surge (surj) n. 1. a sudden increase . . . in political parlance

Words matter. They define the debate. So it's no wonder that both sides of the political spectrum fight over the lexicon. Some words (like ideology) sound bad. Other words (like philosophy) sound good. (Never mind the fact that the words mean nearly the same thing).

President Bush is wise to avoid the word "escalation," when he is talking about increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Of course, the other side knows what he is doing. And they don't want to let him get away with it. Here's what today's Washington Post has to say about it:

"Surge" falls into "the Orwellian zone between language and politics," says Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which studies and evaluates the media. "The president and his advisers would be remiss if they didn't come up with a term suited to their new policy. But journalists would be equally remiss if they just thoughtlessly repeated the term without pondering the policy and its implications."

The liberals would love you to believe that (unlike surge) escalation is a neutral word -- that it is more honest than surge. But the truth is that the term "escalation" isn't neutral -- it already has a negative connotation (the word was tainted by LBJ and Vietnam).

Word meanings change over time. In fact, our perception of everything changes. Let me give you an example: In 1920, the visual image of a smokestack would make you feel happy. It would signal prosperity. But today, the image of a smokestack would mean pollution. Smokestacks haven't changed, but our perceptions of them have.

The bottom line is that it is up to you to avoid the trap of using the language of your opponents.