By Bob Gibson

Virginians who live side-by-side or across town in communities across the state often do not hear the same words in the same ways.

The words “health care reform” carry vastly different meanings and connotations to the different ears that might hear them.

The power of language usually outweighs the sword, the spear, the cudgel and the bomb.

An author and former delegate from Patrick County gave a startling example the other day of how some language does not even translate from one cultural community to the next.

Barnie Day was talking about generational and cultural differences in language when he surprised a Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership class of 39 individuals by guaranteeing “there is a word that every African-American in this room knows—a word that not a single other individual here has ever heard.“

“You wouldn’t think that possible in this day and time, but it is. You’re going to see an astonishing black and white divide on this question,“ Day told the group. (He told me I could use his example.)

Day was 100 percent correct on both black and white. He asked for an honest show of hands for who knew the word “sadiddy” and only black hands shot skyward.

African-American class members explained to astonished white classmates that sadiddy means a person who acts completely superior toward another or has a perception that they are educationally or a class above another.

Day said he’d heard two black delegates describe a colleague by using the adjective, which he had never heard before.

“Language matters,“ he told the class. “Sometimes its precise meaning is critical.“

In any event, if there is one word that black Virginians use that white Virginians remain unaware of, there must be others that provide an invisible divide in understanding language.

Language is often used in politics to divide people as certain words and phrases carry special meanings for some groups and not others.

Politicians must use language their audience understands. They often choose to use language their intended audience understands especially well, even if others do not.

Consider the abortion debates in which one side emphasizes “life” and the other side stresses “choice.“ There, the code words can appear to be clearly understood by many.

Day calls the appropriation of language to carry messages intended for specific audiences and not for others “dog whistle messaging.“

“Everybody hears the words, but only the intended audience hears the message,“ he said.

A couple of examples could be “illegal immigrants” and “death panels,“ which carry powerful messages beyond the mere words.

Plenty of citizens on all sides of health care have legitimate concerns that need to be heard, but the mixing of emotional messages about illegal immigrants in with health care reform can make the chances of building consensus or compromise about as slight as getting media commentators Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann to endorse the same health care plan. Media coverage may not be helping people find reasonable policy.

Consensus, compromise, bipartisanship and civility all become casualties in media wars of dueling messages in which the exciting news of clashes outweighs the sorting out and agreement on reasonable courses of policy.

In truth, Virginians and Americans have plenty enough in common to craft agreements if leaders take the harder course of using the language and the messaging that can unite enough people behind compromises. There is agreement health care can be improved in some ways.

The easier course, of course, is division and defeat of even attainable agreements through the use of language that inflames more than informs.

Great pyrrhic victories, Mexican standoffs and poison pills are built on the tongues of talented tar-and-feather talkers.