Some folks hate the word irregardless. My current linguistic hatred isn’t over a non-existent word, but rather the misuse of a word. I’ve seen this in many places, so I’m not picking on Senator Scott (R-SC). It’s from a letter to the Wall Street Journal, which Steve Benen helpfully reproduces in part:
I am saddened that in the editorial “Democrats and Racial Division” (Dec. 1) you attempt to deflect the concerns regarding Thomas Farr’s nomination to the federal bench. While you are right that his nomination should be seen through a wider lens, the solution isn’t simply to decry “racial attacks.” Instead, we should stop bringing candidates with questionable track records on race before the full Senate for a vote. […]
We must not seek to sow the seeds of discord, but rather embrace the power of unity. Simply put, if the Senate votes on a candidate that doesn’t move us in that direction, I will not support him or her. Our country deserves better.
Bold mine, to show the key word is deserves. Deserves is a reactive word, a word applied to indicate someone, or something, has performed a task at a level of excellence worthy of recognition and reward.
Mere existence doesn’t cut the butter.
One might argue that our country has achieved great things, but the fact of the matter is that this country has also performed atrocious acts. Another argument is to suggest that, as unexceptional and even guilty of atrocious acts as our country may be, the individuals nominated for the position, in this particular case, are still unworthy, but this is a denigrative act in defense of an entity which has numerous crimes to its own name, regardless of whether it has atoned. In the end, this logic, both formal and emotional, becomes too convoluted for the individual who values direct and accurate communication. In a word, this approaches baroque.
Add in the simple fact that deserves is a word that can also be used by those who feel entitled by birth in a variety of irrelevant attributes, such as sex, gender, color of skin, etc, and its misuse is not only irritating to the precision-inclined individual, but dangerous to society as a whole, since fidelity to reality is a key step in the task of survival and improvement.
I advocate a return to the recognition that country, as a whole, exists, and that its improvement is an honorable goal. If I were Senator Scott, I’d simply state that confirming a nominee who apparently holds racist views, or is willing to suspend his own good judgment to implement the noxious views of his superior, would be deleterious to the country’s moral health, and that the current President should raise his standards, for the good of the country.
For a more positive example, I give you the dubious sentiment that children deserve a good education, a sentiment I’ve seen expressed several times. Well, no, the existence of children, in and of itself, does not result in any such deduction. Reality, in and of itself, does not care. However, if we take to heart the thoroughly reasonable principle that an educated citizenry leads to a prosperous and peaceful state, then advocating that a good education for children is good for the country seems reasonable and convincing – and accurate.
Suggesting anything deserves something purely because it exists is both silly and dangerous, because it comes dangerously close to presupposing the divine, the wildcard of human existence.
