In the past few days Republicans have been said to be about the process of culling the ranks of prospective candidates for their nominee for President. It may well describe the process of sorting out the field, but I doubt that cull is a good word to describe the process.
Cull is a term used to describe the necessity of killing off animals in an oversized herd. On a regular basis it is necessary to employ hunters to cull off the rapidly-growing herd of deer in Upstate New York, for instance. As more and more deer are born and thrive in the lush atmosphere of the Adirondacks, the incidence of cars and trucks crashing into them on the roads worries officials. Deer are also nuisances in the agricultural areas of the state, invading farms and destroying portions of a crop. Consequently conservation officials will increase the number of deer allowed to be taken by an individual in a season, or a special extension of the season allows for the taking of deer over a longer period of time. It is properly called a cull.
The word is from Old French (14th century) and means to “strain out” or “glean.” It is used in food preparation, for instance, when referring to selecting out the flawed or damaged strawberries, tomatoes, or other food items to be used in a recipe. Ranchers use the word cull to describe the selecting out of weak or injured cattle from a herd.
Unfortunately, the word cull is closely related to the concept of “kill off.” The way to cull a herd is to shoot the “extraneous” cattle. The way to cull a batch of strawberries is to thrown away the damaged ones. The way to cull a herd of deer is to shoot some.
That is why I indicate that the use of cull to describe the winnowing down of the number of Republican candidates is somewhat harsh and maybe an overstatement. Candidates aren’t killed to eliminate them from the pack; they are simply not voted for. Eventually they, themselves, recognize the inevitable and withdraw from the race. (Some don’t get the point soon enough, though.)
I suppose there is a sense of “killing the chances” of a candidate by not voting for them. When the numbers get too low and the prospect of being a serious candidate is dim, it may be that a candidate’s political career is damaged. But being damaged is not the same thing as being culled. One of the signs of maturity among contenders is the recognition that the time is not right. That doesn’t mean that there will not be another time. It’s just that right now there are candidates who gather more support for one reason or another.
In yesterday’s Republican Primary in South Carolina it was clear that Gingrich and Romney are being selected to be the front-runners in the rest of the Primary season. Santorum and Paul are still serious contenders, but their numbers aren’t great. It’s only a matter of time before they come to the conclusion that they will not be selected by Republicans this year. At that point they will withdraw. They haven’t been culled, in the technical sense of the word. It may feel that way for a few days, but they have simply been handed a set of figures to ponder.
Now comes the brutal part of the Primary race. The language of battle becomes even more harsh:
- they will “slug it out”
- they will seek to “knock off” each other
- media barrages will be the “fatal bullet” in the race
- one will “go on to live another day” and the other won’t
Death images will be prolific. So maybe cull will be employed legitimately after all. It all depends upon whether the victory of one is the direct result of the winner’s attack or whether the loser “shoots himself in the foot” and eventually concedes.
What is with all this violent language?
Photo Credit: cull
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Jed, I love Alice and Wonderland as applied to philosophy. I took a self-study course on Lewis Carroll. I know, that is a bit “curiouser and curiouser”.
That’s a really good comment. Thanks for adding it to my posting.
“What is with all the violent language?” Is there a better approach? For the Queen really scares me, exclaims Alice!
Yes. There is. We could politely and democratically elect our leaders by voting and control their powers by three branches of government, as in the “Two Treatises of Government”, penned by the great John Locke. Or we could go with the commoners lust for their maniacal megalomaniacs. Language and philosophy may indeed be dead with the intended audience. After all, they prefer the Queen of Heart’s rhetoric until she chooses to cull the entire population to her own advantage.
For now, the language reflects the performance preferred by the audience. In my humble opinion, imagine yourself at the mock trial of The Knave of Hearts. Alice is the witness but she is playing the part of Crito, Socrates friend. The social contract is solely controlled by the Queen and the commoners want the trial simplified.
If the audience does not demand a great orator, then they shall get rule through terror. That is the easiest route toward the end means, winning. And who among the court is willing to tell The Queen to “sit the hell down”!… “Off with her head!”