We keep hearing about this historic election, which it certainly would have been had the first woman become president. But what exactly do we mean by pronouncing Donald Trump’s ascension “historic?” He certainly isn’t the first white man to assume the presidency. Nor is he the first to lose the popular vote. Do we mean he is the first reality TV star? The first candidate with absolutely no experience as an elected official? No record of public or military service? The first to conduct a campaign primarily through Twitter? The first to prove his point over and over again, at least metaphorically, that he could stand and shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes?

There are definitely many firsts that Donald Trump represents. But the word “historic” connotes breakthrough progress, not a regression to the meanness of Trump’s campaign. To call his election “historic” is to dignify a man who traffics in constant degradation and divisiveness. Such euphemistic language elevates him to a level he does not deserve. It is another in a long string of false equivalencies that have poisoned our politics.