Some Definitions

A great letter to the editor in the News & Tribune by the Floyd County GOP chairman, Dave Matthews:

Definitions. Has anyone besides me noticed that the political environment is getting hot? There are lots of words and names flying around out there that probably have many of us confused. So, I just thought I’d help our Floyd County residents with a few definitions of terms they might not have understood before. Here goes.

• BLUE DOG: The thought here is that this Democrat is like a dog on a leash, who is straining so hard against the direction of his party that he is literally turning blue at the strain. Of course, one would assume that occasionally, this Democrat would vote against his party, indicating occasional disagreement.

He is a Democrat, but as a representative of conservative constituents back home, he just can’t vote against the will of those constituents whom he represents. Indiana does not have any of these.

• LAP DOG: This type of representative climbs up in the lap of his party’s leader, agrees with and votes for everything that leader recommends, whether or not it represents the will and opinions of his constituents. This dog loves the attention of being close to the leader and wouldn’t bite his hand no matter how much the issue hurts those whom he represents. Usually a lap dog thrives on strokes and lots of persuasive petting.

• POLITICAL TERRORIST: Anyone, especially from the opposing party, who expresses a difference of opinion from the representative. This title has been accompanied by synonymous name calling like “angry mob” and “un-American.”

Usually, these individuals are accused of striving to “blow up the meeting” and “not try to answer thoughtful questions.” The way to effectively handle political terrorists is to not meet with them at all, even if you do represent them.

• THE RICH: Those whom you expect to pay the bills for everyone else. This group is difficult to define because the level of income they make continues to be adjusted downwardly. Of course, ultimately it will describe anyone who has gained any level of financial independence and they will be expected to carry the load of those who make nothing.

• INDEPENDENCE: Formerly the name of a declaration describing the liberties gained by our nation. Antonym of “dependence,” the desired future state of all citizens. Current political theory suggests that the more dependent citizens can be made on the government, the easier they will be to control and the more income can be confiscated.

• ELDERLY: Anyone who has worked for any length of time to earn a retirement. One representing the heaviest burden on systems like health care and social security, both to which he or she has “contributed,” usually for decades. Interestingly enough, this group never gets so independent that they can’t be taxed and burdened more, usually on assets that they have already been taxed on for decades.

I know that with terms like these being thrown about frequently by the media and in certain political circles, it is easy for the average American to become confused. I hope these definitions will make it easier for all of us to understand exactly the type of representation we are being presented with in this non-Election Year.

There is probably one more definition, however, that Hoosiers need to be familiar with as we approach 2010 and our next opportunity to affect a “change” through our votes.

• LOSER: The term describing representatives who choose to ignore their constituents when they think we won’t remember their actions one year later. One who refuses to meet with those whom he represents. One who thinks he can force his agenda on his constituents, even when they vociferously object to those issues. One who thinks he is safe because he has been elected so many times.

Remember, Election Day is just 15 months away!