Tag Archives: liberal

The Death of Language….

One of my constant complaints–one that undoubtedly gets tiresome–is that the words we use in political discourse no longer mean what they used to. Or for that matter, much of anything.

Thanks to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, “liberal”–which used to refer to 18th Century libertarian Enlightenment thinkers and later was used to mean “open minded”– was twisted into an epithet and replaced by “progressive.” (“Progressive” gets applied to pretty much anyone who doesn’t hate government and gay people, and send racist emails.)

I used to consider myself something of a cross between an Eighteenth-Century liberal and an Edmund Burke conservative, back before the term “conservative” didn’t call up the image of an angry old white guy in a tricorner hat demanding the return of “his” country. So I was nostalgic reading this recent post about Burke by Andrew Sullivan. I really encourage you to read it in its entirety, but here’s a taste:

For a conservative should not be implacably hostile to liberalism (let alone demonize it), but should be alert to its insights, and deeply aware of the need to change laws and government in response to unstoppable change in human society. Equally, a liberal can learn a lot from conservatism’s doubts about utopia, from the conservative concern with history, tradition and the centrality of culture in making human beings, and from conservatism’s love and enjoyment of the world as-it-is, even as it challenges the statesman or woman to nudge it toward the future. The goal should not be some new country or a new world order or even a return to a pristine past that never existed: but to adapt to necessary social and cultural change by trying as hard as one can to make it coherent with what the country has long been; to recognize, as Orwell did, that a country, even if it is to change quite markedly, should always be trying somehow to remain the same.

……..

This means a true conservative – who is, above all, an anti-ideologue – will often be attacked for alleged inconsistency, for changing positions, for promising change but not a radical break with the past, for pursuing two objectives – like liberty and authority, or change and continuity  – that seem to all ideologues as completely contradictory.

I miss the days when labels had content.

Comments

What Those Words Really Mean

According to a post in Daily Kos, in 2010, 42 percent of the electorate self-identified as conservatives, while only 20 percent self-identified as liberals. By 2012, the gap had narrowed to a historic low, with only 35 percent of the Obama-Romney electorate calling themselves conservative, and a full quarter of the electorate (25 percent, the high water mark for the modern era), self-identifing as liberal.

These numbers are intriguing, although I doubt seriously that they signal a shift in political orientation. My theory (for many years now) has been that political terminology lacks much actual content–that the words used to self-describe political philosophy tell us very little about the actual policy preferences of the person using them. What they do tell us is which party that person identifies with. “I’m more like these people and less like those people.”

In other words, in a world where Republicans are seen frugal and self-reliant and Democrats are seen as welfare moochers and members of despised minorities, lots of voters will identify with Republicans. If, on the other hand, Democrats are seen as inclusive citizens who care for the well-being of their communities and Republicans are seen as selfish and bigoted, more people will identify as Democrats.

Credible research into the actual policy preferences of the electorate suggests that Americans are moderately progressive, very supportive of social programs like social security and Medicare, uneasy with abortion but unwilling to reverse Roe v. Wade, and increasingly willing to extend equal rights to GLBT citizens. To the extent that the Democratic party has been able to frame its message to align with those positions, more voters have identified with it. But the real shift hasn’t been better framing by the Democrats; it has been disastrous framing by Republicans.

Whatever one’s views about the actual policies pursued by Ronald Reagan, his GOP was a sunny, affirming party. To use today’s (unfortunate) terminology, it was all about how celebrating the “makers” would benefit the “takers” and all Americans would be better off. Today’s Republicans have painted a very different picture, a picture of a party that believes that the so-called makers are entitled to piss on the so-called takers.

The current image of the GOP–fair or unfair–is of a party unwilling to accept science, unwilling to allow women to make our own reproductive decisions, unwilling to extend equal rights to gays or any path to citizenship to immigrants. In short, it is an image of mean-spiritedness if not outright bigotry.

As a result, the term “conservative” no longer means “prudent and responsible.” And the term liberal–a term Republicans have trashed for at least a quarter of a century–no longer seems like an epithet.

Comments

Boy, Has That Pendulum Swung!

I have been commenting for some time on how dramatically the political pendulum has swung just in my own adult lifetime. When I first became “political,” Democrats were about as far Left as Americans ever go (which, despite dark mutterings from ahistorical types, isn’t all that far when compared to Europe). It was in reaction to what I perceived as the Democrats unrealistic and utopian goals that I joined the Republican party, which at that time was a comfortable home for someone who was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal–or, more accurately, an 18th Century liberal in the Enlightenment mold.

Over the years, both the GOP and the Democrats have moved steadily to the right. Today, the bulk of the Democratic party is pretty much where the Republicans were back then, and–with the exception of some bewildered holdouts–the Republicans have become…well, whatever it is that the irresponsible “party of no”  is these days.

I note this bit of political history because my daughter sent me a link to Abdul’s recent blog, in which he shared a list of “most liberal reporters” created by a local Tea Party group. To my considerable amusement, I was third–after Matt Tully and Jim Shella, ahead of Dan Carpenter, and well ahead of Abdul himself.

The list was “interesting” for several reasons. I’m not a reporter nor do I currently write for the Star, despite being so identified on the list. Dan Carpenter–who I admire–is significantly more liberal than I am, but we are both columnists who do share our political perspectives.  Matt Tully–who I would not consider particularly liberal despite his position of honor at the head of the list–is also a commentator rather than a straight reporter, so I suppose he’s fair game.  But Jim Shella? Mary Milz?What possible basis exists for characterizing them as “liberal”? That they report facts? It’s a puzzlement.

The Tea Party did helpfully append a list of positions that they believe constitutes “liberalism.” And it’s a hoot:

Anti-tea party, world government; weak local government; centralized state government; weak states’ rights; high progressive tax rates; pro Common Core; anti school vouchers; free universal health care; pro gun control; full rights to gay marriage; abortion without restriction; centralized economy; tax on hydrocarbon fuels; open international borders; lower national defense spending; and European Socialism.

Granted, this laundry list lacks clarity–it falls into the “name calling” rather than the “descriptive” category. What, for example, qualifies as “weak” state’s rights? How much “gun control” is enough to qualify one as a leftist? Evidently, recognition of climate change and support of equal rights for GLBT folks makes one liberal, in which case I plead guilty. (I also admit to being somewhat “anti” Tea Party, although I’m not sure that equates to being “pro” one-world government.)

The Tea Party folks may lack a coherent understanding of conservatism, liberalism, socialism, fascism and other “isms,” but they are surely correct that my own label has changed as the pendulum has swung. In fact, I feel a lot like that Dr. Seuss book, “Oh the Places You’ll Go!” The difference is, I’ve traveled while standing still.

Maybe–if I keep standing and live long enough–the pendulum will swing back.

Comments

The Urban Archipelago

When I was doing research for my book “Distrust, American Style,” I came across an article written just after George W. Bush defeated John Kerry. The author rejected the “red state/blue state” divide, in favor of a more fine-grained analysis comparing voters in urban and rural areas. Cities tend to be blue, rural areas tend to be red; most states are thus “purple.” He called the blue islands in seas of red “Urban Archipelagos,” and attributed urban voting patterns to the lessons and attitudes one learns living in close proximity to other people. Urban life is diverse; it requires progressive attitudes and a degree of tolerance largely missing from more bucolic settings.

A recent survey by Pew on attitudes toward abortion tends to support that thesis–although what Pew was measuring were religious and denominational differences on the issue. As religious scholar Martin Marty summarizes the findings,

“Almost sixty percent “say that at least some health care professionals in their communities should provide abortion.” This time white evangelical Protestants are anti-abortion and joined by Latino Catholics. “White mainline” and “unaffiliated” are most “pro” (at 72% and 71%). “White Catholic” and (here’s one surprise for me) black Protestants, line up next (58% and 56%) as pro-abortion. Least enthusiastic is the third duo, “Latino Catholic” and “white evangelical” (at 38% and 37%). One large gap is between the pro-abortion among metropolitan areas (67%) and rural dwellers (39%). ” (emphasis supplied)

When you think about it, the urban/rural differences make a lot of sense. In a city, you soon learn the folly of insisting that everyone adhere to your personal religious and moral beliefs. You learn to live and let live. If you are truly open to the society of people with different backgrounds, ideas and customs, you may even come to question some of your own beliefs and prejudices, and to appreciate that–as an old friend of mine used to put it–it’s a very thin pancake that has only one side.

I think that’s the original definition of a “liberal.”


Comments