Itâs the inverse of what Steven Pinker has dubbed âthe euphemism treadmill,â where we try to find nicer words for something we donât think is very nice, and find that the new words quickly take on all the old connotations. So âtoilet,â turns into âbathroom,â then migrates onward to ârest room.â Only we still know there’s a toilet behind that door, and whatever words we use about it, our feelings donât change.
This is why attempting to change how Americans feel about illegal migrants by changing the terms we use to describe them is a project doomed to failure; whether they are âillegal aliensâ or âundocumented immigrants,â the political realities remain the same. People who feel negatively toward âillegalsâ feel just as negatively toward âundocumented immigrants.â
The invective treadmill works in a similar fashion, only in reverse.
[…]
During the 2016 presidential campaign, I found myself confronted by a curious problem: Many of my readers simply didnât take it seriously when I pointed out that Donald Trump was, if not an outright racist himself, at least happily pandering to people who were.
âThe media calls every Republican racist,â my conservative readers replied. âThey said it about Mitt Romney, they said it about George Bush, so whatâs different about Trump?â
They were right. Other columnists had accused Romney and Bush of being racist and pandering to racists. I pointed out that Trump’s racist appeals were different, and much worse, than anything that earlier Republican presidential candidates had been accused of. But it didnât do any good. The media had cried wolf to condemn garden-variety Republicans; labels like âracistâ had been rendered useless when a true threat emerged. We shouted to no avail as Trump coyly flirted with hardcore white supremacists, something no mainstream party had done for decades.
Indeed, it seems to me that critical race theorists have gone to âwhite supremacyâ precisely because the increasingly broad uses of the word âracismâ have made it less effective than it used to be at rallying moral outrage. The term still packs some wallop, but less than it once did, because it is now defined so broadly that a Broadway musical could sing âEveryoneâs a Little Bit Racist.â White supremacy, on the other hand, is still clearly understood as beyond the pale.
But if we indiscriminately apply the term to everything from the alt-right white nationalist Richard Spencer, to anyone who thinks that football players should stand for the national anthem ⌠for how long will white supremacy still be considered beyond the pale? What happens if people accused of racism start shrugging off the epithet — or worse, embracing it? And when another Richard Spencer comes along, how will we convey how dangerous he is?