government more power to manipulate and control those big bad corporations.  To be sure, people on the right may use this term as well.  But it appears to me that for things that the right wants resources for – national defense or private business, to name a couple – they will just as likely use the word power.  America is after all a “superpower,” not just a “militarily resource-abundant nation.”  Further, private business just as legitimately may call for more power over their own business decisions than they would resources at their disposal.  What is certain is that using the word resources to describe right-leaning concerns is not required. Yet that is clearly the case for those on the left who call for more government resources to, among many other worthy endeavors, combat CEOs.  Imagine some senator said the government needs more power to stop these businesses.  Suffice it to say, I cannot imagine those words would be accepted by a big enough voting bloc to get him re-elected.

Next we have fairness.  Similarly, you can presumably never be too fair.  Yet when many on the left use this word they really mean “sameness.”  They call for a fairer, more progressive tax system; this is to narrow the income gap so that the middle class’ fortunes creep towards the same level of rich people who are unfairly better off. Likewise, they call for fairer use of public radio – despite the limitless other mediums for liberal thought – so that everyone has the same access to the radio waves.  Again, because it is unfair that more liberal radio hosts cannot compete without governmental intervention.  Finally, in a truly Orwellian use of the term “fair,” they call for us unquestionably, and without standard, to be fair to pregnant "mothers." This is so they can be the same as everyone else, as they unfairly got knocked up.  Just ask yourself, to whom are they being fair?  If it is not to everyone, then how is that being fair at all?  If it is not fair to the wealthier person, the entertaining and educating radio host, or the unborn baby, are they really asking for fairness?  It is not more likely that they are asking that the government lift those “unfairly” treated people to the same levels as others, even though in many if not most situations, they may deserve to be exactly where they are?

An essay like this could likely go on forever.  From “pro-choice” when they many times mean “pro-abortion” to “valuing education” when they really mean “protecting teacher’s pay,” the masks seem to be without end.  But at some point everyone needs to take off their mask to live a more honest life.  At the very least it is my hope that people just start to realize that the masks are there and vote accordingly.