Posted on 07/24/2010 7:39:06 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Just before noon on Sunday, July 18, 2010, Sarah Palin enriched the English language. Referring to the planned Islamic center near the 9/11 site in New York, she tweeted: “Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.”
Presumably, Palin was wavering between “refute” and “repudiate,” and, in the heat of the tweeting moment, typed or BlackBerried or iPhoned or texted the new amalgam, “refudiate.” Pedants in the blogosphere got all huffy. Palin decided to double down. A few hours later, she follow-up-tweeted: “English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!”
Gotcha.
So let us celebrate the new term “refudiate.”
Not that there’s anything wrong with “refute.” It means, according to Webster’s Third, “to overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; prove to be false or erroneous.” Nor is there anything wrong with “repudiate,” meaning “to cast off . . . to refuse to accept as having rightful authority . . . to refuse approval or belief to.” And they’re distinct. To refute is primarily an intellectual act; a thinker refutes a claim or an argument. To repudiate is a practical or political act; a political party repudiates a sect that holds a discredited (and perhaps refuted) argument. A refutation that isn’t followed by a repudiation is just talk. A repudiation that doesn’t include a refutation is just arbitrary action.
The case for linguistic innovation is this: We need a word that captures and conjoins the meanings of refutation and repudiation. And we need it now. To save the country from the ravages of contemporary liberalism, we have to refute liberal arguments and see liberal politicians repudiated at the polls.
So the conservative agenda is, in a word, refudiation. Indeed, given the dramatic moment at which we have arrived, one might say that we now have the prospect of a grand refudiation of liberalism.
The meeting of intellectual refutation and political repudiation is, after all, the usual prerequisite for the establishment of a new political order. The Tea Partiers—the most striking political development of our day—have understood this well. The movement is an assemblage of arguers and activists. Indeed, they might be called refudiators avant la lettre.
The original Tea Party was followed, of course, by the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims certain truths—that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. These truths are based on a rejection of other claims to rule, monarchical and aristocratic claims—a refutation of them based on “the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born, with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god” (in Jefferson’s famous words). And the proclamation of irrefutable truths is combined with the assertion of a particular act—that the American people repudiate “all allegiance to the British crown” and “political connection” with Great Britain.
The Declaration of Independence—and the successful struggle for freedom that followed—depended, then, on a grand refudiation of the existing arrangements under which America labored. The Constitution similarly depended on a refudiation of the Articles of Confederation. It required both an argument as to why they were failing and action to replace them. Each of our big, realigning elections—in 1860, 1896, 1932, 1980—reflected a refudiation of the political status quo. Politics is both argument and action. Realignment depends on refudiation.
We are conservatives. We ordinarily shun novelties of all kinds, including new words. But desperate times call for desperate measures. The Obama project is one of noxious ideology and wild political overreach. The challenge before conservatives is to beat back both. So say it loud and say it proud: Refudiate liberalism now!
"The Declaration of Independence—and the successful struggle for freedom that followed—depended, then, on a grand refudiation of the existing arrangements under which America labored. The Constitution similarly depended on a refudiation of the Articles of Confederation. It required both an argument as to why they were failing and action to replace them. Each of our big, realigning elections—in 1860, 1896, 1932, 1980—reflected a refudiation of the political status quo. Politics is both argument and action. Realignment depends on refudiation."
Ping!
Or “nucular”.
Mext, we’ll see the Huffington Post take issue with the “UNalienable Rights” mentioned in the Declaration.
Refuse it too, for good measure.
Finally! Kristol writes something with which I agree wholeheartedly. And the best part is: he supports the truth, that Sarah is very, very smart.
Hey, I said “crad” today. A combination of crap and crud. My friends just call me Billy...
I read that refudiate has been used before, in a National Park report or something, so it’s a real word..
Mext = Mixed-up + Next
“Palin creating a Bushism.”
Nope. That is not what she did. Misunderestimate is a double negative. It is not a word. Refudiate has an actual meaning as it contains the elements of both refutation and repudiation, two distinct words melded into one word to define the response to the horrific situation from which the country must now extricate itself. It will endure.
Misunderestimate is merely a malapropism which will be forgotten, along with the Bush presidencies (both of them), which amounted to political malopropisms.
I’ll bet if you dig deeply enough you’ll find an instance of some Ivy League, Blue Blooded, Snotty Nosed, Northeastern Democrat saying “Irregardless”.
"In your Face" ping.
Several times!
This entire ‘story’ is another example of the utter lameness of the Left. They are so desperate to ‘refudiate’ Sarah that they will grasp any opportunity no matter how weak. They saw this as the Dan Quayle ‘potato momen’t. Sarah and the new media will not play. Bungling ineptitude.
“Irregardless” has always been a pet peeve of mine. It is a double negative. I hated it when I first heard it. I never use it but it has somehow “snuck” into the lexicon and is now recognized as a word. Even used by intelligent people. The contraction “it’s” is frequently used as a possessive. Another pet peeve.
Hell, next thing you know they’re be telling us that “Obamaism”, “TOTUS”, or “Pockeestahn” aren’t real words, either.
And, could someone please translate this in to Austrian for me?
“This entire ‘story’ is another example of the utter lameness of the Left. They are so desperate to ‘refudiate’ Sarah that they will grasp any opportunity no matter how weak. They saw this as the Dan Quayle ‘potato momen’t. Sarah and the new media will not play. Bungling ineptitude.”
I love every minute of their efforts to destroy her. Every time they grasp the grenade that, they are sure, will destroy her, it blows up in their collective faces. She is so nimble. They can’t lay a glove on her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.