Given its magnanimous etymology it is surprising that the word public has acquired any negative connotations. Then again, considering the polarized ideologies so prevalent in modern politics, it isn't too surprising that so many of our elected representatives have demonized the word and deified its opposite: private.

The various shades painted into the two words by politicians are indicative of a philosophical dichotomy that, as much as any factor, has caused dysfunction in our nation's capital. Because of the persistent negative imagery used in propaganda by ideological crusaders, the word public leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of those who worship the word private. And in these recent reactionary times the reverse has also become one more divisive element polluting the partisan air of Washington, D.C.

The word public comes to us via a long and varied linguistic route that leads chronologically back to Latin where it was publicus, an alteration of populous, meaning "people." In a democracy that is supposedly "by, for, and of the people" it would seem that such a word would be revered instead of reviled. But in the current corporate-controlled climate it contains connotations that threaten the very structure of the business world whose foundation is the bottom line, because in a profit-or-loss paradigm people - once they cease to be a source of profit - become a liability, since they make demands that reduce the profits of the profiteers.

The word private also has Latin origins. Rooted in the word privatus, which means "not belonging to the state, not in public life," the denotative difference is clear. So, by definition, the rift between the two is logical. But in America's melting pot there has historically been a regulated symbiosis with the shared goal of moving the country forward for the common good. That shared goal seems now to have been supplanted by more selfish motives, however, for the pirates waving the private banner are attempting an all-out assault on the public, causing fanatics on both sides to be willing to sink the ship in order to raise their banner. Thus, public lands, public schools, public parks and pools, public retirement plans, and public services have all been made to walk the proverbial plank in what ultimately has become a mutiny against the middle class.

While the genesis of this ideological battle is not as easy to trace as the etymologies of the banner words of both sides, finding a place in history where those who hated the government became part of it would be a good place to start looking for the root causes of the root words becoming so diametrically opposed. And Ronald Reagan's famously quoted belief that government is not a place to seek solutions because it is "the problem" contains the necessary cynicism for a movement to elect government infiltrators determined to reduce public programs. Like so much of political rhetoric, "reduce" is a euphemism which really means either to minimize, to eliminate, or to privatize. Of course proponents for all three outcomes claim they would do this for the public good.

Claims and truths are deliberately clouded by politics, however, and while there is no doubt that most government agencies could be made more efficient, the claim that privatizing is the best option goes against history. Look no further than the recent housing disaster to find a private entity, the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) that is an example of just how inept and dangerous putting public interests in private hands can be. Litigation from the debacle over deed entanglements that this private business caused will continue for years.

Those who argue that private business can do more for less should be made to answer this question: Do more for whom? Streamlining can help the bottom line and hurt the public all in one stroke. In Reagan's time his big push to generate funds by selling public lands to private parties, a movement known as the "Sagebrush Rebellion," was popular until hunters and other outdoorsmen saw a future full off-limits barriers and stopped listening to the argument that privatizing was good for the public, thus stopping the movement. But since the Reagan era the assault on public things by privateers has been ongoing and has led us to the great ideological gap into which too many of our elected leaders have fallen.

Perhaps, as we begin a new year, we should close that gap by resolving to return to a time when goodwill stood up boldly to greed and logic was able to neutralize rabid ideology. Perhaps we should go back to the good old days when the word public meant all people and the word private meant something you kept to yourself.

Mike Ruskovich is a Blanchard resident.