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.

POLITICAL IDEALISM: the belief that election will bring an opportunity to be an unencumbered change agent

Photo: AP/Nati Harnik

There is not a politician alive (or recently deceased) who has not believed, upon agreeing to run for office, that she or he could make a difference. In spite of the cynicism of some who think that candidates have various greedy, nefarious motivations, the cost is too great, the energy required is too massive, and the pressure is too unrelenting. Without political idealism a potential candidate is too raw to be successful in getting to the first level of competition for a position.

I know personally of what I speak! Once, on a local level, I was successful in being elected only to discover that the obligations of holding a public office were too great, conflicting with the expectations of my profession. It became necessary for me to resign the elected position before the end of my term.

Another time I ran for a high risk state-wide position against a two-term Republican incumbent with deep pockets in a primarily-Republican district. I lost the election, but not without achieving a huge success in gaining cross-over votes. The margin of votes was less than 10%.

In both cases the learning curve was huge, and the disillusion I experienced was massive...more in the state-wide race than the local one. My political idealism was raging; my reality check was too late in arriving in the mail.

Political parties are in the business (and it is a business) of getting candidates elected. From the beginning, the party machine extracts promises and defines boundaries. In return for party support ($) there are expectations which are established. With raging idealism it seems as if a candidate can walk the thin line between accepting necessary support and being true to one's goals and aspirations. First Mistake! The people at the party level are professionals who have dealt with novices before...many times. They know what the potential candidate is thinking, and they know that it's only a matter of time before the candidate will cave.

The power of money in today's political scene is obscene. My race in a fairly low-profile state district cost over $250,000 and it would have been much more if we hadn't gone our separate ways at the last minute. I worked my tail off to raise a good chunk of money, but the party money effectively financed my campaign.

That meant that the party expected its own philosophy and rules to prevail. No agreement...no check in the mail. Much of what the party did for me was good and provided me with materials and opportunities I would not have experienced on my own. But there was a constant awareness of the cost of those support gifts, and it became clear that the cost was more than I was willing to expend. I became rebellious on small things, and the party became less than enthusiastic with my campaign, eventually pulling further financial support. A couple of mis-steps along the way on my part didn't help.

I think about this scenario when I watch what is happening to President Obama. He is filled with the kind of idealism a nation craves. Clearly, he is someone who has the ability to bring about great change. But to get there, there are all kinds of people out there expecting him to jump through their hoops. The power of lobbies is far greater than the public perception.

In spite of his popularity among the voting public he requires political support...and came into this presidency expecting some of that support to come from people on the other side of the aisle who share some of his idealism. The cost of following his idealism has turned out to be too great for some members of his own party who face mid-term elections later this year. And a concerted effort to destroy the potential of his re-election in 2012 has brought about a vicious campaign to discredit him by the Republican Party. Political reality has set in. Unexpected twists, like the death of Ted Kennedy, have cost him dearly.

My own idealism is still rampant with regard to President Obama. I still believe that the American people want to see his agenda achieved. But I am not so politically naive as to think that he can achieve it without the strong support of his own party. I don't see that concerted support out there. The secret for President Obama is to draw a line in the sand as to how far he is willing to concede his idealism without losing it altogether.

KNEECAP: To undermine a person or injure a person's reputation in a particularly vicious manner. (www.WordSpy.com)

----------

A new word usually emerges out of an attempt to describe an action or activity which is prominent in the minds of the public. Keyboarding, for instance, has replaced typing in our vocabulary as the use of computers has replaced the use of typewriters for the most part.

To kneecap is one of those new words. I found it while browsing one of my favorite blogs, WordSpy, written by Paul McFedries. While the graphic I have used may have led you to believe that I was going to reference an orthopedic process, the use of kneecap, in this instance, is about a nasty process more related to politics and public comment. To kneecap someone is to undertake a plan to destroy the name and reputation of someone in a vicious way.

During the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry in 2004, for instance, a group known as Swiftboat developed a publicity campaign to lead the people of the US to believe that Senator Kerry's claims about his Vietnam war experience were false. Coupling their well-financed claims with the fact that he became an opponent of the Vietnam War undermined his candidacy and contributed to his loss in the election. He was kneecapped.

The word is taken from popular references to mob tactics in which a person is shot in the kneecap to cripple them and prevent them from functioning. The Al Capone era in Chicago popularized the technique (according to mob literature). However, it is not unknown in current urban criminal activity, either.

Political campaign energy has ramped up dramatically with the advent of 24 hour news shows, radio talk shows, and popular personal communication tools. Anybody can have access to tens of thousands of people instantly, with very little oversight. A whole new industry of fact checking has arisen in news media circles, but with limited ability to overcome false claims or slanted reporting. Once a message is "out there" it is unlikely that the truth or fiction of the report can be verified before it becomes part of the popular mythology.

Political campaigns in small, seemingly-insignificant districts have ramped up in cost, sometimes costing millions of dollars. Television, radio and print media depend heavily upon campaign purchases in order to survive. As a result the pubilc is blasted with all kinds of reporting, some of which is purely kneecapping. with the intent to injure or destroy the campaign of candidates, depending upon whose campaign finance chest is larger. More and more, political campaigns are won or lost based upon criteria which have little to do with the quality of the candidate or the candidate's capabilities.

I doubt that the word kneecap (used in this way) will enter the public lexicon in other than election years, and then only infrequently. But it is a colorful word, capable of expressing a practice which is graphic and chilling.

Photo credit: Medical Multimedia Group