Topic: Political Correctness
An Hypocrisy of Terms: Liberal and Conservative Do these terms make sense to you? I just don't get it. Please explain.by Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
(Libertarian)
Thursday, February 14, 2008
As basically a beginner in politics (I would say 6 months ago your author was indeed quite politically apathetic), one of the many things that are confusing to me is the very definition of liberal and conservative. Why, what can stump the walnut-sized brain of your author? Am I just being silly? Well, first some of the definitions from Google search that I most commonly associated with these terms -
Liberal
1) Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
2) Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value
3) People who generally like to reform current conditions. Liberals are often referred to as the left wing.
Conservative
1) Resistant to change
2) Conservatism is a relativistic term used to describe political philosophies that favor traditional values, where "tradition" refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term derives from the Latin, conservÄre, to conserve; "to keep, guard, observe".
3) People who generally like to uphold current conditions and oppose changes. Conservatives are often referred to as the right wing.
Soooooo.... if I live under a liberal government/society where liberty is the primary value, but I don’t want to change it, am I then a conservative? Why do the terms mix definitions of change/reform attitude with political values? Shouldn’t for one particular value, no matter what it is, have a choice between maintaining that value, changing the value in one direction, or changing it in yet another? Why do we have to insinuate that political Conservatives are stubborn-minded and resistant to change? Why do we have to insinuate that political Liberals are fickle-minded? Maybe these are just terms meant to confuse, divide and conquer.
I suggest more truthful terms – say when the government spends the money it procures from its people, on a certain issue you are either ‘anti-tax’ or ‘pro-benefits’ which the proponent-preferred alternatives to ‘pro-tax’ and ‘anti-benefits.’ For instance, if I am a Government proponent of say, give everyone Health Care, I can say I am ‘pro-benefit’ and my opponent is ‘anti-benefit’. If I am an opponent of Health Care, I can call myself ‘anti-tax’ and the opponent ‘pro-tax.’ This is name-calling, but at least its fair.
Issues that don’t (necessarily) involve government spending the money from We the People are straight-up controls of freedom that result in a code of laws which limit (yes, ALWAYS LIMITS) personal liberties and economic liberties. Yes, we can’t have Warren Z’s ‘Excitable Boy’ running around eating everyone so we limit his freedom with a punishment if he acts this way. Your same personal freedom is limited when your government stipulates you can’t use drugs (even if you directly harm no one else). Your economic freedom is limited when your government claims it can rightfully take your wages from you via income taxes. "That government is best which governs least." Thomas Paine
Politically an individual should be defined in two ways – the true measure is of course is how they ACT and what they DO – politicians are on display for us and show this via their voting records, thoughts for new acts of legislature. And without real actions to judge, we are left to measure people by what they SAY and THINK. This is damn dangerous, since people can be fooled. "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." – The $5 Dude. Ideally in politics We the People start by giving some minor responsibility to an individual on what they SAY and THINK, and as they perform, We the People watch how they ACT and what they DO, and if they talk the talk but walk the walk (and we like it) we advance them.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary." Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
Anyone care to set me straight? C’mon, tell me how it is!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jake, the Champion of the Constitution only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake, the Champion of the Constitution is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
One of the best pieces of knowedge I've picked up from the Nolan Chart is the 'disambiguation' of political vocabulary.
The problem with 'liberal' and 'conservative' is that our political parties reflect neither. We have a 'social liberal' party and a 'neo-conservative' party. (both of which are misnomers in and of themselves, but at least the generally accepted definitions are correct)
I recall not to long ago I drew the Nolan Chart on a bar napkin when talking with the person next to me. Debating the complete apathy and dissapointment that is felt about the political process. We are told we are voting for liberals (democrats) or conservatives (republicans) which are on complete opposite ends.
But upon inspection of the definition, we see that democrats aren't really liberals, in fact liberalism is something to be commended and strived for. Just the same we see that republicans aren't really conservatives, which is also something equally respectable.
So I change the lables, to 'social liberals' and 'neo-conservatives' which seems to much more accurately reflect how both parties behave... suddenly on that chart on the bar napkin, both parties slide extremely far downward and toward the center into the 'statist' region. A word nobody has ever heard of before, but certainly seems to fit.
It puts a logical framework on what most of us knew subconsciously already. Seeing those two dots so close together puts in simple terms why we are so apathetic. Because honestly the choice between democrats and republicans is no choice at all. All we needed to do was fix ther vocabulary.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-02-14 12:20:36
First, liberal and conservative are adjectives that are often misused as nouns. As nouns their meanings fall into the world of 'jargon' where people use words as symbols that can take on different meaning to different audiences. This gives them power to convey meaning of their choice; whatever will advance their cause; regardless of the context.
This is where the misnomer of conservatives being anti-change or defenders of the status quo. This is true for some individuals but not inherent in the concept of conservative government.
In a political context I always use these words with regard to the role of government. For instance, I advocate the conservative use of the force of government. Others will advocate a liberal use of the force of government.
The liberal use of government is aimed at control through homogenization, limiting choice and diminishing the power of the individual.
The conservative use of government is aimed at cooperative heterogeneity, freedom of choice and empowering the individual. As you can see, these are not hall marks of caution or fear. These are bold, fearless goals because the consequences are far less direct control over the citizens.
Pundits, jargon masters, talk show hosts and career politicians hate this simple direct use of the terms because it leaves them no wiggle room regarding their motives and the consequences of their view of the role of government.
Most Republican politicians today, are liberal in this context. It is my life-long challenge to change this.
You have a lot to learn. The definitions have been changed over time by those who have infiltrated every level of society. The dictionaries of today are not what they were 200 years ago. Words are merely tools for our enemies. They create/use key terms and phrases to manipulate us.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
