No Wind Can Blow Words Away — The Meaning of Words and the Transformation of the Right

Nothing in politics is neutral, not even language.

In political discourse, it is common to witness the manipulation, redefinition, or even hollowing out of the original meaning of terms. In recent years, we have seen a profound transformation in the rhetoric and priorities of right-wing parties in particular, both in Portugal and around the world.

Under the appeal of "lower taxes, less waste," promises of tax relief and fighting state inefficiency multiply. However, behind this modernised and apparently sensible language, concrete consequences are hidden: the banner of "lower taxes" has served to justify significant cuts in public investment in essential areas such as health and education, as well as the abandonment of public housing policies, among many others. These areas, frequently labelled as "inefficient," become easy targets for budget cuts under the pretext of eliminating waste, and are often handed over to the private sector, which sees in them new opportunities to expand its financial portfolio — in plain terms, to make money, to capitalise. In parallel, international pressure grows — often promoted and quickly seized upon by those same parties — for a drastic increase in defence spending. The proposal to raise the defence budget represents a radical shift in state priorities. With tax revenues limited or falling due to tax cuts and/or the implementation of timid policies that have raised some disposable income, the only viable solution to finance this increase is, inevitably, to sacrifice social investment even further. And the fact that some establishment figures have recently come out to reassure people that the welfare state is untouchable does not make it so. We know all too well what "no means no" actually means.

It is often said, with a certain air of moral superiority, that there is no longer a Left or a Right, that "I'm centrist," "I'm moderate," as if that were synonymous with common sense and balance. Take the words used in the first televised interview given by a presidential candidate. Extremes, he said, are never good. But is this refusal to take a side really so innocent? Other presidential candidates also invest in the label of calling themselves non-partisan, as if that status truly elevated them — even on a moral and ethical level. Similarly, consider how a national daily newspaper — in its edition of 17/07/2025 — draws attention on its front page to an article about the left-wing coalition in Lisbon ahead of the upcoming local elections: "… advances against 'radicals'."

The words and labels we use are never neutral. The choice of terms such as "radical right" instead of far-right, or "traditional right" or "liberals," is just as innocent as the choice of tie colour in a televised debate or interview. Nothing in politics is neutral, not even language. What appears to be a minor detail signals, in fact, profound changes — and it is essential to pay attention to these gradual shifts in language and to question what lies behind them. The Right quickly decided to appropriate banners that, until recently, were the bread and butter of far-right discourse. Is this not a sign that the assault on power — which they now fear so much losing — began long ago on the part of these parties, and that the strategy involves absorbing the discourse of the populists — another label for fascists — as a solution to their own political survival? It is equally telling when we hear the only candidate for the leadership of the liberal party say that they may have been "too technical" during the last election campaign and that they need to "explain things more simply." The simplification of political arguments into slogans and catchphrases — which any marketing student or even a poet could recite from memory — is just another manoeuvre to camouflage the true intent of their political projects. It is also curious, incidentally, the recurring use of the word "freedom," particularly by those who advocate for a minimal state.

Talking about freedom is easy when basic needs and human rights are not at stake. But for those who must choose every month between filling a prescription or buying a gas canister, or between eating more tinned food that month and skipping fish in order to make the monthly credit card payment or buy their daughter a new tracksuit, or between building a shack or living on the street — for them, freedom is a far more concrete and limited concept.

Translated from the Portuguese by Sandra Guerreiro. 

Translator's Note:

The title plays on the popular Portuguese proverb Palavras, leva-as o vento — meaning that words are fleeting, easily forgotten, and not to be trusted on their own; actions are what truly matter. Its classical Latin equivalent is Verba volant, scripta manent("words fly away, writings remain"). By inverting the proverb — Não há vento que leve as palavras ("There is no wind that can carry words away") — the author subverts the original meaning: rather than dismissing words as inconsequential, the title insists on the opposite. Words do matter. They carry weight, leave marks, and shape reality — precisely the argument the text goes on to make about the deliberate manipulation of political language.