New Devil’s Dictionary: ‘Partisan’ vs. ‘nonpartisan’

As always in politics, it depends. The Fake News spewed 24/7 by the leftist media often depends on “fake words” that deftly undermine real words and phrases.

0
518
Partial view: J. H. E. Partington: Ambrose Bierce (painting). Image via Wikipedia entry on Bierce, image now public domain.

WASHINGTON, April 1, 2017 – Nothing embodies today’s politics like the overheated socialist rhetoric that’s continually trumpeted as fact by media networks dominated by wealthy Marxists. As we now know today, the correct term for this is “fake news.”

Much of today’s fake news involves a devious twisting of commonly used and understood words and phrases in in a way that flips their original meaning upside down. The aim is to confuse American citizens and trick them into adopting the viewpoints, attitudes and voting habits favored by the American left, which today runs the Democrat Party, its rhetoric, its politicians, and its brainwashed acolytes.

As the left intensifies its focus on destroying the presidency of Donald Trump and ending the Republican control of the House and Senate, it’s useful to focus on a key element in the Democrats’ word-game strategy by examining the left’s clever redefinitions of the once commonly understood terms “partisan” and “non-partisan.”

A good place to start might be to offer what at least appear to be non-ideological standard definitions of both terms.


Mirriam-Webster.com defines the adjectival version of “partisan” as:

“…a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance – political partisans who see only one side of the problem”

The same source defines “nonpartisan” as:

“…not partisan; especially: free from party affiliation, bias, or designation – nonpartisan ballot – a nonpartisan board”

For a time, Ambrose Bierce lived in Washington DC in the house to the right, located on the northeast corner of Logan Circle at 18 Logan Circle. (Image via Wikipedia entry on Ambrose Bierce, CC 3.0 license.)

Over the years, however, political leftists and left-wing reporters and commentators quietly and subtly altered the original meanings of both terms. This quiet redefinition of terms gained increased traction when the Clintonistas—those master wordsmiths—moved into town in 1993, wreaking incalculable damage on the evolution of political discourse.

The beta version of our New Devil’s Dictionary—with a hat tip to that late, great American journalist and writer Ambrose Bierce—offers an alternative pair of definitions. Memorize them. It will help you cut through the fecal material that’s become the essence of political “reporting,” particularly since Donald Trump was elected POTUS.

New Devil’s Dictionary definition of “partisan”:

Adjective, pejorative tense. Modifier that describes any thought, word, deed, opinion, or legislation uttered by, written by, or otherwise offered by a Republican, Libertarian or free-thinking independent.

As for “nonpartisan,” the New Devil’s Dictionary defines it thusly:

Adjective, connoting praiseworthiness. Modifier that describes any thought, word, deed, opinion, or legislation uttered by, written by, or otherwise offered by a Democrat.

Let’s not forget another important adjective that purportedly provides a “third way” of looking at things: “bipartisan.” The New Devil’s definition:

Adjective, connoting praiseworthiness. Short definition: Word used to describe legislation in which the Democrats get everything that they want.

Full definition: Modifier that describes any thought, word, deed, opinion, or legislation uttered by, written by, or otherwise offered by a Democrat, with particular reference to left-liberal laws supported by that party and by coerced or bamboozled Republicans (aka “RINOS”), who are said, in such instances, to be acting in a “bipartisan spirit.”

An allied adjective often associated with the above terms is the compound adjective “mean-spirited”:

Adjective, pejorative. Anything whatsoever that is proposed by a Republican, libertarian or non-left-wing independent, as in “mean-spirited, highly partisan legislation that’s backed by Tea Party extremists.” Also used reflexively as a modifier to describe any institution, individual or politician who is not a Democrat.”

More to come. We can play, too.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Communities Digital News


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

SHARE
Previous articleVenezuela’s toxic mix of judicial activism, democratic socialism
Next articleIt’s April Fools Day 2017 in the news. No, really…
Terry Ponick
Biographical Note: Dateline Award-winning music and theater critic for The Connection Newspapers and the Reston-Fairfax Times, Terry was the music critic for the Washington Times print edition (1994-2010) and online Communities (2010-2014). Since 2014, he has been the Business and Entertainment Editor for Communities Digital News (CDN). A former stockbroker and a writer and editor with many interests, he served as editor under contract from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and continues to write on science and business topics. He is a graduate of Georgetown University (BA, MA) and the University of South Carolina where he was awarded a Ph.D. in English and American Literature and co-founded one of the earliest Writing Labs in the country. Twitter: @terryp17