My must read of the day is "Do Conservatives Own ‘Opportunity’?" in the New Yorker:
Earlier this week, a piece by Jackie Calmes, a political correspondent for the Times, examined President Obama’s shift in emphasis from "economic inequality" to "economic opportunity"—a rhetorical pivot that began with this year’s State of the Union address, in which he mentioned "opportunity" four times more frequently than "inequality." With this simple swap of five-syllable words, Calmes explains, "the President and his party have moved in Republicans’—and voters’—direction." Underlining the point, the URL for the article reads: "Obama moves to the right in a partisan war of words."
Who says that opportunity is Republican territory? Well, Republicans do. The Times quotes a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Brad Dayspring, who asserted that Democrats are "adopting the more conservative language." This claim—that equal opportunity is inherently a conservative concept—goes uncontested in the Timespiece. And Calmes leaves the last word on Obama’s lexicon to Congressman Paul Ryan: "He has a very interesting rhetorical technique, which is to borrow the language of those he disagrees with to sell what he’s peddling."
It’s not so much that Republicans or conservatives own "opportunity." It’s that opportunity has become a descriptive term for conservative principles. It is a uniquely conservative buzzword, much like "progress" has become for the left. I’m quite positive liberals aren’t the only ones who like progress or "moving forward." Who is thinking to themselves, "Geez, I just want to be stagnant"?
Words have always been politicized; it’s really an advertising tactic. You find words that sound good and represent your product. If you’re successful, that word becomes inextricably associated with what you’re selling.
This president made his focus "income inequality." As that rhetoric increased, we heard Republicans remind people that their policies were about "opportunity," and then at the State of the Union Obama chose to also start using the word. Why? Because opportunity polls well, and it certainly sounds better than income inequality. Someone realized that, so they added the more optimistic term.
But here’s what most important: Democrats did not choose "opportunity." They adopted it only when they felt it necessary to do so.
So, in politics today, who should get to stake a claim on the word "opportunity"? The people who choose it on their own? Or the ones who use it as an afterthought?