The function of a well placed euphemism. Photo by Propaganda Critic

Euphemism as defined by Merriam Webster “the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant” is one of is not the most important too in Democratic erosion. A process born of subtlety necessitates a language with a duller edge. In effect its utilization and exploitation is a fantastic marker of the current democratic standing.

Once Elected, Why Deceive?

True democratic erosion must come in 2 steps: Electing a populous outsider, and this same actor taking control by legitimate methods. Traditionally, the bolder these attacks on democracy, the more bold the inherent opposition becomes. Now of course one could simply “take over” a government by any amount of force, but that is a rather rigorous path. Instead here we find the ever appealing slow and careful erosion. This erosion is only possible through euphemistic policy shifts that lack enough clarity to raise this opposition. Therefore it is only when the euphemism is dropped, that we know democracy has fallen. 

This argument falls in line particularly with Ozan O. Voral’s piece on Stealth Authoritarianism, as stated, “The new generation of authoritarians learned to perpetuate their power through the same legal mechanisms that exist in democratic regimes. In so doing, they cloak repressive practices under the mask of law, imbue them with the veneer of legitimacy, and render anti-democratic practices much more difficult to detect and eliminate” (Voral pp.1673). The distinction is that even under this “mask of the law” this fetal autocrat must also create an air of uncertainty among the public as well as the pundits. Both the public and pundits hypothetically have the power to fight back against this erosion before it is too late. I’ll allow one of my constituents to write about that though. These potential blocks to autocracy only function with a majority of either group in good cooperation, thus any uncertainty remains paramount in the fetal autocrat’s ultimate goals. Uncertainty is frequently birthed of confusion. This confusion can be fostered by rage (frequently on party lines), inaccessible language, and charisma. A euphemism can cover all of these bases when placed in the right hands. 

In Practice

Take the recent establishment of Elon Musk and the DOGE subcommittee. In practice the DOGE team has taken action to take funding away President Trump’s primary targets, particularly DEI and Climate Change programs. Not to mention reap access to data not formally allowed outside of the individual programs purview, even including Homeland Security. These appear as clear sidestepping of Congressional oversight and generally undermining the Legislative branch. How could any of this have gotten so far? Well the DOGE subcommittee exists under a very wide held assumption, that the government is inefficient. Instead of President Trump attacking the legislative more directly utilizing executive powers or loyalists, he instead establishes what appears to be necessary change. As the DOGE website puts it, “the nation expects sweeping common-sense reform, and the DOGE Caucus will pave the way for the House of Representatives to streamline government operations and to save taxpayer money”. Precision cuts to opposing agencies under this explanation appears as a non-partisan attempt to recirculate funding and “save taxpayer money”. The anger of the masses is called upon through the perception of high taxes and money wasted through bureaucratic inefficiencies. This language is also incredibly approachable for the masses, but in practice a great number of these reforms are dense legalese that need to be simplified. This simplification often comes in the form of President Trump or Elon, who are perceived as incredibly charismatic by their voter base. 

Another concurrent example is President Trump’s mass firings. This includes 4000 FBI agents who were directly involved in the January 6th case and nearly 200,000 probationary federal employees that were not given explicit reason as mandated by the law. This could and likely should be viewed as a clear attempt to rid the Federal government of President Trump opponents as well as notable efforts of resistance. Serving as both a purging and warning. The public dialogue around these acts though as initiated by President Trump and correspondents is what has been referred to as “draining the swamp”. This has been signposted since Trump’s 2016 election and the term has existed since long before the aughts. The power in this phrasing lies in its misdirection. Corruption isn’t being built up, instead “drained”. Since at least Nixon, the concept of corruption in government has been loathed by the masses. Also fair to assume that this Country remembers Nixon and events such as Snowden or Lewinsky as reasons to fear this corruption. Then the firings come and often it takes the form of unclear positions, for example, firing 17 Inspectors General means nothing to the majority of people. This keeps language out of the hands of the demos and forces different narratives out of the simplifications. Lastly these simplifications come from the source deemed most charismatic by the individual persons. This could be a politician’s twitter, or a partisan news source, pick your poison.

Going forward

In fairness, both of these situations are current and ongoing. There are structures in place that are stepping up to put a stop to the most over offenses. In the case of budget cuts, we see States suing in order to regain the federal funding lost. Also the Federal firings are competing with the unions with many more court cases on the way. Unfortunately it appears this is a mere bandaid on a bullet hole as these are all exterior defense mechanisms. As it stands there is no interior democratic fight to relieve even just these two very overt offenses to our Democracy. Unfortunately this is due to a successful employment of this deception. The public and federal outcry remain undermined by partisanship and overwhelmed resources. Those who have mounted a clear offense against these undemocratic reforms cannot get a nonpartisan base to stand with them as it appears many represent loyalists or feed into the story given for this slow coup. Euphemism is a method that only works when it reaches the ignorant or intentionally ignorant. Meaning the way to fight back against this is through breaking misconception and informing the public. President Trump is aware of this fact and is already (under a month into his second presidency)  attacking the media with lawsuits and ousting targeted individuals out of the Pentagon. 

The primary reason to track euphemism, and why I wrote this, is because it best depicts when democracy dies. Euphemism by its nature is built to hide the things that cannot be said out loud. As it stands, President Trump and his constituents still feel it necessary to hide in either big words or charisma. This is a good sign, they recognize that this process is fragile and in fact if they overstep they could lose all that they worked and planned for. A euphemism is dropped when it is no longer necessary; The day that happens, democracy is dead.