Bromo --
Surely you are not taking the position that we cannot use terms of art in a properly theoretical way merely because someone, somewhere might misunderstand the theory or the theoretical usage and be offended. Such a rule would stifle free speach by forcing everyone to use language so attenuated and rife with convoluted definition as to be meaningless or, at best, impenetrable.
In political theory, "totalitarian" means any political system that attempts to engage with the lives of the citizens at every possible point -- "total engagement and control". That is how I use it. Historically, such a political theory has been shown to have very bad consequences -- so bad that people want to avoid political actions that are totalitarian.
However, to me, this is a reason to use the word, not to refrain from using the word. When I see a political movement that seeks total engagement with the citizens, I call it totalitarian because that is what it is. To refuse to use the word for fear that people might actually react to it violates the fundamental rule of fair and civil argument and rhetoric -- that ideas should be communicated clearly, cleanly and boldly.
I am reminded of the continuing war, in America, over the terms "handicapped," "retarded," "special," "different" etc. Some of these -- like "handicapped" (which comes from the idea that such people beg for a living, with cap in hand) are truly offensive. Others, like "retarded", merely describe a clinical condition -- but the term has been appropriated in common use because the condition is undesirable, so calling something "retarded" in a nonclinical sense is an ad hominem short-hand for "stupid" or "bad". However, this does not mean that we should not use the term "retarded" in its clinical sense when describing a person who has slow or impeded development of physical or mental abilities. Despite that, to avoid offending people because of the misuse of the clinical term "retarded" -- people (especially education professionals) began using the other terms: "special", "different" etc. The result -- these words also became commonly used as a short-hand for "stupid" or "bad" -- so the abandonment of the term "retarded" didn't avoid the problem, it just made legitimate clinical speech more difficult by forcing clinicians to use inexact and problematic euphemisms.
I don't call someone a "Nazi" unless I think that they are actually promoting a National Socialist agenda. Similarly, I refrain from calling people fascist unless they advocate the (intentionally amorphous) agenda of such movements. I don't call social democrats "communists" -- even if, under the right circumstances, I do call them "Marxists." When I use the term "totalitarian" I do not mean it as a shorthand for "bad" but as a shorthand for "advocating an over-reaching engagement by government with the citizens which threatens to trespass and undermine individual privacy."
I believe that CARE is totalitarian by this definition. You can regret that, or resent that, or think that I am wrong -- but it is improper to censor my expressing this opinion in clear, clean and bold language by requiring that I voice this opinion, which I hold without reservations, as if I had such reservations. Such watered-down expression would be nice -- but it wouldn't be honest.
Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
