What are they really saying?
Jul 7, 2008, Vol. 13, No. 41 • By CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Safire's Political Dictionary
Mr. William Safire would have made--indeed he does make, in another of his incarnations--a highly serviceable lexicographer. But he would have chafed under Dr. Johnson's humble self-definition of the calling as that of "a harmless drudge." Drudge maybe; harmless never. There must needs be a sting, as in this most seemingly innocuous and topical of derivations and definitions:
One admires the dryness here, which comes partly from Safire's appreciation of the antiquity of political discourse and, indeed, of cliche:
Most of the seemingly "new" language is surprisingly old: Henry IV's chicken in every pot, Al Smith's cooing doves and Thomas Jefferson's war hawk accusation, Henry Clay's struggle against the can't win technique, Alf Landon's borrowing of New Frontier from Henry Wallace, Teddy Roosevelt's blast at the lunatic fringe ...
And indeed, Aristotle's political animal. Safire himself is so politicized a beast that he helped begin the vogue for attaching the "-gate" suffix to any Washington scandal, in the conscious hope that over time the habit would make Watergate appear just one offense among many. In his entry on the subject, he rather modestly downplays his own role in this euphemizing of Richard Nixon.
One of the pleasures of toying with dictionaries is the discovery--akin to the delight of the now-vanished index-card system in a library--of the useful reference for which one was not looking. Had I not taken care to pursue my old anti-Safire vendetta all the way to -gate construction on page 275, I would not have discovered that Elbridge Gerry's name was pronounced with a hard "g" and that he's probably been unfairly saddled with the etymology of the term "gerrymander."
Thus you may want to look up the deeper meaning of the phrase inside baseball, and then find yourself musing on the subsequent entry for inside the Beltway, and perhaps be amazed to find, as I was, that this expression was partly launched by Vice President Bush on Meet the Press in 1984. (He employed it in its original populist sense, to denote a topic that was of no interest to the broad masses, and thus additionally helped to establish it as a term used largely by Washington elitists who claim to know what it is that the Great Unwashed really do and do not care about.)
Great Unwashed itself, I was amused to discover, entered our language as a manifestation of defiant pride rather than as a piece of insulting condescension: It didn't even go through the metamorphosis of words--such as "Tory," "suffragette," and "Impressionist"--that originated as insults and were then adopted ironically by their targets.
Occasionally Safire misses a small trick. A long entry for the suffix ism, cautioning us against the generalizations that can result from too lavish a use of it, makes some sound anti-ism observations, but neglects to stress how useful these three letters can be and forgets just how wrong the British Foreign Office got it by stating complacently, after the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, that "all the isms are now wasms."
On the other hand, his long discussion of the origin of the term Islamofascism is as exhaustive as one could wish, combining a good deal of nuance with some old-fashioned digging and research (the first major usage of the word coming from the French Marxist Maxime Rodinson) and allowing room for both linguistic and hermeneutic maneuver. I should perhaps add that I am myself cited in this very entry, and that every wrinkle of what I had attempted to convey is encapsulated in the relevant paragraph. It's extremely unusual for one to be able to say that.
Still, and given the reverence for history that is one of his stronger points, Safire can sometimes be rather slapdash. A very long discussion of the key phrase Cold War, where he divides the honors of the coinage between Herbert Bayard Swope, editor and speechwriter for Bernard Baruch, and Walter Lippmann, fails entirely to notice that George Orwell probably first employed the expression in a short essay on nuclear weapons in 1946.