Aaron Kliegman:

As inflation continues to eat away at household budgets and fears of a major economic downturn continue to mount, the Biden administration is attempting to redefine the term “recession” in an apparent public relations push to mitigate backlash for the current state of the economy.

This effort to obscure what has long been a simple, specific, and uncontroversial definition is part of an ongoing pattern of President Biden and his team redefining and weaponizing specific terms to further their political agenda and stigmatize forms of dissent they deem threatening.

Here are six terms the administration has sought to redefine:

1. Recession

For decades, experts have defined a recession as two straight quarters of negative economic growth, meaning a decline in gross domestic product.

This definition has become especially relevant with the latest GDP numbers for the second quarter of this year due to be released on Thursday, following the release of official figures in April showing the economy shrank 1.6% in the first quarter.

If Thursday’s numbers show the economy contracted in the second quarter, confirming a decline in economic activity over a six-month period, January through June, the U.S. would, according to the generally accepted definition, be in a recession.

In recent days, however, several Biden administration officials have attempted to obscure the definition of a recession to argue the U.S. isn’t facing a recession, regardless of what the second quarter figures show, by.

Jared Bernstein, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, for example, said on CNN it’s up to the National Bureau of Economic Research — a nonprofit group of economists — to determine whether the U.S. is in a recession, adding the bureau does so “in hindsight because data comes in with a bit of a lag.”

Such a process could take up to a year, according to observers.

Bernstein pointed to a blog post on the White House website claiming that “official determinations of recessions and economists’ assessment of economic activity are based on a holistic look at the data” factoring in a wide array of variables beyond negative growth rates.

However, the Republican National Committee flagged a clip of Bernstein in 2019 defining a recession as GDP simply “crossing zero.”

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen echoed Bernstein’s points over the weekend, adding that she would be “amazed” if the National Bureau of Economic Research declares a recession in the near future.

“This is not an economy that’s in recession, but we’re in a period of transition in which growth is slowing,” said Yellen.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre went even further on Monday, saying that “economic indicators … do not show that we are in a recession or even a pre-recession.”

President Biden himself similarly insisted the U.S. is “not going to be in a recession.”

Meanwhile, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has been warning “there’s a very high likelihood of recession,” dismissing the Biden administration’s comments as “a kind of triumph of hope over experience.”

2. Disinformation

One of the more controversial terms the Biden administration has seemed to contort for political purposes is “disinformation,” using the term to target views with which the administration disagrees — especially concerning COVID-19 and the 2020 election.

In April, the Department of Homeland Security announced the formation of the Disinformation Governance Board to monitor and combat speech it deems “disinformation.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas defended the initiative as important in tackling the “threat” of disinformation, especially when it targets migrants or comes from the Russian government.

However, critics lambasted the board as an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth” established to silence people with certain political views. Such criticism led DHS to “pause” the DGB amid widespread outcry.

Whistleblower documents released last month by Republican Sens. Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa) appeared to confirm such concerns. One internal memo showed DHS officials writing that disinformation threatens homeland security, especially “conspiracy theories about the validity and security of elections” and “disinformation related to the origins and effects of COVID-19 vaccines or the efficacy of masks.”

The documents obtained by Hawley and Grassley also showed an effort by DHS to recruit Twitter and other Big Tech firms to aid in its mission to stamp out “disinformation.”

In February, DHS put out a “National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin” discussing how “conspiracy theories,” “misleading narratives,” and “and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information” can fuel foreign and domestic terrorism. It cited “false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19” online as “key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment.”

3. Domestic terrorist

The administration appeared to redefine what a domestic terrorist is last year, when the National School Boards Association sent a letter to Biden asking his administration to investigate threats against public school officials. In the letter, the NSBA specifically referred to parents who protested the teaching of critical race theory in the classroom, suggesting such actions should be classified as “domestic terrorism.”

The NSBA requested that the Justice and Homeland Security departments probe and prosecute these “crimes” under “the Patriot Act in regards to domestic terrorism.”

Less than a week later, Attorney General Merrick Garland sent out a memo warning that the Justice Department is “committed to using its authority and resources to discourage” the “threats” described by the NSBA, “identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.”

The memo directed the FBI to work with each U.S. Attorney to convene meetings nationwide to discuss strategies for addressing these threats. Garland also mentioned his intent to “launch a series of additional efforts in the coming days” which, according to the Justice Department, would “determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes.”

The NSBA later apologized for the letter after receiving backlash for comparing parent protests to domestic terrorism. However, subsequent reports indicated coordination between the NSBA and the Biden administration on the former’s letter and Garland’s subsequent memo.

“Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims,” Robyn Gritz, a retired FBI special agent who worked in counterterrorism for years, previously told Just the News.

The FBI defines domestic terrorism specifically as “violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.”

It’s unclear how the administration thinks protesting vaccine mandates or the teaching of critical race theory could meet this definition.

4. Insurrectionist

In the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the Biden administration has redefined the term “insurrectionist.”

In total, more than 750 people have been imprisoned for Jan. 6-related crimes without a trial.

Several of them have said the FBI, Justice Department, and federal prison officials under the Biden administration violated their civil and constitutional rights. The vast majority weren’t accused of carrying a weapon, assaulting law enforcement, or destroying property — let alone trying to “overthrow our government.” Many didn’t even enter the Capitol building.

Yet Biden, fellow Democrats, some Republicans, and federal prosecutors have labeled those who were involved in the Capitol riot, support the Jan. 6 prisoners, or question the results of the 2020 presidential election as insurrectionists.

The FBI was unable to find evidence that the Jan. 6 riot was a coordinated insurrection, despite months of investigating the matter.

Nonetheless, in recent months, Democrats have launched a campaign to label and disqualify Republicans who supported efforts to question the 2020 presidential election results as insurrectionists who tried to subvert American democracy.

5. Voter suppression

Following the controversy of the 2020 election, Republicans in some states such as Georgia have pushed a series of election reforms with the stated purpose of combating voter fraud and protecting election integrity

These measures include requiring voters to provide identification to receive an absentee ballot and prohibiting ballot harvesting, a tactic, outlawed in most states, in which third-party activists gather and deliver voters’ ballots.

Biden has consistently described these efforts as “voter suppression” meant to make it harder for people, especially minorities, to cast their ballots. Biden has even called such efforts “Jim Crow 2.0,” a reference to the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South.

Since entering office, Biden and some of his most prominent supporters have invoked the specter of “voter suppression,” framed as an existential threat to democracy posed by their political opponents, to justify a host of ambitious policies.

The Democrats’ election overhaul agenda includes proposals such as implementing universal mail-in voting and weakening voter ID requirements. Supporters say the legislation is meant to expand access to voting. Critics counter the bills create more opportunities for fraud and would federalize election rules, forcing states to implement mandates from Congress.

The Constitution primarily gives state legislatures, not the federal government, the power to determine and enforce their own election procedures.

Illegal alien

Last year, the Biden administration ended use of the phrase “illegal alien” to describe migrants who entered the country illegally, although “alien” has long been common in U.S. law. The administration ordered immigration enforcement authorities to use the term “non-citizen” instead.

Those supportive of the change described the new language as “inclusive” and less “dehumanizing.” Critics countered the new term would have the effect of normalizing illegal immigration.

Since Biden entered office, the U.S. has experienced a historically high surge in illegal border crossings from Mexico.

Jim Geraghty:

Politico’s Ben White characterizes this week as a “Category 5 economic storm,” but I think the dominant theme will be, “It’s not a recession, we swear!”

As much as economy-watchers will be studying the Consumer Confidence Index numbers on Tuesday and the Federal Reserve meeting and decision on interest rates Wednesday, the biggest deal will be the numbers for second-quarter economic growth, announced at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Thursday morning. We don’t know what the second-quarter economic numbers are going to be, but they’re probably not going to be good. The Atlanta Fed thinks it will show that the U.S. GDP shrank 1.6 percent in the last quarter. The previous quarter was a decline of 1.6 percent as well — so if the Atlanta Fed projection is correct, Thursday will bring news that the U.S. is now in a recession, at least by the traditional definition. (Even if it doesn’t, and it shows GDP growth at 0.0 or slightly higher, the U.S. is still in lousy near-recessionary conditions.)

Biden and his team will argue that, despite the numbers, the U.S. isn’t really in a recession. In fact, White writes that if Republicans declare we’re in recession, “It will not be true. At least not yet. But President Joe Biden and Democratic candidates across the country will face a daunting and possibly impossible challenge explaining to people why it’s not true.”

On Meet the Press yesterday, Yellin had the unenviable task of convincing Americans that even though it may look like a recession, sound like a recession, and feel like a recession, it’s not really a recession:

SEC. JANET YELLEN: I do want to emphasize: What a recession really means is a broad-based contraction in the economy. And even if that [second-quarter-GDP-growth] number is negative, we are not in a recession now. And I would, you know, warn that we should be not characterizing that as a recession —

CHUCK TODD: I understand that, but you’re splitting hairs. I mean, if the technical definition is two quarters of contraction, you’re saying that’s not a recession?

YELLEN: That’s not the tech —

TODD: No?

YELLEN: That’s not the technical definition. There’s an organization called the National Bureau of Economic Research that looks at a broad range of data in deciding whether or not there is a recession. And most of the data that they look at right now continues to be strong. I would be amazed if the NBER would declare this period to be a recession, even if it happens to have two quarters of negative growth. We’ve got a very strong labor market. When you’re creating almost 400,000 jobs a month, that is not a recession.

The National Bureau of Economic Research isn’t exactly speedy about these declarations. Back in December 2008, it announced that the U.S. was in a recession . . . that had begun almost one year earlier in January 2008.

James Freeman:

There’s been an entertaining media campaign to explain heavy migration from blue states to places like Texas and Florida in ways that do not highlight low taxes and competent governance. It sometimes seems as if the first rule of California flight club is: Do not talk about limited government. Now the New York Times offers what may be a fresh contribution to the genre with an essay by an opinion writer who has made his way to North Carolina. Can you guess why?

Before attempting to answer this challenging question, let’s consider his new home. North Carolina is not a red state but a swing state, and it enjoys a far more affordable and less intrusive government than the Empire State. CNBC’s Scott Cohn recently noted:

Powered by an economy that has hit its stride, and turbocharged by a long track record of innovation, North Carolina is America’s Top State for Business in 2022.

The Tar Heel State has always been a contender in CNBC’s annual competitiveness rankings… But 2022 is the first year it has been able to climb to the top.

What made the difference this year? For one thing, state leaders keep managing to put aside their very deep political divisions to boost business and the economy.

CNBC is not the only one impressed with the Tar Heel State. In April the American Legislative Exchange Council released its latest economic competitiveness ranking and noted:

North Carolina has now achieved its best ranking to date, landing at 2nd overall for economic outlook. Since the passage of historic tax reform in 2013 when the state ranked 22nd, North Carolina has continued to lower taxes and foster economic growth.

The Tax Foundation is perhaps not quite as bullish but still ranks North Carolina’s overall business tax climate 11th in the country, compared to New York’s dismal 49th-place finish. (Only the Garden State has a worse ranking, which may explain why many New Jersey taxpayers believe they were born to run.)

As for Times opinion contributor Frank Bruni, readers at first may wonder why he would ever leave the friendly confines of progressive Manhattan. The headline over the story about the place where he decided to live reads, “One of America’s Most Seductive States Is Also One of Its Scariest.”

Now why would someone voluntarily move to a place he regards as one of the scariest places in the country?

Many readers will also naturally wonder what could be so scary about North Carolina. Mr. Bruni mainly seems to fear the state’s Republicans, even though they must compete for votes against a vibrant Democratic Party that currently holds the governorship and other important state offices.

Mr. Bruni describes his reporting visit to the state’s 13th congressional district and then adds:

But I also toured the district as part of my acclimation to North Carolina, to continue testing my belief that this state — my new home — is as accurate, illuminating and alarming a political mirror of the country as any other. A year after moving here from the People’s Republic of the Upper West Side, I realize that I didn’t so much turn my back on New York City as turn my gaze toward a broader, truer portrait of America right now.

So there wasn’t anything in particular driving him away from New York, and he moved to one of America’s “scariest” states simply to see more of the country? Finally in paragraphs 23 and 24 the reader is given additional clues about why Mr. Bruni managed to overcome his fear of Republicans enough to live among them:

In a chilling article in The Atlantic this month, James Piltch called the state’s combination of partisan judicial elections and practiced gerrymandering a “democratic doom loop,” potentially abetting a degree of Republican dominance divorced from, and unaccountable to, the will of the state’s people. The article’s headline: “North Carolina Is a Warning.”

That hasn’t stopped an influx of newcomers, many of them lured, as I was, by gentler rhythms, more space and a lower cost of living than in many areas in the Northeast or on the West Coast. It’s a beautiful state, bracketed by the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Atlantic Ocean. It’s a sophisticated state, with nationally renowned universities and fast-growing cities like Charlotte, Raleigh and Durham. It’s a changing state, with new jobs in tech replacing old ones in manufacturing.

Will it ever occur to Mr. Bruni that conservatives advocating for limited government in a competitive political arena might just have something to do with North Carolina’s low costs and vibrant economy?

While Mr. Bruni moved to a state with a good number of conservatives, he chose a neighborhood where they are especially rare. Located near his new employer, Duke University, the place might have reminded him what a burden progressive governance can place on the daily routines of life:

A blotch of deep blue is where I ended up, 20 minutes from Duke, on the border of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Front yards near mine showcase “Black Lives Matter” and “We Believe” signs. Several neighbors’ first conversations with me were about how to follow the county’s recycling rules correctly.

Let’s hope that more New Yorkers and even former New Yorkers will appreciate—and even admit—that one-party progressive rule has not led to gentle and affordable living.