Dictionarial Disintegration
A decomposition of dialog decay
Expressing one’s thoughts can only be done when using words that have meaning. New words take root in the English lexicon all of the time. With the passage of time, old words often take on new meanings. But America is facing a new challenge as certain words take on partisan meaning and their use is almost exclusively divisive in nature.
Today we would like to explore the collapse of communication with a focus on words that have taken on different meanings, depending on which direction someone leans politically.
Fertile Soil For Divide
MAGA.
For many, MAGA represents a divisive, backward-looking ideology that promotes nationalism, exclusionary policies, and resistance to progressive change. Critics argue that MAGA relies on fear and sets aside modern realities in favor of a romanticized past. Opponents accuse it of fostering intolerance toward dissenting views and toward important groups of people, including immigrants and minorities. Some consider MAGA to be an overly simplistic ideology, claiming its rhetoric favors populist slogans over perceived complex global realities like climate change or economic inequality.
MAGA’s emphasis on American pride, self-reliance, and a return to traditional values resonate with supporters, who feel these are foundational to the country’s success. Proponents see MAGA as fresh source of optimism that provides hope for a restoration of economic prosperity, national sovereignty, and a sense of strength on the global stage. They celebrate MAGA’s focus on prioritizing American workers through policies like deregulation and trade protectionism. They relish in the hope of battling against perceived elitism in government and media. For supporters, MAGA represents a bold vision to reclaim a lost era of opportunity and security, fostering a renewed sense of patriotism and community.
There is little doubt that views of MAGA are strongly correlated to party affiliation and a tolerance for the perceived values of the movement.
This Is a Tired One
Woke.
Woke is a word that emerged in slang meaning awareness of social issues, but was mostly associated with racial injustice. A culture grew around this that became rather unhealthy, whereby everyone from the individual to the mightiest corporation was under fire and faced the threat of “cancellation”. Under the guise of standing for racial injustice, it became a culture of repression largely (and, in general, accurately) associated with the Progressive Left. The woke culture (or woke agenda) became a target of anti-progressives, liberal and conservative alike. Most notably, the MAGA movement called out the woke culture by name as one of the problems with America that required some kind of correction. Depending on the source, the meaning of “woke” might be the awareness of the battle against injustice or it might be the repressive culture of the Progressive Left.
Hopefully, it is a term that dies away because we achieve justice for all. The irony is that “justice for all” might just require consequences for those who abused woke culture for nefarious reasons.
Closely Related
Diversity.
Championed by some as a moral imperative that necessarily add strength to a group, "diversity" is criticized by others as a doctrine for forcing “inclusion” or reversing discrimination. Diversity fits into the category of the good and right “thing to do” for some who are willing to overlook the unavoidable bias and discrimination against certain groups for sake of a systemic fix. Critics view the bias against others as an unacceptable — you cannot fix discrimination with more discrimination.
This One is Rich
BLM (or Black Lives Matter).
One person hears “BLM” and thinks of the movement that stood against social injustices endured by an entire race for generations. Another person hears “BLM” and thinks of the incredibly destructive and costly riots that raged for far too long. And yet another hears “BLM” and thinks of the corrupt leaders of a movement that walked away with millions of dollars worth of donations.
“BLM” is an interesting one. It is a name that conveys a message and carries emotion. It is a total set up. If you are against a movement called Black Lives Matter, then you are automatically racist. It does not matter what the movement actually stands for. No matter your answer, you are screwed when someone asks you, “Do Black Lives Matter?” Even if you respond with “I believe all lives matter.”
Imagine an organization called “Punching Babies Is Bad.” Do you think punching babies is a bad thing to do? Would you support such an organization? If you oppose a group called Punching Babies Is Bad, then you must support punching babies!! You are not a Baby-Puncher, are you?? Then you MUST back our group, Punching Babies Is Bad! Would your level of support change if you found out that the entire reason for the organization to exist is to sow discord and funnel money into the pockets of the group’s leaders? That is how critics view BLM.
Terms That Became Propaganda
That leads us to some terms whose use is now restricted to what those with opposing views see only as propaganda.
Riot.
We’ll lead with the term “riot.” Per Merriam-Webster, a riot is a violent public disturbance. When BLM was burning down portions of major cities, looting small businesses, and generally wreaking havoc, news agencies expanded the definition of the word “protest” to include all of these acts of mayhem. They abandoned the use of the word “riot”. But you know what was a “riot”? J6! We are not saying that a riot did not take place on J6, we are just pointing out the difference in coverage. It is also worth understanding that the villains of the BLM riots managed to get by while facing little prosecution.
Terrorist.
The modern news media has also steered away from another term, “terrorist”. In what appears to be a tactic to support some ideology, radicals of a certain religious faith are no longer referred to as Islamist terrorists, no matter how Islamic they are or how much terror they evoke. Islamic terrorist is a term that only those racists on the Right use. But you know who are terrorists? The people who showed up outside the Capitol on J6.
If we wanted to meet in the middle on this kind of dialog, we would all use terms as they are defined. A riot is a riot. Someone who terrorizes is a terrorist. Let us all just be honest with ourselves and with others.
For Love of Country
Nationalism.
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism, which is generally understood as a love for one’s nation, is characterized by an appreciation of its culture, history, and values, and is accompanied by pride in what the country stands for. A sense of loyalty or devotion to one’s country is common to both patriotism and nationalism, but they differ in tone.
Nationalism tends to take that patriotic devotion a few steps further, emphasizing a nation’s superiority to others. It is sometimes tied to a belief that the country’s interests should come first, even if those interests come at the expense of international cooperation or perhaps the sovereignty of other nations. Nationalism can fuel a mentality of "us versus them” that has potential of leading to exclusionary policies that might prompt aggression. For many, these descriptions conjure thoughts of how President Trump has recently conducted business on the global stage, specifically as he irritates allies into pulling their weight on issues like trafficking dangerous illegal drugs and funding Ukraine’s war against Russia. For others, it is reminiscent of how President Obama antagonized China, attempted to topple governments in various nations around the world, and fueled aggression towards the United States.
Nationalistic sentiment is under scrutiny now more than ever. The problem that anti-nationalists have with nationalism is exacerbated by the conflict with those who seem to want to fundamentally and irreversibly alter the United States. While nationalism purports to protect and preserve the foundation of the nation, detractors want to discard much of the foundation and redefine what the United States fundamentally is.
Put simply, patriotism is a sign of love for country while nationalism adds a sense of superiority. The distinction becomes more stark as the intensity of nationalism escalates.
Let It Ring!
Freedom.
While freedom is at the core of American values, it is a word that carries a significant work load in modern discourse, especially when debating free speech versus hate speech, gun rights versus gun control, personal liberty versus health policies (such as vaccine mandates or abortion rights). The meaning of “freedom” is fluid, depending very much on the person wielding the word.
Foundations
Elections, democracy, and the republic.
U.S. politicians and their respective partisan arms of the media have been declaring for years — in the most alarmist, incendiary, and fracturing language possible — that the sanctity of elections and “democracy itself” have been under attack.
Democracy is foundational to the United States of America and elections are foundational to democracy. For years, Democrats have absolutely torn into Donald Trump for his claims that elections are subject to fraud, while simultaneously accusing Republicans of policies that promote “voter suppression.” In more recent news, California’s Democrat U.S. Representative Maxine Waters made waves last week when she suggested that Elon Musk’s “high technology ass” may have hacked the 2024 presidential election. She explains that “We don’t know everything that Elon Musk has done.” It turns out that election denial is not monopolized by Trump at all.
The U.S. is not actually a pure democracy. It is a constitutional republic with democratic elements and a system of “checks and balances” that prevent the voices and interests of minorities from being drowned out by a majority that decides everything. With both democracies and republics, the people delegate their power to representatives. What makes the U.S. unique is the Constitution, which constrains lawmakers by providing an umbrella of protections to everyone.
Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, recently conveyed to European media that the E.U. wants to work with the U.S. (against Russia) “to defend democracy.” This was amidst conversation about comprehensive approaches to bolster defense and support Ukraine, in part by building a European army.
So, democracy has become a rallying cry for defense spending and election integrity and against voter suppression. It is a term that is pulled in all sorts of directions, but it is pliable enough to withstand it.
Insult or Compliment?
Liberal.
Some take pride in being called liberal, while others use it as a slur. We previously explored the idea of First Principles, which included discussion of the fundamental similarities between liberal and conservative principles. While it appears that a lot more Americans are liberal-minded than are not, much of the divide we experience today is between those with classical liberal views and those with modern progressive liberal views. Both stem from traditions that value individual liberty, but differ significantly in philosophy, priorities, and approaches to governance. So, let’s break it down.
Classical liberalism emerged centuries ago in response to authoritarian absolutist and feudalistic rule with an emphasis on reason, property rights, and self-governance, and it evolved to include hallmarks like individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility. Classical liberalism prioritizes freedom from interference by others. Traditional progressive liberalism evolved in the 20th century out of the New Deal era as a response to civil rights issues and in battle against the excesses of industrial capitalism, with the aim of addressing systemic biases — the traditional progressive movement was defined by addressing material struggles like housing, healthcare, wages. Having emerged only in recent years, modern progressive liberalism deviated somewhat from those progressive liberal ideals by shifting focus from fixing structural issues (like labor laws or voting rights) to more abstract and culturally charged tactics (like focusing on identity politics and climate alarmism).
Classical liberalism focuses on equality under the law and individual merit as opposed to traditional progressivism, which prioritizes equity over equality with a focus on systemic changes and group-based outcomes. Traditional progressivism historically centered on improving society in pragmatic ways through reform, economic fairness, and policies to create more opportunity for the disadvantaged with measurable goals like a reduction in corruption, higher wages, shorter workdays. Modern progressivism fixates on less substantive battles over issues like pronouns, the cancellation of historical figures, or policing language and views reform through the lenses of race, gender, and sexuality — this execution of reform by modern progressivism is inextricably tied to the considerable extent to which American society is now divided (and perhaps it is even the direct cause).
Classical liberals advocate for minimal government that exists only to protect liberty and prosperity. Traditional progressives want to see government pave the way to prosperity. Modern progressives want government to enforce their ideals at the expense of the liberty of those who disagree.
On freedom of speech, classical liberals consider it a right, recognize it as a mechanism to enable open discourse (whereby ideas can be debated, challenged, and refined), tie it to the tenet of individual responsibility (you are free to speak, but are accountable for the legal or social consequences), while tolerating restrictions when it incites harm. Traditional progressives exalt open debate and, thusly, view free speech as an essential tool for truth and reform. Modern progressives have shifted away from these liberal concepts in favor of deplatforming, content moderation, and “hate speech” crackdowns. Protection of marginalized groups is the modern progressive justification for this censorship despite its clash with the foundational principle of free speech. For modern progressives, curbing free speech under the guise of protection against emotional or societal disharmony is less about solving problems through reason and more about enforcing orthodoxy.
There are plenty more differences among classical liberals, traditional progressive liberals, and modern progressive liberals (differences on policy and economic strategy come to mind), but this discussion is sufficient to understand why some people use the word liberal as an insult and others view it as a compliment. The anti-liberal crowd tend to use the word in a restricted sense: they exclude their own liberal principles when using it as an attack. Those attacks tend to focus on the negatives of modern progressive tactics and disregard the old progressive ethos of tackling systemic crises for the good of all. In perhaps an over-distillation of a complex subject, it seems that modern progressives have traded some of the universal problem-solving mentality for more fragmented and control-oriented approaches. Those individuals who support those approaches tend to be the targets of the “liberal” insult.
Restructuring The Government
Socialism.
Supporters see socialism as a path to equality across society while opponents associate it with an overreaching government and a sacrifice of individual rights. Much of what we think of as the modern progressive movement is socialism disguised as progressivism, which is a substantial reason many who are aligned more with classical liberalism have been purged from the Democratic Party and found refuge with Republicans.
Healthy Skepticism
Vaccines.
Per Webster’s New World Dictionary (Copyright 1971), the definition of “vaccine” is:
A substance containing the causative virus of cowpox, used in vaccination against smallpox.
Any preparation used to produce immunity against a specific disease.
Per merriam-webster.com, the definition of “vaccine” (as of March 10, 2025) is:
A preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as
an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated… pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)
A preparation or immunotherapy that is used to stimulate the body's immune response against noninfectious substances, agents, or diseases
The 1971 dictionary definition was an expansion of the original definition, which is more in line with sense 1 of the 1971 definition (see the etymology section on the merriam-webster site). The 2025 definition is quite an expansion of the meaning of the word. The website creators were obviously intentional about the specific references to mRNA and spike protein, both of which emerged in modern parlance only as a result of the dispute over the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 “vaccine products.” Our friends at merriam-webster.com redefined the word for us when people declared that the COVID-19 injections were not actually vaccines based on skepticism surrounding their ability to trigger an actual immune response.
Both the 1971 and the 2025 versions use “immune” or “immunity” in their definitions. In 1971, “immune” meant “exempt from or protected against something disagreeable or harmful: esp., protected against a disease, as by inoculation.” So, back in 1971, a vaccine was protection against a disease. That is not the same as a product that stimulates an immune response, as it is defined in 2025. An immune response is not the same as protection.
What You Have Coming
Privilege.
A “privilege" is a special right granted to an individual or group. Privilege is a term that carries much social, political, and emotional baggage as it tends to refer to unearned advantages or benefits received based on someone’s identity (think race, gender, or other traits). The idea of societal “privilege” is often used as a lens through which systemic inequalities and social structural issues can be viewed. Many receive the word “privilege” as an attack that dismisses the hard work behind their own successes and the challenges they have had to overcome.
What Is Good and Right
Morality.
This has become a complicated term. It tends to be less of an issue on a micro-scale. Most people with morals would, for instance, stop to help a little old lady who dropped her groceries. That is something that happens right in front of you and then you do the good and right thing.
But then there are the bigger issues that have the potential to put one’s morality in conflict. Is it good and right to open your border and allow entrance to refugees in search of an escape from an oppressive and dismal existence? Or is it good and right to close that door so that those very people are not subjected to horrific abuses at the hands of smugglers who rob them, rape women and children, and sometimes kill them? How many children have to be raped for an open border policy to no longer be good and right in the eyes of supporters? Like many proposed solutions to the issues of the day, these are indeed in conflict with each other and it is the details that make the issues so complicated.
It seems that most people want to be moral. Morality is much easier to achieve when one has access to the the next term:
Truth.
The truth is often difficult to discern from rhetoric and opinion. Thus we are at the mercy of our own choices of information sources. The packaging of the truth matters. For instance, a truth may be accompanied by the omission of other truths, which influences our interpretation of information.
What is truth? You might hear someone say “that is your truth, not mine.” But how can there be multiple versions of truth? It seems silly to suggest that there could be.
Viewing both “the Left” and “the Right” from the Middle, one observation of note is that both sides genuinely believe they have a monopoly on love. It is always the other side that is hateful. But what is love without truth? If there is only one truth, then is it only those who have harmonized with the actual truth who are capable of actual love?
Of course not! It is those big issues that tend to divide. Take a ride through the countryside and you will inevitably encounter a car on the side of the road. The occupants of such a car often receive help from a loving person who is willing to stop, regardless of the occupants’ physical traits or political perspectives.
The actual truth is that we are not all that different. We might disagree on some pretty big ideas. But, at the core, most of us want what is good and right for our families, for our communities, for our nation, and for the world.
Bringing It On Home
In a world that seems to have lost a moral and ethical center, it is worth understanding how important communication is and how our very language is drifting towards what amounts to (at least) two different dictionaries. Words have meaning and power, but that power is diminished when the substance of words becomes inconsistent. Definitional deviations are not only an outcome of the social, political, and cultural division, but a tool for those who drive division to achieve their goal.
Until these deviations are rectified, it seems the best we can do is adopt some awareness that not everyone uses all terms with the same meaning as we do and others may not receive our words in the way we intend. Along with that awareness, we recommend an increased sensitivity to those on the receiving end of our vocabulary while also striving to be less sensitive to those who use certain terms in a way that is upsetting to us.
This article focuses on terms that are divisive in a cultural sense. It is also important to understand that there are plenty of policy-centric terms that also carry division. There are policy parameters and metrics that get redefined over time and new meanings are adopted as a matter of convenience at times. Awareness of those morphing definitions are a bit more difficult for the average American, but please be aware that different terms carry different meanings among different politicians (for instance, take the “Inflation Reduction Act,” which was focused on climate change issues rather than reducing inflation — according to President Biden, anyway).
We urge everyone to consider how the terms in this article are defined in their own mind. What were the influences that helped you arrive at that definition? Did a media outlet provide influence? Does that media outlet provide biased and manipulative coverage of cultural and political topics? In the absence of such coverage, would the average American have a less polarized, less severe, and more honest definition of such terms?
Our society and culture has experienced too many injuries over the past couple of decades. Most of us want to see those injuries heal. Is such healing possible if we cannot communicate? Can we communicate if we allow words to carry different meanings? We encourage everyone to seek a path toward healing. Attempting to understand one another is a great first step down that path. There does not seem to be an end to the deviations in our language, but that does not prevent us from endeavoring to understand each other in earnest. That is the path to truth. That is the path to understanding. That is the path to Meeting in the Middle.