Replies

These phrases are not intended to communicate, they're intended to obfuscate, to frame the discussion such that only one side may be heard. The term "whiteness", for example, is semantically null but in wide use - everyone pretends to know what it is, and it's bad, but to challenge that vacuity is simply a sign of possessing it. That is not the stuff of any sort of honest discourse and it isn't intended to be, it's a shield against it.

I agree, and as others have pointed out, Carville is smart enough to know this. Language is being carefully tailored to take open political discourse (the very heart of the 1st Amendment) and turn it into a one-way street.

Carville focuses on the "problem" being a potential disconnect between the academics and ordinary voters, when in fact he should be more concerned with where this all leads (and we do have recent examples).

Ritual Public Shaming