An oft-used political tactic has long been to attack an opponent with labels that are totally contrary to the opponent’s actual governing philosophy or performance, but which are intended to cause damage because voters have little understanding of the terms' real meanings; they just know they wouldn’t want to vote for a candidate like that.

So, while the shoe occasionally fits, more often it’s like the old playground insult, “your mother wears combat boots.”  Not really true, but about all an opponent can come up with that might stick with somebody who doesn't know your mother.

Some of the most frequently used and incendiary names being blurted out during the current campaign for our top office are “fascist,” “radical socialist,” “demagogue” and “worst president in history.” Let's do a little fact checking before taking any of those claims seriously.

"Fascist" is a good place to start, as that may be the most-serious charge one can level at another, given that a world war was fought, millions of people were exterminated and thousands of Americans died to stop the fascists from taking over the entire world.    

The actual OED definition of the term is a person or group espousing "a political system or attitude that is in favor of a strong central government, aggressively promoting one's own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition." I'll let you decide whether there's anyone on this year's American ballots who might be described that way, but I think it's fair to say it wouldn't be a description most people would want emblazoned on their T-shirts or tattooed anywhere visible.

Let's take "radical socialist" next.  First, we can probably agree that "radical" means extreme, so whatever "socialism" is, the combination would be pretty fierce. So, a radical socialist would likely be someone who really strongly supports "an economic or social system based on collective, public ownership and control of the resources used to make and distribute goods or provide services." And it would likely mean someone who wouldn't tolerate a capitalist system where healthy private enterprise was the goal.

Once again, this doesn't sound like the American way, but it also doesn't sound like fascists and socialists would make very good roommates. So, if someone is accusing an opponent of both of those extremes, they either don't know their political science or they just don't care what the terms mean and hope that one or both insults gain enough traction before anyone bothers to sort out the differences.

What about calling someone a "demagogue"?  That's not one you'd want on your resume either, as it's a "leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power." You can decide whether that describes anyone currently up for our major office.

Finally, if the claim is that your opponent is the "worst president (or vice president) in history,” all I can say is, you've really thrown down the gauntlet there but more likely must have cut too many American history classes. Even our own Franklin Pierce is in the running for that dubious title, as he thought the Southern states ought to be able to decide whether slavery provided a perfectly legitimate labor force. That position got him hanged in effigy even in his own home town.

All in all, maybe it makes sense to bypass the rhetoric and pay more attention to the substance of the candidates' actual platforms before heading into the voting booth.  Even some Googling would work better than buying all the campaign rally name-calling. The stakes really couldn't be any higher during this election cycle.

L. Phillips Runyon III has practiced law in Peterborough for 50 years and was the presiding justice of the 8th Circuit Court.