This was the title of a recent article in the Financial Times that caught my eye. We see this word a lot these days, but there are also a lot of similar words of what I would call political “slang” that get thrown around–and I often wonder what exactly they do mean.

I had assumed, for example, that “woke” actually referred to people formerly called “liberals” or “reformers.” Such people were usually looking to government for various kinds of social change. However, this article defines “woke” as “the number one meaningless word which is used to signify ‘any acknowledgment of racism or sexism’, ‘expressing an opinion while black or female’, or just ‘a new thing that I don’t like.’ ” However you define it, it seems that “woke” is a word meant to be a negative description, by those using the term, of someone who takes a position somewhere on the political spectrum other than where they are.

Another such political term, according to the article, is the word “witch hunt.” It no longer refers to the actual hunting for witches, as in the old Salem witch trials. Instead, it is a word that “has become the first refuge of any political scoundrel in legal trouble.”

Or, what about this word–the “media,” or sometimes phrased “the mainstream media?” I had always thought that this word applied to major newspapers, radio and TV networks, and such organizations as the Associated Press. However, it is used now primarily as a term to describe a concerted, organized, purported effort at disinformation. The article says that so used “it is a meaningless word because there are countless very different media, which don’t act in concert.”

One more example–the words “fake news.” It used to mean that what we thought was real news, was being made up, sometimes being created by “trolls producing false content that masqueraded as news on Facebook.” But, today, the article states, these words have been “repurposed” by some politicians “to mean any news story inconvenient to the speaker.”

What this article pointed to, in my mind, is the fact that labeling people or issues with simple words or slogans is, in fact, a means to avoid real communication. What we need is actual dialogue and discussion in our body politic…not sloganeering.

For example, instead of stating ones’ position as being “woke” or “anti-woke,” why not actually have a discussion of an issue at stake? A good starting point might be to talk about something contentious, like illegal immigration. Why is it happening? What about those awaiting a decision on the legality of their entry, i.e. if not legally a “refugee,” do they still qualify for asylum? How do we protect the border? Do we need new legislation to deal with the problem? Should Texas be sending busloads of those crossing the border to other places? What happens if they come here? Etc.

Handling controversy in this way, through serious discussion and dialogue, is the American way of doing things. We may never agree but, at least, we can come to an understanding of our disagreement; and, perhaps, can find some common ground in the process.

As to one or two-word political “sloganeering”–I have had enough of it. It is not good for the country.

Rolland Kidder is a Stow resident.