Overworked Eponym of the Week: "Maverick"
As you probably heard this past week--over and over again--Republican presidential candidate John McCain is a bona fide maverick. And guess what, so is his running mate--the "Alaska maverick," Sarah Palin.
According to the headlines, some pundits are now wondering whether the "Palin Pick May Erase McCain's 'Maverick' Image" (Thomas B. Edsall at the Huffington Post). Others are convinced that the "High Risk VP Pick Boosts Maverick Image" (Vaughn Ververs, CBS News). What's clear is that the eponym maverick has become one hot political buzzword.
A maverick, says the Oxford English Dictionary, is an "unorthodox or independent-minded person; a person who refuses to conform to the views of a particular group or party; an individualist." And an eponym, according to our glossary, is a word derived from the proper name of a real or mythical person or place.
Samuel A. Maverick was a real person all right--a mid-19th-century Texas lawyer who never got around to branding the 400 head of cattle he'd received from a cash-strapped client. As a result of Maverick's foolishness (or cussedness--take your pick), nearby ranchers burned their brands on the strays and herded them with their own calves. Soon any unbranded livestock came to be called mavericks.
By the 1880s, the term had been personified to mean a rebellious character--sometimes admirable, sometimes not. And about that same time, maverick acquired a political connotation, applied to politicians who disregarded any party leadership. In addition, according to The Merriam-Webster New Book of Word Histories (1995), "maverick began to be used as a verb with the sense 'to brand and take possession of [an animal] as a maverick,' which in turn gave rise to the generalized sense 'to obtain by dishonest or questionable means.'"
Now the purpose of this little etymological study is certainly not to wax cynical or impugn the reputations of any political mavericks. But we do seem to be saddled with a paradox. If a maverick is "a person who refuses to conform to the views of a particular party," can that person still be considered a maverick when he or she becomes the leader of that party and assumes responsibility for shaping its views?
If you'd like to tackle that one, please click on the "comments" button below.
More About Words and Names:
Image: Samuel Augustus Maverick, 1803-1870
Comments
It can happen if a leader (e.g., McCain) of a “party of the First Part” (e.g., the GOP) promises to makes changes in a “party of the Second Part” (e.g., U.S. government, a.k.a “Washington”).
My Great Grandfather was an honest to goodness Sheriff in old west Texas. Maverick to him was a horse and or cattle thief. CB
“If a maverick is “a person who refuses to conform to the views of a particular party,” can that person still be considered a maverick when he or she becomes the leader of that party and assumes responsibility for shaping its views?”
No, not any more so than can President Elect Barack Obama profess to be anti “old time politics” ~ while quite energetically using old time political methods for his needs.
It’s a bit jarring.
I think the keys is whether a maverick could ‘join’ an ‘existing’ group…No. Even if they were to join the group, could they then play by the political rules to climb to leadership? Again, no!