Nation's fortunes may turn on use, or misuse, of single word

Words matter.

When I served at our Embassy in London in the early 1990s, only one seasoned political officer, steeped in the nuances of the Northern Ireland conflict, was allowed to take on the daunting task of writing the Ambassador's remarks on that subject. Certain words were so freighted with negative connotations for one side or the other that a slip of the tongue by the Ambassador could have set off a political firestorm.

Words matter in the way that we think about things and make judgments. Polls tell us that the majority of Americans think we spend too much on welfare, but not enough on assistance for the poor.

So as this political season gathers force, there is a surprising word that has found itself smack in the middle of the political debate: Socialism.

Whether you use Webster's, the Oxford English Dictionary or Dictionary.com, the definition of socialism is the same — the ownership by the community/state of the means of production. Yet no mainstream political candidate is suggesting that the federal government take over General Motors, U.S. Steel or Apple.

I would guess that most Americans feel that they know what socialism is but would soon stumble in into what is known as the illusions of explanatory depth in describing it. You think you know how something works right up until the moment you are asked to stand up in front of a group of people and clearly explain it all.

Socialism is most certainly the involvement of the government in certain parts of the economy and society, but it also clearly runs along a continuum of varying degrees, with a country like North Korea at one extreme end.

In Western democracies, government involvement exists to ease the rough edges of market economies or intervene where market forces just won't work. Would adding a public option to American health care exchanges turn America into a Venezuela or Russia — both authoritarian petro states? That is just silly.

Even a social democracy like Sweden relies on strong multinational companies such as Volvo, Ericsson, IKEA and Electrolux, etc. in order to support a robust welfare state. It does so by keeping corporate taxes low. The U.S. government supports about two-thirds of the cost of health care, provides food assistance for the poor and allows an Earned Income Tax Credit, all with strong support from the public.

Recent polling in Iowa predictably identifies the top five issues on voters' minds — health care, education, the economy, immigration and the environment. In the coming months, candidates will be advancing ideas to deal with these issues, but we have already seen that the right will try to stop some of these ideas — and debates — in their tracks with one word: Socialism.

To be sure, candidates have a responsibility to voters when touting their ideas to explain a few simple — or perhaps not so simple — things: How will it work? How much will it cost? How do you pay for it? What is your basis for believing that it will make Americans better off?

Our founders explained very clearly the task before our leaders and it has not changed in 230 years:

“ … establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …”

In modern America that encompasses a vast number of issues from prescription drug costs to student loan debt to climate change to crumbling infrastructure to internet privacy. Candidates on all sides of the debate are going to distort their opponents' positions, use inflammatory language, apply labels and — too often — mislead rather than enlighten.

That puts a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of voters, but perhaps a heavier burden on the media. Too many column inches and too many hours of airtime will be spent on the horse race and not enough on the issues. Let the debate over the candidates' ideas begin, but don't allow those debates to be curtailed by a single word or label, especially when it is misapplied.

Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State. He was chief editorial writer of the Daily Herald 1984-86.