My interest in words and meanings
extends to the times we live in.
And events of the day can
influence how certain words become cultural reality.
For instance, “economic
insecurity” and the word “precariat.”
In the coming years the words
“conspicuous consumption” may describe “prosperity.”
Or, in a world joined by global
interests “economic disparity” is lexicon for “redistribution.”
Now let’s reexamine history within
the context of redefined words.
The year 1916 in the USA was the
beginning of last term of an ill President Woodrow Wilson lurching toward
disaster. As *reformer Amos Pinchot bitterly observed: “President Wilson had put his enemies in
office and his friends in jail…”
In 1917 the new and unusual
clashed openly with the conventional and the commonplace, like the red scare
fermented by rebels in the progressive wing of the Democratic party was
overtaken by radicals who encouraged a USA inspired Bolshevik revolution.
The nation voted in 1918 for a
GOP congress openly against a “progressive” POTUS who was ill and suspicious of
all dissension.
However, the election of 1920
signified the nation wanted a return to the “normalcy” promised by President
Harding.
Yet the year 1921 ushered in renewed
“civil unrest” even bombings by “radicals.”
You can’t extrapolate the
election of 1916 to the election of 2016.
In 2016 the country was no longer
in full step with 8 years of “progressivism.”
Nevertheless, with a claim that the popular vote count didn't mirror the Electoral College victory, in 2017, “social progressives”
encourage “social unrest” with help from a Hearst inspired “opinion” main stream media.
Will the 2018 vote add more POTUS
supporters to roll back “social progress” and promote “conspicuous
consumption”?
Or does 2018 mean the return
of the progressives to limit
constitutional guarantees for those who aren’t “socially progressive”?
Regardless, the "contextual" words redefined for 2018
will depend on whether history may have back stepped, or leapt ahead.
