Compare this to a more current definition from the website dictionary.com. The first definition also calls a pundit "a learned person, expert, or authority." But the second definition is "a person who makes comments or judgments, especially in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator." It is that second definition that most people attach to "pundit" today, and it is not meant to be flattering. So much changed for this simple word over those decades.
Forty years ago, "elite" was defined as "the best or most skilled members of a given social group," which to my mind is a status worth aspiring to. Today, many use it as a pejorative, synonymous with exclusionary. Do you have an education, and did you take the time to actually study something before you offered an opinion on it? Well then, you are an elite; you're not one of us.
Today many people use adjectives recklessly to discredit ideas so that they are essentially dead on arrival. A proposal may be discarded out-of-hand simply by branding it as "conservative" or "liberal" without taking the time to examine the content of the idea. (Those two words have been so overused and poorly employed that I am not sure they have any meaningful value except to elicit a knee-jerk reaction.) "Racist,""bigoted," "politically correct" -- all are terms hurled indiscriminately, though I would not say thoughtlessly. Actually, these words are used quite strategically to kill a reasonable discussion before one has even begun. It is easier to win an argument with emotion rather than the inconvenience of facts.
It is good to choose one's own words carefully so that a conversation remains rational rather than reactionary. On the other hand, we can also be on guard against those who would willingly highjack an analysis with the weapon of words. But I will also admit that this is easier said than done, as incendiary words can set a policy discussion ablaze before we know what has hit us.
And now on to the campaign commercials! ;-)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment