SUPPLANTER: a person who steals or undermines someone else's rightful possession.

Ghiberti's depiction of The Blessing of Jacob illustrates the biblical story of Jacob who pretends to be his brother, Esau, and steals his blind father's blessing. (Genesis 25) It is a complicated story, involving the unscrupulous maneuvering of Rebekah, Jacob's mother. You have to read the reference to get the full story.

But this biblical story has led to the meaning of the name, Jacob. All of us who have received the name Jacob or other derivatives of that name have inherited the dark tradition of supplanter, one who steals a birthright. The term supplanter is not restricted to people with names like Jacob or James, however. Anyone who undermines or steals recognition from someone is known as a supplanter.

It's not a bad time to add this word to your lexicon. We have just entered a political season when the issue becomes common. It seems that one of the political methods receiving the "Most Effective" award is that of destroying the reputation or discrediting the accomplishments of one's opponent.

I have quoted Shakespeare's words from Othello here before, but it is worth repeating:

Who steals my purse steals trash; but he who from me filches my good name takes not that which enriches him, but leaves me a poor man indeed."

I wonder what a political campaign would look like if the candidate seriously refused to engage in the kinds of character assassination and smear tactic which dominate our American method of campaigning. It isn't as easy as one might think.

The public demands a response to a charge. If one's political opponent publishes an allegation and the one who is charged does not respond, he or she is labelled as "weak" or "unresponsive." Negative political points accumulate and can defeat the candidate. American voters have seen too much television and drool at the thought of a battle, in spite of the fact that its major accomplishment is to mask the real issues. If I'm a candidate and want to avoid discussion of my voting record on a specific topic, I can charge my opponent with some frivolous or even false offense and the media and the public will chew on that for weeks. The juicier the charge, the more credibility it gains. I have effectively supplanted my opponent's credentials and good name.

An industry which has arisen from this devious practice is that of Truth Checking. Entrepreneurial types have opened whole offices of investigators who check the truthfulness of a candidate's comments. But, like any rumor or false charge, once it has been made, the ability to pull it back 100% is almost negligible.

The onus for overcoming a candidate's supplanting technique may be upon the shoulders of the voter. Checking allegations, discussing them with other voters, and directly challenging the candidate who has made the charges may be the best way to diminish the effectiveness of a supplanting technique. The candidate who has been charged wrongly may be the least successful person to refute the charges, instead signalling defensiveness and potential guilt. (That's why candidates need a staff person to speak for them.)

Campaigns have become nasty, frequently focused on matters that have nothing to do with the issues facing a constituency. Shame on us for letting that happen and for perpetuating the practice.