Isn't it about time we change some of the words we use to politicize actions, or programs, or ideologies? ...I believe it is. For too long we've been told, through innuendo, metaphor, and simile, how we ought to feel about certain people, certain beliefs, certain policies. Not surprisingly, as they seem to do many things "better," or at least with a greater enthusiasm and organization, the most effective jargon comes from the right, in equal parts unfair negativism aimed at any and all detractors and inaccurate positivism aimed at any and all supporters. One of many examples of this is a timely one, as it has been echoing in our ears during nearly every debate or speech on our impending vault off the proverbial fiscal cliff. The term, of course, is "entitlement." The sound of it alone, even without any background or formal definition attached, is offensive to the senses. When digging deeper, though, it only gets worse. Merriam Webster defines entitlement as "a belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges." They go further still with one of their three uses in a sentence: "celebrities who have an arrogant sense of entitlement." ...YUCK! Don't get me wrong, my issue here is not with Merriam Webster...they do a fine job, and have for many years, defining, explaining, and giving meaning to the words we use in our complicated language. My issue is with our political culture's cherry picking of terminology to align with an agenda. Again, much more prevalently so on the right. Now, back to “entitlements”… I’m not exactly sure why I’m to feel that the Social Security into which I’ve been paying for the better part of my life is “a privilege to which I’m entitled.” Why can it not merely be an investment I’ve made in myself, in my own retirement? Why can it not be a savings plan which was built on my dollars set aside from my paychecks for work I performed over x number of years? Funny. In that same vein, why cannot Medicare be simply thought of as something else I’ve paid into over the course of my career, eventually to be used in my retirement to put an infinitesimal dent in what are sure to be skyrocketing health expenses? If, though, hypothetically, we are not speaking of the above-mentioned programs, if we are not speaking of Social Security and Medicare, we must be speaking only of Medicaid and other low-income programs, right? …Really? Because if that’s the case, then we are speaking of roughly ten percent of all federal spending…or, put in other terms, less than one-third of what we spend on our military (withOUT unprovoked wars…because if we add those unfunded wars to the equation, the dollars spent on Medicaid, food stamps, and other programs that favor low income Americans seem comparatively and extremely insignificant). So, are those the “entitlements” of which we speak? Well, whether it is the former or the latter is probably of little importance. The issue on which to better focus is the purposely-negative (and, contrarily, the overtly-positive) word association inflicted on people, ideologies, and programs. And, if we do so, we can certainly then ask the question: “Why is defense spending not considered an ‘entitlement’ program?” Are Americans not “entitled” to safety? Do we not feel, collectively, that we are “deserving of the privilege” of protection from outside enemies? Why do Republicans not include defense spending under the “entitlement” umbrella? Other than that it is an intentionally degrading, unfair, and overtly negative term to associate with things many people value, count on, or hold dear to them, I can’t imagine why. Similarly, do Republicans not feel “entitled” to highways on which to drive, national parks in which to gaze, police forces through which to enjoy security, and clean air and water by which to LIVE? We don’t hear many ideologues, on either side of the isle, professing deep desires for reductions in any of these “entitlement” programs, do we? Oh, and one final note… Can we please stop referring to the Republican Party as the “conservative” party? “Conservatism,” according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as “marked by moderation or caution,” and as a “disposition in politics to preserve what is established.” Hmmm. What part of these definitions applies to today’s Republican Party? The right wing in this country is moderate and cautious…but selectively so. And, hard as I try, I cannot find any mention of selectivity in Merriam-Webster’s—or anyone’s—definition of conservatism. However, more than just selective, the right’s desire for moderation and caution (i.e. less government spending) is applied only to those things they don’t like or see themselves as ever benefitting from. Today’s “conservatives,” for instance, in all but unanimity, would never think to reduce or even stabilize defense spending. We spend more on guns and fighter jets and soldiers than do the next 10 nations on the world’s list combined. “Conservative”? …No. “Spend less on ‘entitlements’” must be translated to read, roughly, “spend less on them and more on us.” And, therefore, I recommend we replace the term “conservative,” in labeling many of today’s Republicans, with the term “selfish,” as that at least syncs with what many of them believe in, what they stand for, and how they vote.