Cohen Blog 4

     I work for the Bucknell institute for public policy running a podcast where we discuss modern issues in politics and political news, usually we bring on a professor or other expert in the field of whatever we’re discussing. We did an episode at the beginning of this year that discussed buzzword in modern day politics and I think that when we talked about how the word “terrorism” is really more of a political one than anything else, I started drawing connetions between the two ideas. Within politics, certain language can often get skewed or molded to fit a certain meaning, or lose its meaning entirely. These words and phrases can have an extreme effect on the way people see and interpret issues in the general public. We call these words and phrases “buzzwords”. They are often used to call attention to an issue or gain a strong response, and in this sense, they can be very handy. This isn't something that has necessarily become more common, since buzzwords in politics have always been a thing and so has attacking your political opponent, the change is coming in the consequences of the new way these words and phrases are being used, mainly regarding the misinformation that is spread. We can see the same thing when political leaders label something an act of terror, or label an individual a terrorist. The objective is to garner the effect that comes with using that specific type of language, as well as any resources or public support that follow. 
    The example I used in my podcast was about the recent “defund the police” movement. Say I’m a politician on TV engaging in a policy discussion with the news anchor or an analyst or whoever. This person, and hypothetically a large amount of the audience listening would normally align themselves with republican views; we’re talking about police funding. We all have the same goal in mind: the safety of our community and of the people protecting it. 
I present something along the lines of, “Maybe police in most cases don’t need an armory full of automatic weapons, and maybe they don’t need hand grenades and maybe they don't REALLY need armored vehicles. Most would agree with me and say yeah maybe you're right, that's a lot of money for stuff they don't really use. And then I say, “great glad we agree,  and isn’t it weird that a very large percentage of prisoners in the United States have some form of treatable mental illness? A much larger percentage than in other modern countries? Wouldn’t it be nice if, we take the extra money from the stuff we don’t really realistically need, and put it back into the community in forms of social programs that have been PROVEN to reduce crime and overall incarceration rates.” and in most cases a reasonable person would hear that and think “Hey that's not a horrible idea”  
    Then, my political opponent hears this, goes on TV, and asks me “Hey, did you just say that you’d be taking AWAY resources from the police” I’d say well technically yes, and he now jumps up and shouts “He wants to DEFUND THE POLICE” 
    Now, nothing I said matters anymore. All of the explanations and data and proof that I provided go out the window because people hear DEFUND...POLICE and it elicits an immediate emotional response that people are much more likely to grab onto than any of the long boring stuff that I had to say. 
    So while buzzwords and certain language like “terrorist” can be very useful tools, like my example above, it can oftentimes be misleading in the sense that people aren’t being provided with the full picture or context required to form an intellectual opinion or make an informed decision.