A Smarter Approach to Smart

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


A few years ago I wrote a blog post complaining about the increasingly widespread use of the word “smart” within the blogosphere. Every article that someone admired was praised as a “smart piece” or “smart pushback.” People were all “smart critics.” It was becoming one of those words that gets overused because it sounds sort of insidery and, um, smart without really saying much of anything.

Anyway, I think I wrote that post. I can’t find it, though, so maybe I only imagined writing it. Today, though, Ben Yagoda writes it again, and even provides us with a bit of history of the word. Smart!

Some mid-19th-century OED citations, with their quotation marks, allow you to see the beginnings of the (seemingly then Texan, now all-over American) sense of “intelligent”…. Still, this sense took a while to become the dominant American one. I sampled the Times’ use of smart in 1913, 100 years ago, and 90 percent or more of the time it meant stylish rather than intelligent.

….By 1965, the percentage was roughly reversed. I chose that year because it was then, according to Google Ngram data, that smart started a gradual ascent in the United States. It really took off beginning in the late ’80s, and surpassed intelligent in 2000.

I didn’t know that! In any case, Yagoda is nominating smart to be word of the year. My preference would be to stuff it in a barrel and not let it out until everyone has gotten it out of their systems. There are too many smart people in the world for it to mean much as a personal description, and when it comes to pieces of writing—well, just tell me what you liked about it. Don’t just lazily tell me it was smart.

In my high school German class, whenever our teacher asked us what we thought of something, we’d reply that it was sehr interessant. This basically became a class joke. We didn’t actually know enough German vocabulary to describe much of anything, so whenever we were on the spot, we’d just nod our heads, intone sehr interessant and then laugh. But at least we laughed! I think smart deserves about the same treatment these days.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest