POLITICS
___________________________________________________________________
Disingenuous. My favorite dictionary* tells us disingenuous means “ … not frank or open; uncandid … “ Note that this does not mean “liar.” However, in actual usage, I have often enough seen it used as a polite euphemism for liar, presumeably when it is felt that conciliation is a better remedy than confrontation.
In this context, it is interesting that this word is used quite often in politics. One would think that politics, especially as it has presented itself these last five years, is a veritable synonym for confrontation, and therefore not a fit forum for such politeness. But, a quick search of the internet on the word produces links, 90% of which are about or connected to politics (excluding those links to purely definitional sources), whereas a search on “liar” yields mostly entertainment-type news and articles (thanks, apparently, to the Jim Carrey movie “Liar, Liar” and the unstoppable publicity machines of Hollywood).
The explanation, I think, is that people in politics tend to prefer indirection, so that they can swiftly change direction, or even deny that they have a direction, should the need arise. This of course means that most political useage of the word is, in fact, disingenuous. The question presented then, is this: is there a way we can save the use of disingenuous for politics, without being disingenuous? Or, more precisely, does this word have any real function in political debate beyond protecting politicians from accountability for calling someone else a liar? I think it does, if it is properly explicated, with examples.
* Wiktionary
____________________________________________________________________