WORDS MATTER:

As those of us on the left attempt to make the case against Donald Trump's more egregious cabinet posts and his likely implementation of policies we vehemently oppose, it is worth taking some time to consider the language through which we accomplish these pursuits.

The long, brutal campaign brought our nation's discourse to new lows, particularly as Trump himself repeatedly resorted to ad hominem attacks--those against the person, not the ideas--on his opponents or anyone else who got in his way. "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," "Crooked Hillary." In turn, many mocked everything about Trump from his hair to his hands to the seemingly unnatural color of his skin. Then again, Hillary herself infamously referred to Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables." Never mind that those words may have been taken out of context. Words matter.

I want to make the case that what we need more than ever is to clean up our language to avoid, whenever possible, personal attacks. This is extremely difficult, and I have been guilty myself, especially when one feels one's values are coming under direct threat, and it is not always clear where to draw the line. When the notorious "Access Hollywood" tape was leaked, how were we to characterize Trump based on what we heard? I heard everything from "serial groper" to "sexual predator." Those claims may be true, but have not been proven to the point of making them stick, so I shy away from them. I think calling him a misogynist and a braggart who is at the very least an apologist for sexual assault is fair. But then again, I am a man. Others may make the case for stronger words against him. But please make the case.

I find the issue of personal attacks extremely relevant as I write and call elected officials to protest the appointment of (so far!) Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Flynn. White nationalist, racist, and Islamophobe, in that order? Probably. But I find it more useful to point each and every time to specific actions, and if at all possible, quotations from these people that illustrate my point. I also want to rally around the single word "bigot," which I find to be both specific and all-encompassing: "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.; a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group."

I also want to lay out a case for liberating some words that have been taken hostage by the right, appropriated for their particular ideological ends: "patriot" and "constitutionalist." These words have been clearly defined to promote the idea that those on the right have a monopoly on their use. Nonsense, I say.

The word patriot, as derived from Latin, simply means love of the fatherland. Avoiding the sexism inherent in that last word, do we on the left not love our country? We do, and I will not stand for being thought of as anything less than a patriot. However, my kind of love is not permissive or indulgent, wrapped in the flag no matter what. Never. My love is tough love, especially towards those officials in whom we place the sacred trust of government. My love of country places the laws of the land, particularly the civil rights that form the first ten amendments to the Constitution, above any other institution, person, movement, creed, or ideology. And I will use those rights to call out, criticize, castigate, and protest any policy or act with which I disagree. That is love: staying ever vigilant so that America lives up to the ideals to which it strives: being the land of equal opportunity, freedom, and justice for all. After all, the founders were seeking a "more perfect union," and so should we, forever more. We will never arrive at that perfect state, and we never should, as the nation grows and changes.

As we head into what will soon be a heated and divisive campaign by Mr. Trump to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia, it is worth discussing the term "constitutionalist," a word often used to describe Scalia and others who hold an extreme form of so-called "originalism": the doctrine that the only accurate interpretation of the Constitution is one that hews narrowly to the literal intent of the founders. I vehemently disagree with this doctrine, because I am certain that the founders did not have the hubris to think that the conditions and concerns that obtained in 1789 would apply uniformly across time. How could they have possibly imagined advanced telecommunications, medical ethics, or artificial intelligence? Massive societal challenges call for new laws and new interpretations of the law. We know the founders agreed with this, because they built the mechanism for change right into the document: the process of making amendments. Good thing they did, or we would still have slavery, and women would not have the vote. Yet, my argument against originalism aside, I take issue with the idea that it equates to constitutionalism. As a devotee of the Constitution myself, I beg to be included in that group. I, too, am a rabid constitutionalist. I just have a different idea about what that means than those who have unfairly appropriated the term.