How many examples would it take to convince you that no one has a monopoly on virtue? Only the kool-aid besotted see themselves and, by extension, fellow believers and their institutions as selfless saviors out to do nothing but good.
How about the Patriot Act, which is a tool for doing unpatriotic things to Americans?
No Child Left Behind — the federalization of K-12, which leaves behind children’s education.
Sending prisoners to countries that torture — rendition.
Faith-Based Initiatives — taxpayer funding of religious endeavors.
Compassionate conservatism — liberalism.
Feel free to add your own.
I disagree with your assessment. I did NOT say anyone had a monopoly on virtue. YOU said that. I did not say conservatives DO NOT use this approach. YOU said conservatives were “no less prone” to resorting to this, which, in my experience, is clearly false.
For example, you use the Patriot Act as an example. Do you have any idea what the “Patriot Act” IS? Do you know why it is named the “Patriot Act”?
Just so you know, “PATRIOT” is an acronym for “Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. It is an acronym, something the government uses frequently.
And by the way, I support the concept behind the Patriot Act.
And so on. Your comments in your first paragraph are redolent of moral relativism.
I agree with that nobody has a monopoly on virtue, but not with your specific examples. Said examples are generally of Republican bills, rather than conservative ideas, other than “compassionate conservatism” which, if it is a euphemism, is a clumsy one, since it implies that conservatism is not intrinsically compassionate and needs modification to be such. In fact, that was President Bush’s point in using the term-— he did think conservatism needed to be modified, that it shouldn’t seek to “balance the budget on the backs of the poor”.
“Rendition” isn’t a euphemism-— it’s a word with a specific meaning that can’t be spelled out by politicians for national security rather rhetorical purposes-— and it’s been the practice of Democratic and Republican administrations alike.
“Faith-based initiative” didn’t describe public funding of religious endeavors, but the government doing some funding, but mostly getting out of the way of religious institutions doing public endeavors, i.e. feeding the hungry. I suppose you could have called it “Faith based institution” iniative, but such nit-picking makes for clunky exposition.
Your description of “No Child Left Behind”, which I know Sowell was against, is similarly inapt. The title of the act refers to its purpose, not to whether that purpose was fulfilled, which is of course a matter of dispute.
In short, your criticisms miss the point of what a euphemism is. I suspect that, while Sowell would disagree with you (as I do) on the Patriot Act’s effects, he might agree it stands as your one good example.
However, the fact is, is that bills by their nature have more than one name— the official, bureaucratic one, and the popular one. This is different from changing the language around a general practice or aspect of society or government into soundbites for political purposes.
Nor does Sowell decry this practice-— he is merely pointing out that the right has to catch up to the left in it, in the area of economics. You’ve confused Sowell’s point, which was not about Conservatives or Democrats, but Left and Right. Can you think of similar “rightwing” soundbites in the area of economics? Maybe a few, but in general, I at least can’t-— if I could, I’d use them more.