Recently, many commentators have pointed to the financial crisis on Wall Street as yet another symptom of an economy trapped under the grinding wheel of a “recession.” However, what is meant by the term “recession” and is it possible to know whether or not we are in one short of making a subjective judgment?

Although few in the news have seen fit to point it out, recession is a word with a very specific meaning. It is the term economists give to two consecutive quarters of declining gross domestic product (GDP), the measure of output across an entire economy. Since Real GDP increased by 3.3 percent last quarter and 0.9 percent the quarter before that, we are not in a recession by economists’ standards, even though some sectors of the economy such as housing and financials have suffered heavy losses.

Why would the media and Democratic politicians misuse the term recession when they more than likely know exactly what it means? The answer, simply put, is that Democrats want to get elected and it is in the interests of many in the media to see that they do. Therefore, it makes sense for both of these groups to exaggerate the problems of the economy and blame it on the incumbent president in order to win votes in November.

This isn’t the first time that those on the political left have twisted the meanings of words to suit their purposes. Take the word “racism,” for example. Racism had always meant hatred of others based on their racial heritage. Thus, whites during the eras of slavery and Jim Crow who refused to recognize blacks as human beings and passed laws to oppress them were correctly classified as “racists.”

In more recent times, however, when radical black liberation preachers engaged in anti-Semitic rants and mobs rioting in black communities specifically targeted their looting and acts of violence against Jewish and Korean storeowners, left-wing intellectuals saw fit to redefine “racism” so that groups such as blacks who lacked power necessarily could not be “racist.” They did this because much of their ideology hinges on portraying blacks as victims to be saved by government largesse and the reality that some blacks can be just as bigoted as white supremacists simply doesn’t meld with that vision.

Thus, the problem of black racism, like the many other unsavory elements of black ghetto culture, will be paternalistically apologized away rather than confronted, much to the detriment of blacks for whom a radical change in cultural attitudes is absolutely vital for socioeconomic advancement.

Another ongoing battle to reinterpret words with already defined meanings is being waged by proponents of the so-called “living Constitution.” According to them, because many years have passed since the Constitution was written, the document’s words can no longer be taken literally and its meaning must be parsed out in light of “evolving standards.” The question of what those standards are and who will be given the power to determine them is conveniently overlooked, as is the question of how a society can continue to function without the guidance of a stable system of laws that can be known in advance.

In practice it means that unelected activist judges will be able to discard some constitutional liberties and invent new ones where they see fit, in order to bring the country more into line with their own vision of how it should be. Antonin Scalia once remarked, “A ’living Constitution’ judge is a happy fellow who comes home at night to his wife and says, ’The Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean.’”

Perhaps the ultimate irony is that the word “liberal,” by which many on the left choose to label themselves, never used to mean what it does today. Liberalism had always meant an emphasis on freedom from government controls in the economic affairs of individuals and unwavering devotion to the protection of civil liberties. During the New Deal, the term “liberalism” was artfully twisted to mean liberation from social ills such as sickness and poverty by means of an all-powerful central government armed with the authority to trample individual liberty if it can secure welfare or equality.

“As a supreme, if unintended compliment,” remarked the renowned economist Joseph Schumpeter, “the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label.” The lesson for the general public is to always look underneath labels to see what you’re actually being sold.