I have, on more than one occasion, been that person on Facebook or in a website’s comment section.
You know the one. The person who points out spelling errors and bad grammar. The one who tells you when you’ve used “their” instead of “there.” The unrepentant Oxford comma advocate.
I could lie and say that I don’t enjoy being pedantic. Whether I do or not often depends on the attitude of the person in question. But even when I don’t get a little thrill out of it, I still find it hard to hold my tongue when someone says, “I could care less.” That phrase means you do, in fact, care.
Sigh. No — not going to digress there.
Words do matter. Grammar has a purpose. Spelling can change meaning.
When we talk about important topics, it is critical to understand not just what is being said, but what is being intended. The two are not always the same.
Which is why Donald Trump’s recent use of a particular word deserves a closer look.
In an interview with former FBI deputy director and conservative podcaster Dan Bongino, Trump used a word that deserves scrutiny.
“The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said, suggesting that federal control should be imposed in “at least many — 15 places.”
Not to be a linguistic tyrant, but the answer contradicted itself.
To nationalize is to ask the federal government to take on responsibility for the whole country. Amtrak is nationalized. Air traffic control is nationalized. The United States Postal Service is nationalized. These are services that are either provided by the federal government or administered under its auspices.
The government does not provide mail service in the Deep South while leaving the Pacific Northwest to sort it out on its own. That would not be nationalization. It would be selective control — and the lack of a clean word for it should be a warning.
To nationalize is an all-or-nothing action. It cannot be done selectively. That is why language matters. The words we choose do not just describe actions; they justify them. They become the guidebook for what comes next.
“Nationalize” does not simply describe something broad. It asserts authority to act — authority that must always be carefully assessed.
It is worth noting that Republicans are among those questioning the language, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has cautioned against “federalizing elections” and argued for decentralized systems.
That matters because nationalizing something that has rested in state hands for more than two centuries is in no way conservative. Conservatism, by definition, is a political tendency averse to change and inclined toward the traditional. Nationalizing elections — selectively or not — is radical.
Using words incorrectly may be accidental or deliberate. It can happen because someone misunderstands a meaning — or because they hope someone else will. It may be a joke — as Trump often claims when his words cause a stir — or it may be an intentional literary device.
But as on social media, I cannot let the misuse pass without note. Trump said he wanted elections nationalized. That word means something — even if it was not used the way it was meant.