Can't they speak plain English?
A couple of weeks back, I got into one of those debates with a liberal-in-law. You know the kind, the debate that goes nowhere because, although we are using the same exact words, we are not speaking the same language. We conservatives understand many political terms differently than liberals; which is to say: our words are simple, clear and concise enough a child of seven can follow, while theirs are unnecessarily convoluted, nuanced and downright scandalous. The particular debate was over Obama's healthcare proposals which I, quite rightly, labeled "socialism." This provoked the usual howls of indignation.
And, don't think you can set things aright by reference to a dictionary, because odds are unless that is a conservatively (in the non-political sense) phrased dictionary, it will support the liberal's notion over yours as to meaning (anyone care to guess the political orientation of most modern-day lexicographers?). Needless to say, my relative whipped out his handy dictionary the better to destroy my argument; and, formidable as my arguments were, treated my complaint of liberal source-bias with all the contempt and deafness of the pedagogically validated. In fact, I am pretty certain he now lumps me in with all those "other conservatives" he is convinced dabble in the occult and spin endless conspiracy yarns. What follows is support for my allegation of bias in common reference works.
Any discussion of political terms is sure to invite debate and charges of slant. So, before I go on, let me say no definition will satisfy all and all definitions are a matter of interpretation. The point I make is what are regarded as unassailable, "authoritative," last-word-on-the-subject definitions are often, themselves, the product of intense partisanship and more than a little dissimulation.
Evidence Our Reference Works Have Been Hijacked
Dictionaries and encyclopedias play an important role shaping the understanding our children have of the world they inherit; and, therefore, the content of these compendiums of common knowledge are critical to good citizenship. Putting this another way, supposing your object is to skew political understanding in order to advance a given agenda; then, subtly altering the terms by which we discuss it is a great way to control the high-ground. Prior to the Internet, this was childishly simple to get away with because we were limited to these sources alone for confirmation (very few of us invest in more than one dictionary or encyclopedia). Since the Internet, this tampering has both intensified, but also come under intense scrutiny. It would be difficult to prove at this late remove, but I am fairly certain these reference books have seen steady shifts within the forty-odd years since I was a student, with all the evidence of this alteration wiped as clean as a CIA retired hard-disk (see, I can spin conspiracy yarns with the best).
For an example of this, the definitions of "socialism" found in most modern dictionaries excludes a wide array of social programs currently in vogue, which half a century ago would easily have been regarded "socialist." By these definitions, then, the term "socialism" has been subtly tweaked to exclude all but the most egregious of many variants to the more general species (e.g., communism, state-ownership of production, fascism, syndicalism, etc.) falling within the general scope of "socially-motivated governance;" so as to insulate those agendas of which liberals are so fond (go here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#Con for a revisionist explanation of why "socialism" and "communism" were once considered inseparable, but no longer – in fact, all it really tells us is it is "unfair" lumping them together without telling us why) from the disdain the term socialism has earned.
Inconsistency is the Rule
If these terms are so inviolable, why do so many dictionaries differ as to meanings, even among liberal sources; and with disagreements so broad they are, effectively, distinct terms. For example, the word "liberalism" is given variously as:
A. Webster's New World College Dictionary: adjective, the quality or state of being liberal; specifically, 1) noun, a political philosophy advocating personal freedom for the individual, democratic forms of government, gradual reform in political and social institutions, etc; 2) noun, a movement in Protestantism advocating a broad interpretation of the Bible, freedom from rigid doctrine and authoritarianism, etc.
B. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: adjective, (of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society. [RWS note: "...more personal freedom" and "fairer sharing of wealth and power" are conflicting objectives belonging to different philosophies; of course, who says liberals have to be consistent in their objectives?]
C. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: adjective, 1: the quality or state of being liberal 2a: often capitalized: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity 2b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard 2c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically: such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class) 2d capitalized: the principles and policies of a Liberal party.
D. Dictionary.com: noun, 1: the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude; 2: a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties; 3: (sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics; 4: a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.
Immediately, I see problems with these definitions that don't square with reality and are, moreover, inconsistent with the liberal self-deception. For example, definition-A gives as secondary definition, "a movement in Protestantism advocating a broad interpretation of the Bible, freedom from rigid doctrine and authoritarianism." While, true there were such movements, which one is meant? Most of the Protestant movements were not truly liberal and it would be more accurate to say they eventually led to religious liberalism. Overall, these movements were externally rebellious, but internally every bit as dictatorial as that mother-religion they abandoned. Had the editors specified the late 17th century religious-freedom movement of Roger Williams, British & Dutch affiliates, and those who followed thereafter, there would not be the problems this definition creates.
Even so, theirs is not the most extreme misrepresentation of liberalized religion. Definition-D includes a similarly worded reference to modern Protestantism that includes a couple of inappropriate qualifiers (i.e., "adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions" and "development of spiritual capacities"), the first of which is an "illiberal" constraint on what can be believed and the second applies as readily to all religions.
Note in Webster's definition the use of the phrase "gradual reform in political and social institutions," and how that differs from "non-arbitrariness in government." At first glance these seem as if they could reference the same thing, but that implies the reform and institutions spoken of have mostly to do with making governance less arbitrary. A 19th century classical liberal will have no problem with the second phrase, but would be skeptical as to the first; whereas your garden variety liberal sees no difference between "less-arbitrary" and "more egalitarian." Liberalism grew out of a rebellion against the arbitrary misrule of monarchs and tyrants, having less to do with societal reform and leveling.
Webster's definition expands on the original theme in the sense "gradual reform" includes "resistance to arbitrary changes" typical of elites. Yet, the real sense of it is more "progressive" than "opposed" thereby including the progressive notion of "continual upgrades." Is this really a condition or state of "liberalism" to advocate unceasing change? Too much change concentrates power into the hands of government, however framed; a thoroughly illiberal result.
I challenge Merriam-Webster to show historically, empirically or logically that "belief in progress" and "the essential goodness of the human race" are essential to liberty or liberal-values. Those are laudable sentiments, to be sure, but unnecessary to Lockean liberty. The typically high-minded 19th century European liberal was convinced of the inferiority of other races, despite which he believed it his duty to provide "savages" with decent governance that recognized their "rights" as fellow humans (so-called "white-man's burden"). The assumption of progress is relatively recent, and only came on the heels of the "liberal" term's overdue coinage. Constant progress, moreover, assumes what we now practice is illiberally in need of reform (circular) and feasibility. Progress may or may not be necessary, but it is not that which makes a government, policy, agenda or viewpoint "liberal." Merriam-Webster, moreover, gives the game away by terming as "liberal": "government as a crucial instrument for [the] amelioration of social inequities."
Finally, I make strenuous objection to Cambridge's inclusion of the phrase "development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society" in their characterization of "liberal." Only a liberal-socialist thinks wealth-redistribution anything less than pure "socialism."
Those were just the "liberal" definitions of "liberalism," and if this is all you know of the modern breed, you'd be rightly perplexed by the dissonance between definitions and deeds. All of the above suffer from a lack of editorial challenge to get at the meat of the subject. To get a feel for just how far these diverge from the more general impression of them, you have to go to contrarian sources (i.e., conservatives and libertarians) for their opinion of modern-day liberals and how they operate. Remember, liberals constitute perhaps one-tenth to one-fifth of the population, and yet it is liberal definitions that dominate our reference works as they do our media and universities.
The Rare Exception
A rare source contradicting the many liberal knowledge-mills is http://www.conservapedia.com/. Conservapedia began a couple of years ago as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia and other blatantly liberal sources, many of whom plunder one another for content and leverage content volume through open-sourcing (with heavy editing of anything smacking of conservatism); and to provide faith-based homeschoolers with an alternative source of information that doesn't undermine faith-teaching. The content at Conservapedia is much sparser than Wikipedia, in large part because (unlike Wikipedia) it does not use open-format (formal submission & review only) and scrutinizes content prior to posting to assure it is free of liberal-bias. Both the quality and volume of this source suffer somewhat due to the constraints on contribution, but, given time and support, this can evolve into a first-class alternative to liberal renderings.
Conservapedia differentiates between American and European liberalism, defining the former as: 1) "…the platform espoused by the Democratic Party including: support of social welfare systems, redistribution of wealth, and government regulation of the economy, combined with a certain brand of individual libertarianism emphasizing social equality and (to a certain extent) rejecting traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality as a proper foundation for law."; 2) "The economic aspects of this ideology are to a large extent a product of New Deal policies of the Great Depression era, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson's 'Great Society.' The Democratic Party's idea of social liberty and equality . . . came much later, partly as a result of the Civil Rights and counterculture movements of the late 20th century. It continues to be fueled by various youth movements and the interests of numerous special interest groups;" and 3) "Liberal ideology in America outlines a system of government emphasizing intervening in the national economy . . . to counter market forces. Liberals generally perceive taxation as a means of redistributing wealth and funding public works that could not be adequately supplied through the free market, such as road-building and [the] provision of police forces. Liberals say that they favor increased personal freedoms, but this applies only to sexual relationships: they oppose free speech and religious freedom."
Admittedly, these are disputable renderings, but no more so than the spin liberal reference works give the term "conservative." For example, Dictionary.com renders "conservatism" as: a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes. That's it? The sum total of conservatism is being reactionary? Nothing about what is preserved and what opposed as would make that sensible? No mention the thing preserved is the very system of freedom that gave rise to the immense changes of the last 200+ years. Or, is that letting the cat out of the bag too much? American-conservatism is, also, a matter of liberating creativity and innovation while maintaining the system that made that possible on a scale never before imagined. Yes, we conservatives tend to play gatekeeper, but we are not anti-change. We're just against changes that are dangerously stupid. We think freedom is pretty cool, but also somewhat fragile and in need of defense against those who'd squander it or who rush to increase government at the cost of freedom.
Socialism Unmasked
I chose "liberalism" over "socialism" to demonstrate my points about "authoritative interpretations" only because the definitions of socialism are far more varied, convoluted, confusing, and disingenuous to unravel in anything less than a book. Just to give you a sense of how varied the term "socialism" is rendered, I offer the following links for your perusal:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism
http://conservapedia.com/Socialism#Democratic_Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=75392&dict=CALD
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/socialism – this one is fairly accurate
http://web.archive.org/web/20001017174300/http:/www.dsausa.org/rl/Docs/Lingo.html – from the horse's mouth
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook33.html – variations on the theme of socialism
My own definition of socialism is simple. It is: any political philosophy or system of government that includes social agendas among its purposes. This definition not only fits every form of the species currently practiced or aimed at, it also fits the original meaning given it by European socialists before Marx turned it into pure class-warfare. Giving everyone medical insurance is a social goal and using government to enforce it makes it a "social-ism." Can there be such a thing as "capitalist-socialism." Certainly, but it never works any more than the other variants on the theme. Most of socialism's many variants have come about either through repeated attempts at overcoming socialism's internal contradictions and weakness, as subterfuges with which to subvert or exploit established systems, or to lend it respectability. It is because of this constant reformulation that the definitions of socialism have become so numerous, varied, confusing, and more than a little misleading; and the liberal-denial of it so intense. Quite naturally then, the liberal (aka, socialist) protests whenever we call his calling by its proper name rather than some neutered variant or the more distinguished misnomer.
A term related to socialism, but far less disputed as to meaning is "statism." Encarta defines statism as: "noun, centralized political control: the theory, or its practice, that economic and political power should be controlled by a central government leaving regional government and the individual with relatively little say in political matters" (see http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861714706/statism.html ). This is deliberately vague and easily misconstrued. It is also incorrect as the objects of statism are more varied than this. Less ambiguous and more useful is Webster's: "any social or political system that concentrates power in the hands of the state at the expense of individual liberty" (see http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/statism ). My personal definition of statism has more to do with attitude, and goes: "any political philosophy that expands the role of government over that extant or sees government as the solution to problems not generally within its mandate or sphere of competence," but will defer to Webster as substantively valid. Merriam-Webster's definition veers too much to their own definition of socialism ("noun, concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"). I don't deny socialism is "statist," but not all statism is socialist. For example, the 16th Amendment creating the income-tax was statist, but is not, by itself, socialism (although its passage was to fund Wilson's social-progressive agenda). Merriam-Webster fails to differentiate where the one ends and the other continues. If the more general definition of socialism is governance for the purpose of satisfying social goals, then statism consists in that subset of any excessive governance regardless of social agendas (i.e., statism + social-agenda = socialism; or, conversely socialism less the agenda reduces to simple statism; any over-reliance, indulgence, or excessive belief in government).
Toward a Better Lexicography
A great many liberals take a similar attitude toward language as they take toward our Constitution. They regard both as malleable conveyances that can mean whatever they need them to mean, as though precise usage does not really matter as long as you achieve some "worthy" goal. They can also be absolutist when it suits them; as when my liberal-in-law insisted his dictionary definition was the one infallibly correct. Words, usage and meanings do matter if we mean to communicate honestly and unambiguously. They only don't matter if we mean to sow confusion.
One excuse defenders of authoritative sources give to corrupt meanings is they represent "the most common usage" of a term. But, do they? Anyone here recall Merriam-Webster doing a poll asking "which of the following definitions best describes term-X"? So, what they really represent is a consensus of (mostly liberal) lexicographers of what they regard the common usage; or, as is more likely, "what they wish it to be." Another argument made is they are "original meanings," though I believe I have established some have been stretched far beyond that. The definition given of "socialism" in the dictionaries I listed are really definitions of variants on Marxism, itself a subset of the more general term socialism; leaving the way open to other variants to distance themselves – even to hijacking the "liberal" label. Another argument sometimes made is "they are derived logically," yet that has also been shown false; and, if true, should have produced greater agreement. This being the case, I propose the following simple guidelines for establishing acceptable meanings for political terms and labels:
- a) word sense and sound should match (e.g., socialism is something to do with social agenda); if it doesn't fit, use or coin a different word or phrase that does so less ambiguously
- b) words should not be stretched so far they no longer resemble the meaning they had when coined
- c) past history of a word matters
- d) perfectly good words should not be hijacked – if you are stuck with a stinky one, make up a new label for yourselves, but keep your cotton-stealing paws off ours
- e) we should label each other according to our agendas rather than preference (sorry, get over it)
- f) don't use a specific term to smear a more general term, and visa versa (i.e., don't call "commie" someone who is no worse than a socialist, and don't call us conservatives a bunch of fascists because that's seriously clueless)
- g) KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) – given a choice between a simple, easily understood definition and a complex, multilayered one guaranteed to confuse, I'll back the former every time
- h) illustrations clarifying what is meant are a good idea, so be generous with them
For the record and so there are fewer misunderstandings, here are my definitions of a few choice political terms so you liberal-socialists can stop whining I've misrepresented what you are up to (and too bad if you don't like them):
- socialism – any political philosophy, agenda or system of government that includes social agendas among its purposes, stated or otherwise
- liberalism – 1) term originally synonymous with but predating "libertarianism" until hijacked by closet-socialists seeking anonymity; now defunct and should be retired; 2) a mental-disease characterized by endless harping about "the poor" and their supposedly wretched state (poor things haven't enough cars to drive, Bluetooth equipped cell-phones with which to yammer all day, and 6-ft wide flat-screens) few of whom have ever met a truly poor person or know how to recognize one if they did; 3) a political gaffe ("Hey Clem, did you hear what Biden uttered yet another of his liberalisms? Man, he sure is one funny veep.")
- progressivism – mix of anti-corporate statist and socialist ideologies and movements favoring or advocating continual change and reform; tends toward statist-egalitarianism on economics (government management) and left-libertarian on social issues (e.g., pro-choice), most often opposed to conservative stances, though may side with conservatives on issues like religious-freedom; movement popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, until stigmatized by the strong association with Woodrow Wilson & WWI.
- libertarianism – 1) political philosophy maximizing individual and personal-freedom; 2) the belief the individual is superior to states and his/her rights are inviolable.
- Left – synonym for radical-socialist; term originated in early French Republic denoting the left side of the aisle of the French Parliament when radicals took control of that side (of the chamber) the better to dominate proceedings and relegated all others (royalists, clergy, traditionalists, and others) to the right side – at least until the ranks of the Right were so thinned out through decapitation as made the division moot.
- Right – everyone else, but especially those of us averse to radicalism and socialism.
- totalitarianism – 1) any political system in which there are no limits on the authority of the state and the state regulates every aspect of public and private life to the degree possible; 2) extreme coercion in government or quasi-government to meet objectives to which people won't ordinarily submit.
- communism – political philosophy promoting the creation of a one-faction (supposedly) egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of all means of production and of all property, in which those in charge invariably live like gods while exhorting the masses (that's the rest of us, in case you didn't get it) to endless ennui and suffering in pursuit of unquantifiable, unattainable goals while expropriating all the best for themselves; extreme totalitarian form of socialism; Marxism.
- fascism – statist philosophy in which the state is deemed superior to the individuals comprising it (i.e., citizenry) and subversive of their liberties and interests to meet its goals; includes some degree of socialism in the form of economic planning and "corporatist" control of private enterprises (the original public-private partnership); fascism took its name from its symbol: a bound bundle of reeds denoting strength through combination (latin "fasces"); originally a coalition and not a true party combined to oppose internationalist-communism, the fascists came to be dominated by nationalist and syndicalist elements.
- Nazism – a particularly violent and totalitarian amalgam of fascism, nationalism and socialism, though closer in form and ethos to fascism.
- republican – any form of government that is not the private preserve of an aristocracy and in which there is some degree of ongoing power sharing with the public (hence the "public" in republican); form of government in which power and confidence are placed by those governed into the hands of those who rule who are, in turn, susceptible to recall and restraint (note: when that ceases to be true, the republic, for all practical intents is caput).
- democracy – a form of government once practiced in ancient Athens in which all citizens participated in and voted on decisions affecting all, but impractical to large, modern nations and peoples due to the necessity of gathering whole populations together on every legislative measure to vote and verify votes have not been rigged, bought, tampered with, or miscounted; sometimes still practiced at the village and tribal level.
- separation of powers – 1) mechanism in government to prevent an abuse of power via collusion among the principle divisions; 2) system of government resulting in a strict division according to role (note: this means that, except where specifically granted by the Constitution, Congress shall not intrude itself into the operation of government or conduct diplomacy with foreign powers, the Administration shall not concoct arbitrary regulations un-promulgated by Congress (legislative power can't be delegated) and shall not conduct trials or strike down laws, and the courts shall not legislate from the bench or administrate their results or extend their reach outside the courtroom).
- Constitution – 1) framework for governance in which the American people granted certain enumerated and strictly limited powers to government without surrendering others; 2) the original "contract with America."
- amendment – the sole provision in our Constitution for making changes to our system of governance; all other means (interpretation, executive orders, etc.) used to make such changes are Constitutionally invalid.
- conservative – preference for the status quo; folks who just want radicals of every stripe to stop mucking up what is already okay in what has become an endless, mindless pursuit of impossible objectives, and with a track record of making things worse; a political philosophy favoring free-markets, limited republican government based on the Constitution, yet strong enough to preclude convulsions leading inexorably to greater usurpations than is already the case.
Further reading:
http://www.maitreg.com/politics/glossary.asp – interesting webpage comparing socialist, liberal, conservative, and libertarian interpretations of political terms.
Bob: Great article.
To answer your core question, “why can’t Liberals speak plain English?”, it boils down to a simple formula.
When you “feel” rather than think, you get to assign words any meaning you want. Thus “torture” becomes that which you dislike, instead of the legal definition of an act.
Add to this the second main component, that consistency is not required when offering a judgment. If it suits your immediate needs to condemn action X on Monday, ignore or excuse it on Tuesday, and actually support it on Wednesday, well, so be it. (Think of the way the Press portrayed elements of the Patriot Act and GITMO detention policy during the Bush and Obama administrations).
Finally, if you state a proposition clearly and forthrightly, you open yourself up to genuine debate. Once your assumptions or facts are challenged, you must defend those challenges or change your position — unless you decide that saying police officers lie doesn’t mean that all police officers lie, only certain ones, but not necessarily officer Crowley of Gatesgate fame, though you insist that the general proposition is still true, even though it’s not strictly relevant, though it may be instructive, because some police officers lie, even though you’ve provided no direct evidence that Crowley did. Clear?
The simple fact is, Conservatives tend to search for real answers to real questions (like, how exactly does spending a few trillion dollars of money we don’t have on an ill-conceived stimulus package actually help economic recovery?). Libs, by contrast, know that asking and answering real questions tends to put a crimp in their hidden agendas, which is why they continue to insist that we need to rush through health care “reform” even though no one really understands the details of the program or how exactly it will be paid for.
Not only do you have revised, more accurate definitions that would improve a common usage dictionary, you have a new medical term, i.e. the mental disease of "liberalism."
My daughter has three years college training on psychology and has not yet heard of this. Are you a doctor? Is this term found in medical or psychiatry dictionaries, and if not, is anyone planning to do something about it?
Oh, and I forgot the straw man argument some people tend to use. Take what you say, re-define it with a new term (say, call it a "mental disease"), then dismiss what you say by pointing out that no such term exists in the medical world. And this furthers clear debate how?
I don't see how I have dismissed anything anyone said. The author's distaste for liberal philosophy is clear. I have not taken issue with this, although you may surmise, based on previous conversation, that I would be inclined to. Nevertheless, the subject of this piece, is, if not principally, peripherally, percision in language. And I note that, while the author is within his rights to venture an opinion about medicine, the opinion carries more weight when one has training in the field.
"Percision in language?" Haha. I meant "precision." (I work for Obama. I can't spell.)
True, the article is not about medicine. I have not furthered clear deabate in any way. I have asked for writers to be as unpresumptuous in their expressions as I have been asked to be. I even thanked you for calling my carelessness to my attention.
ruminator — Maybe I've missed it, but where exactly in Bob's article are the passages that justify this comment from you:
" … you have a new medical term, i.e. the mental disease of "liberalism." My daughter has three years college training on psychology and has not yet heard of this. Are you a doctor? Is this term found in medical or psychiatry dictionaries, and if not, is anyone planning to do something about it?"
It's possible I've overlooked that segment where Bob implied, stated or defined liberalism as a "mental disease." If so, I'll retract or modify what I said. But if not, you can't offer a straw man to re-characterize what he said, then fault him for using a term he didn't use.
Re #6 — you're not talking about Bob's parody as if it was a real definition, are you? "A mental-disease characterized by endless harping about 'the poor' and their supposedly wretched state (poor things haven't enough cars to drive, Bluetooth equipped cell-phones with which to yammer all day, and 6-ft wide flat-screens) few of whom have ever met a truly poor person or know how to recognize one if they did."
If you thought that was a precise definition, then we need to press bob on what exactly constitutes a "yammer", "harping", and whether a 5 and a half foot flat screen nulifies the definition).
Bob,
I posted this once before in February. It seems relevant once again.
The Evolution
The history of the Church of Secular/Progressivism. How the secular progressives have developed a political viewpoint into a Religious Experience.
In my years of debating social/progressives I've certainly noticed the 'evolution' of progressive rhetoric; especially in the last generation. It started with Reagan. The Left had been deeply wounded by the Carter administration; but still carried a heartfelt belief that even a terrible socialist was better than ANY conservative. It was the beginning of the establishment of the social/progressive religious philosophy.
Until that time liberalism was just a political perspective. It had its ardent supporters, but held its place with several other competing perspectives on government. Libertarianism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, and Conservatism were all represented within the American political spectrum to some extent. Political discourse in this country had developed to the point where all political systems other than Liberalism and Conservatism had been discredited. It was widely held that only a loon would throw his support behind Socialism or Communism. To be sure, actual examples of these political systems enjoyed some support in the United States. But such support was almost exclusively within the realm of academia.
We may speculate as to why this is so. Some will argue that it is because of the insular nature of the campus environment, while others will state that tenure played a major role. The reason matters not. It is enough to establish that there was a time when Liberalism was exclusive to college administrations and teaching staff.
It is worth mentioning that Liberalism itself had undergone major change from its early roots The Liberalism I speak of as it existed in the higher educational establishments wasn't the Classic Liberalism of our founding fathers. It was a more recent. To call it 'Liberalism' was to actually mis-identify the movement.
The Classic Liberalism of our founding fathers stressed individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. Its foundations were human rationality, natural rights as granted by the Creator, individual property rights, the protection of civil liberties, and equality under the law.
The 'Liberalism' of the college campus was a different animal. This viewpoint stated that human nature and morality are not fixed, but rather are revisable through society's history. Its foundations were secularism, rationalism. Its goal was the fulfillment of the utopian societies as illustrated by Marx, Lenin, and Guevara.
The movement engendered a rejection of a Creator in favor of Darwinism and supplanted Man as the ultimate product. The movement produced an expansion of civil rights, the ascendance of groups, equality of outcome, income redistribution, the elevation of victims, nonjudgementalism, and environmentalism.
The movement came pre-packaged with the remedies that society must practice to alleviate a myriad of perceived shortcomings. It must be noted that such ideas as universal health care, the elevation of groups over individuals, and the absolute belief in evolution are not new. The roots of these are firmly planted in the historical record. As always; the most fundamental position was and is that such a system must be successful. The central belief was that if there had just been more money spent, or if the purges had been more 'inclusive', or the people more willing to sacrifice much longer terms of misfortune. That utopia was achievable if one only kept one's eye on the prize through a 'short' (but of undefined length) of shared misery. Misery itself could eventually be redefined as success.
Remember, I earlier stated that this movement had been mis-identified. This philosophy was actually more properly defined as social or secular progressivism. The 'Progressives' preferred the title of 'Liberal' as the word didn’t conjure up the horrific pictures of the purges and mass executions usually associated with such societies.
While both political viewpoints had a vocal, passionate minority; it was just that; a minority. The overwhelming majority of American citizens were too busy trying to wrangle actual solutions to society's challenges to pour their collective souls into something considered to be so transitory. No one defined themselves exclusively by their political philosophy. Your job, your religious belief, your financial position, and your social status were all considered to be more indicative.
Reagan, more than anyone else, made the word 'Liberal' a denigration; and many on the Left began to call themselves 'progressives'. The word 'Progressive' did not carry the stigma of the wild eyed, lock step, narrow minded, revolutionary that was conveyed by the word 'Liberal'.
After Reagan's 1984 landslide, progressives began to develop the art of word disassociation in earnest. They had gone head to head with conservatism believing that no one in their right mind could possibly see any choice other than liberalism and Reagan handed them their heads. The final Electoral College count was 525 to 13. Ever since; such a mandate has been the 'wet dream' of the social progressive.
After much introspection, even the progressives had to admit they had gotten the word out. They had drawn as clear a set of differences between the values of liberalism vs. conservatism as possible and the American people had undeniably chosen conservatism.
Here I must note that I've always been of the opinion that social/progressives have always had a 'personnel' advantage over conservatives. Not only that, but the progressives know it! The social/progressive believes in the absolute infallibility of government; and from birth their children are groomed for life as a bureaucrat. Liberals rise through government in the same manner as conservatives rise through business. The best and brightest of the liberal persuasion will always gravitate to government service; while the best and brightest conservatives will always gravitate to the boardrooms of our Fortune 500 companies. After all; business success may shower wealth on an achiever but the high offices of government grant power over individuals.
Since the 1984 election, social/progressives have developed several clear incentives. First, the American public must be 'forced' to discover the superiority of liberalism. Second, the campaign never ends. You push the party line exclusively; "Government always good; individualism always bad!" is the battle cry of the social/progressive.
Third, political discourse is war. Nothing is more important than the triumph of progressivism. The complete obliteration of conservative philosophy and the absolute annihilation of any conservative being are defined as one in the same. This is of primary importance, as conservative thought has no place in the new lexicon:
Fourth; all policy must be couched within euphemism. Strict adherence to this precept is required in order to placate the average American. The idea is to make unpalatable policy seem innocuous; to get the average person to accept the change as so minor as to not constitute anything to be concerned over. After all; what's in a word, how can one word possibly alter debate over core principles?
Abortion becomes 'choice'; tax increases become 'investments', and under achievers become the blameless 'losers of life's lottery'. The definition of 'bipartisanship' is conservatives moving to accept progressive tenets, never the opposite.
Over the years, social/progressives have become superb at mangling the definition of words in order to achieve the victories they've sought. But the visceral, burning, hatred and intolerance of all things outside the state has recently bubbled to the surface.
It came to a head in 2000. Here was a person groomed and primed for true liberal leadership. One well versed in the religion of social/progressivism; a new champion of one of the more successful liberal administrations. He was poised to ascend to his rightful place as the new political leader of the greatest country on earth. The presidency was Al Gore's birthright! There was no longer any reason to hide behind deceptive language. The Clinton administration had guaranteed the ascendance of the social/progressive agenda. President Gore would cement the process.
The election was his to lose, and lose it he did. His over-confident, condescending, 'Holier than Thou' treatment of his second-string adversary from the State of Texas provided endless hours of gleeful entertainment to social progressives across the country. To them the outcome was inevitable. George Bush Jr. was a sacrificial lamb being led to political slaughter.
The outcome of both that; and the subsequent election of 2004 have brought the force of the hatred harbored by the progressives into sharp focus. Liberals everywhere literally went out of their minds! Both Hollywood progressives and all other progressive defenders of the faith became vocally outraged against the administration. Some threatened to move from the country, others could not open their mouths without spewing hatred for all things Bush. Literally every thing George did was wrong, bad, deplorable, stupid and immoral. This was my first encounter with people who actually believed George Bush to be simultaneously so 'retarded' as to be sub-human, yet at the same time so gifted as to blind everyone to his crafty, cunning manipulative nature. How could any person possibly believe someone to be concurrently stupid and intelligent?
After the 2004 election, physiatrists began reporting large upswings in the number of patients complaining of depression, despondency, and unresolved anger; which these doctors ultimately tied to the results of that election. This illness was eventually identified by psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer as BDS, or 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'. Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "The acute onset of paranoia, in otherwise normal people, in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush."
We've now come to apogee of this deranged thought process; the rapture that was the election of 2008. In Barack Obama we have a person so skilled in the art of euphemism and generality that crowds of people literally hear exactly what they want to hear; ignoring and discarding the rest. A child of the bureaucracy that has purposely spent so little time in any one political office as to leave no record worth analysis. A person of such ephemeral background that one cannot even ascertain, with any certainty, his constitutional qualifications for the office he currently holds. The MSM sings praise to each of his declarations with the fervor of monks reciting psalms. Disagreement with any Presidential proclamation or policy is met with a passion that, one could readily imagine, fueled the Inquisition. If Al Gore is a prophet; then Barack Obama is truly the Messiah of the religion of secular progressivism!
As of this writing, Barack Obama has been the President of the United States for 38 days. In that short span, he has broken his promises of bipartisanship and transparency. He has rescinded his policy regarding the exclusion of lobbyists and has populated his administration with 'hold-overs' of a bygone era, as opposed to elevating new talent.
He has overseen the personal redistribution of over $1.4 trillion since the inauguration; and has introduced a $3.2 trillion budget for next year. That is over $37 billion of spending for each day in office; and I fear he's just warming up. While I'm convinced his redistributionist policies are poison; I remain uncertain that even the abject failure of his administration to heal the recession will result in his ouster. The acolytes appear indefatigable.
Bill W.
originally posted February 27th 2009
Have been out of the loop for several weeks but your article caught my attention. After 42 years of teaching and studying Hermeneutics – rules which govern the interpretation of words and the useage of language – I think you have hit a home run.
Your experience with the lib-in-law is my experience with those both educated and uneducated. In the past 20 years much of my non-formal time is spend in debate/dynamic interaction with people of all sorts of backgrounds. A major part of our time is spent in finding out what "in the world are you talking about?"
I chuckled at your stuff – no insult intended – and found myself agreeing with your use of dictionaries. I have a 4 volume dictionary (5K pages+) from the late 1800's. What a fascinating read of the history of words (not the dry stuff of academia). I use ancient source lexcicons for a lot of my work in the market place and in the coffee shops.
Thanks
Have to admit I liked the article. Wouldn't it be interesting if this thread were combined with Phil's latest so we could enjoy the attempts to divert and change the discussion so that feelings could trump facts.
Ruminator and Phil,
Please don't take the 'liberal disease' thing too seriously. There are a few liberals I actually like and (dare I admit it) respect. It was meant as much for irony and humor as to illustrate a point about ideology taken so far it has lost touch with reality. Though the definition is largely defensible, I worried the subject overall was too 'sterile' without a dash of bias. It is, therefore, the 'exception making the rule' by driving home how hard it is avoiding any insult in political debate. I am glad this is getting such a warm response.
Everyone, please have fun with this. Throw some definitions of your own back at me. And, feel free to get a little ‘unserious’.
Bob: I realized after re-reading the passage that it was meant as a parody. My initial take on ruminator's comments was based on the idea that he was being literal in his comment, not giving you a parody back. So, my initial criticism of his position was in error, since I'm the one who took the parody literally.
I never met a flaming Leftist who didn't think he was a middle-of-the-road moderate. Conversely, I'm sure there are socialists who can claim they never met a Nazi who didn't believe likewise.
Bob,
I was not very offended by your definition of "liberal mental disease" for several reasons:
(1) I'm not sure I'm a good liberal,
(2) People often say "you're crazy" when they mean "you're wrong,"
(3) Many worthwhile people suffer some degree of psychological impairment (not that I offer to include myself in this group. But then, how would I know?)
My original post was intended to find out whether standards of qualification when specific areas of expertise are entailed are applied equally to all persons in all situations, on this website.
Since you were using parody/hyperbole, I probably picked the wrong time to inquire about this.
Keep writing, I'll keep reading.
It's called the "language wars" and though I came up with the idea on my own, the enemy beat me to the punch. They have a book out by that name telling them how to hijack the language. You need you an old dictionary. You can still find them somewhere.
Pardon me for double posting, but as bad as the language wars are, economics and sociology are worse. They teach that capitalism is an unrealistic economic model, and use socialists who never made anyone any money as prophets.
Communicating with Liberals is not so much about language or definitions but point of view.
As many fellow Conservatives I have long given up trying debate because "facts" can not even be agreed on.
Liberals see themselves as victims and basically not in control of thier lives.
A Conservative pursues liberty at all costs and is confident in one's own ability to make it in life.
jprairie,
It very much ‘is’ about language when one or the other party is in deep denial of what words mean or deliberately alter meanings in order to confuse or change the terms of debate. I gave the shift in meaning of the term 'liberal' as a prime example of the latter, and my liberal-in-law as a prime example of the effect this has on people who thereafter vote socialist based on a total misreading of agenda that such misdirection creates. My liberal-in-law, in fact, does believe in socialism, but he also sincerely does not get that it is 'socialism' and not 'liberalism' that he supports. He believes this because that is how he was taught and because he is fiercely loyal to his chosen affiliation. I grew up immersed in the same culture and was, for a long time influenced by it, so I do know something about how this works. Nor can I penetrate the fog of suspicion that has been built around him by radicals who succeeded in creating a poisonous image of conservatives and what we represent, this despite he knows my political thinking and that there is nothing in it to which anyone can honestly object. He is typical of the kind of liberal I encounter weekly. He is not stupid, but he is thoroughly saturated by liberal (i.e., socialist) group-think and unable to think outside that box.
Point of view does matter, but it does not matter to good communication if we are honest about what terms mean. I may disagree with your point of view, but can understand and even respect it to some degree if you are sufficiently honest in what it is you defend. I have little respect for those who deliberately misrepresent their position or ideology as something other than what we know it to be (if you doubt this, read Rules for Radical by Saul Alinski who openly advocates the manipulation of the middleclass and middleclass values); especially when the misrepresentation is so patently obvious. I make a distinction between those liberals who honestly believe their socialism isn’t socialism, and those who recognize it for what it is and willfully dissimulate. The liberal who honestly doesn't (or won’t) see the deceit loses respect for political ineptitude and cognitive laziness, but the radical who does so knowingly deserves the contempt of all; fellow 'liberals' even more than conservatives because it is you, more than us, he cheats. You frequently leap to his defense believing yourself allied in thought; and, in so doing, align your thinking that much closer to his. We merely chaff that such nonsense is so easily swallowed with ourselves snared in the same trap.
Mr. Stapler thank you for responding to my comment.
My frustration in discussing any serious issue with my Liberal freinds is probably is beyond language and point of view.
I think your correct that it is a cultural issue and from my experience it is not deceit but most average Joe Libs are ignorant of human nature and the story behind the media story.
The Bush hating bewilders me, but I saw the Clinton bashing that was on a personal rather than a policy level.
Both sides have high profile people that bend truth to attract dumb followers (Glen Beck, John Stewart).
jprairie,
You said “The Bush hating bewilders me, but I saw the Clinton bashing that was on a personal rather than a policy level.”
That assumes the Bush bashing and Clinton critiques were qualitatively equivalent. Bush was hated before he ever took office simply because he’d won and liberals were in denial of their defeat. Thereafter, liberals were gunning for anything with which to tar Bush, and the war on terrorism gave them their only opening. Clinton, by contrast, drew fire for his outrageous, thoroughly ‘un-Presidential’ behavior. Conservatives may have relished his discomfiture, but we didn’t actively trip him up or hound him endlessly on baseless grounds. In fact, many conservatives, libertarians, and independents made some effort to cut him some slack (I believe it was a non-liberal who first ridiculed critics regarding the Monica incident) even to calling on others to tone down the rhetoric, something that rarely comes from liberals even as they insist on greater civility from the rest of us). How can we know this is true? We know from polls and elections in which roughly unchanged numbers of conservatives, libertarians and independents continued to support Clinton even in the face of impeachment.
You say the Clinton ‘bashing’ was on a personal level. Certainly that was true of some of it, but you must admit Clinton had a unique capacity (in Presidential annals) of elevating his personal behavior to the political, and none but Clinton has racked up such an impressive list of scandals in or out of office. Clinton was not impeached because of his personal behavior but for his perjury and many abuses of power:
• abused Presidential power to intimidate (silence) his detractors and any unfavorable press (Hotwired Magazine, Travel-gate, File-gate, IRS-gate)
• misuse of bodyguards to screen sexual encounters
• peripheral involvement in drug trafficking and the Contra Affair (Mena Arkansas)
• highly suspicious body count (people close to, embarrassing to, or about to exposing Clinton had a nasty habit of dying under improbable circumstances)
• unsatisfactorily explained cover-ups (Vince Foster)
• demonization of women he’d manhandled (Jones, Broaddrick)
• trading access and political favors for campaign contributions (both Clintons + Gore), including invitation only, highest bidder quick sales held at the White House (Phone-gate, Lincoln Bedroom, Coffee-gate, Joe Cabrera, Lippo-gate, Hubbell-hush, China-gate, Buddist Temple-gate; hardly something new to government, but Clinton raised this practice to a whole new level)
• cronyism (Travel-gate)
• treason? (selling secret missile and computer technology to China [aka Commie-gate] never satisfactorily laid to rest)
• campaign spending violations
• release of donor lists (campaign violation) to PBS, a publicly held entity
• evidence tampering (email-gate)
• looting and trashing the White House on leaving
• pardoning as payback and to buy silence
If President Bill’s personal foibles are not enough to warrant censure, consider also the long list of unsavory and thuggish people in his employ, several of whom served time, vanished while under suspicion, died suddenly, or got away with some serious misbehaviors under the shield of Presidential protection. Compare that with the way Bush always insisted his people stick to the letter of the law and pay for any mistakes, even to refusing Presidential protection that incurred the censure of his base.
Oh, and did I fail to mention the Sandy Burger affair?
And Elian Gonzales, Waco Texas, and a certain missile meant to distract us from his affairs.
I don't know that you can really compare the treatment of President Bush to the treatment of President Clinton.
President Bush was 'actively' hunted by both democrats and the MSM. For the most part during President Clinton's administration republicans just followed the conventional wisdom of politics which says; "When your opponent is destroying himself, get out of the way."
Letting President Clinton's moral shortcomings sidetrack us from his criminal activities is what I believe kept us from impeaching him. Also whenever my liberal friends tell me they're not really liberals I agree with them. I tell them they are stuck in the mud, status quo, conservatives who long to return us to the sixties.
Mr. Stapler I think your points are correct in Bush vs. Clinton bashing.
How can Clinton be seen now as a loved statesman by the general public?
Is it the media or the fact that Bush senior and others have cozied up to him since he left office.
Jprairie asks: “How can Clinton be seen now as a loved statesman by the general public?”
That’s not really hard to fathom if you are able to put yourself in a partisan’s shoes, and remembering not all partisans are equally endowed with smarts. First, divide Clinton supporters into those who genuinely admire him, those who pretend admiration rather than admit his failings, and those who merely tolerate him (in hindsight) because ideology matters more than malfeasance. My own liberal-in-law fits best in the latter category. Most of the mentally-challenged can be safely placed in the first category, leaving a wide swath of Clinton partisans who are in denial of the things he did were in any way criminal or rise to a comparable level of abuse as they assign to Bush.
The mentally-challenged supporter sees his/her hero as vindicated simply because we failed to oust the charmed rascal from power, despite this same supporter is convinced of Bush’s guilt despite he never came anywhere close to eviction. The second category of partisan, takes pretty much the same view as the first; with the difference he/she realizes these distinctions, but doesn’t really care he’s scum. This is because this class of partisan is mentally-lazy more than stupid, is heavily invested in the agenda, sees it is the agenda more than the man that matters, but also sees the man has become a symbol for the agenda; an agenda so fragile it must be protected at all costs. The third category is far more perplexing, but accounts for only a small percentage of the whole. These constitute the brains of the outfit (who certainly do know better), yet continue to defend both miscreant and idiot-pleasing ideology. Once again, we have to subdivide these, but this time according to corruption. The corrupt ideologue is, again, easy to figure. He/she is in it for the power, and statism/socialism is a direct path to power. Ideology may also matter to this type, but power trumps all else.
This leaves a kernel of highly intelligent people who have nonetheless wedded themselves to statist/socialist principles they steadfastly refuse to recognize as either statism or socialism. These are people for whom the urge to ‘stand with the angels’, setting aright all that is wrong in the world has become a near-obsession; and for whom ‘liberalism’ represents the shining badge of humanity toward fellow humans. These are people who don’t need socialism, yet willing sacrifice their own interests (and yours) to an ideal, and who happily plaster their bumpers with cute slogans of political-correctness the better to assure we know they are ‘the good guys’. Despite their small numbers, this last group is vital to sustaining the whole. Without these highly intelligent, devoted-to-causes partisans, the socialist agenda would easily be recognized for the smoke-&-mirrors it is. The highly-intelligent but equally corrupt operative can be unmasked as a fraud or a thief, but the genuinely-honest, PC liberal-socialist is a different matter. He/she serves to give the agenda as a whole an aura of intelligent vindication that cannot readily be dislodged. For this, they are actively recruited, indoctrinated, and accustomed to a genteel life of ‘benevolent’ nanny-state advocacy masking a still more power-grabbing socialism.
Arlabon wrote: “…as bad as the language wars are, economics and sociology are worse. They teach that capitalism is an unrealistic economic model, and use socialists who never made anyone any money as prophets.”
This raises two interesting questions. First, does economics teach unrealistic economic models; and, second, how did this come about considering the earliest creditable economist is none other than Adam Smith, he who gave us our ‘free-market theory’? Wikipedia and similar liberal sources claim ibn Khaldun (d. 1406AD) and the Indian king-maker Chanakyo (d. 283BCE) pre-date Smith by hundreds of years, but I find this a specious claim based on loose interpretations of simple discussions of state finances and rudimentary observations of cyclic perturbations anyone connected with the operations of kingdoms might have made. It is also a clearly meant to undermine ‘Eurocentrism’ by crediting anyone besides the dead-white-guy the rest of us prefer to credit. It also credits the physiocrats, a group of French intellectuals who believed the wealth of nations is derived (solely) from agriculture (land). We see some of their influence in Jefferson, who preferred ‘agrarianism’ to mercantilism and industrialization. Yet, the physiocrats produced nothing like a theory of economics. Rather, they produced what can only be described a ‘preference’ and thereafter tried to force the market to fit that preference.
Some economists have tried to refine or build on Smiths observations, while others (mostly those enamored of socialism) have tried to circumvent and dismiss his ideas as ‘crude’. None of the latter has succeeded in producing either theory or observations that disprove Smiths simple thesis of an ‘invisible-hand’, yet persist in labeling it ‘superstitious’. Those of us who get it that Smith meant nothing spiritual by it, realize he was describing an oft repeated observation (aka, scientific observation) using archaic language; an observation made by more than a few keen mercantilists of his day. Today, we call that a macro-effect of a stochastically undifferentiable body (fancy way of saying far too many individual operations to catalogue, tally and control with any efficacy). Moreover, we can say with certainty that his other observations included positive and negative feedbacks, with considerable detail as to which stimuli produce the negative outcomes.
Smith lacked the modern tools of statistics and probability theory, so we can say some little progress has been made, but it is easy overstating its utility for true market-control. This is the problem we have with socialist-economics, that it supposes itself sufficiently developed as can divine every market reaction (and trim accordingly) rather than simply enlightening us as to what is going on and leaving it to us (market opportunists) to capitalize on such insights.
Capitalism is hardly the last word in economic theory; it is merely the best evidence we have that undirected-markets work better than does tinkering with something we barely understand and without sufficient tools to go about it. We can’t truly even say this theory hasn’t changed in any significant ways since the term was first coined (mid-1600s). In fact, our better theories have improved considerably (i.e., the ones that adjust theory to observation, not the ones that try to fit reality to theory). Nor is capitalism an economic theory, per se, as the term refers to any system favorable to the private acquisition of wealth, and has been around long before we imagined an economy needs a theory to give it wings. The proper term for the theory begun by Smith is ‘classical economics’ (giving us some idea this is our foundational theory), not ‘capitalism’. David Ricardo and Jean-Baptist-Say contributed to Smith’s theory and gave us its final form. Wikipedia claims John Stuart Mill also contributed to classical economic theory, but this is questionable as Mill did little more than affirm it in early on only to reverse himself later (advocated taxation to meet limited social goals).
Social-economic theory has been around since Proudhon first suggested production ought to be redirected to ‘better’ use than simple private acquisition; that it be channeled into solving social ills. That was the beginning of the notion wealth resides in the nation and not the individual. The social-economist shares with the physiocrat the demented belief that you can redirect wealth without altering the drive behind most of it. This is because both see wealth as something fixed (in land or assets), and not as something we constantly create, renewing it as an effect of our labor. All three are real, but it is productivity that generates most of our wealth as ‘added value’; and deflates disproportionately as our wealth (effort) is drained off.
I agree with you some theories are unrealistic, but these are better termed ‘uneconomic theories’ because they don’t actually begin by studying how economies work; rather they begin by studying how economies might be plundered.
Basic micro and macroeconomic theory is proven and not understood at all by the general public.
How prices are set in a relative fee market is not taught except in college level econoics 101.
When the price of oil recently spiked I asked many people how our the oil prices set? all except 2 out of 20 were sure it was big oil with politicians being paid off to allow it.I was laughed at when I suggested supply and demand.
This rejection of basic economic theory due ignorance, makes people very easy targets for liberal ideology.
What strikes me as scary is if you do not believe in markets,many individuals of sellers and buyers acting as Capitalists, how could you ever invision individual choice as a solution to anything such as health care or retirement planning.
Tom Sowell has written highly readable books on hoe economics and individual decisions make the USA great, will my friends and family read them? Absolutely not.
It baffels me to no end.
jprairie:
Did you ever ask your friends that if "Big Oil" and politicians set the price of oil, how is it that oil prices sometimes fall?
JPrairie, et al,
Despair not. The great Obama-socialism experiment is sure to crash and burn in, say, 80 years or so (just as the Soviets crashed and burned … eventually). After which, we can get back to the business of freedom and free-markets.
In the interim, we'll keep the flame burning.
Fortunately, it isn’t necessary to understand [the science of] economics to function in a viable economy. If that were not the case, the whole history of markets would be one long disaster and we would never have developed any markets. Instead, we’d all be nakedly dining on grubs and fighting over scraps. Even leaky-brained socialists admit to the need for strong markets when they are starving or cold.
Bob Stapler:
Despair not. When it does crash and burn, you can be sure the Democrats will have snookered a Republican to be in office to take the blame.
Mr. Stapler,
Your writing is more temperate and self-reflective than a good deal of what I find lately, and in my admittedly untrained estimate, more likely to influence people.
1. "Dissimilation:" Some words evolve over time, (deteriorate?) do they not? Perhaps through misuse and the lexicographers' acquiescence, or perhaps due to changes in culture. So maybe in some cases the dictionary is not seeking to influence us, but being influenced. Maybe you made this point and I missed it.
2. "Anyone care to guess the political orientation of most modern-day lexicographers?" Great question. Too what extent are they liberal compared to the average citizen, or just liberal compared to conservatives?
3. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: "adjective, (of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society. "[RWS note: "…more personal freedom" and "fairer sharing of wealth and power" are conflicting objectives belonging to different philosophies…"
They're not conflicting if the personal freedom refers to homosexual living or premarital sexual relationships. Isn't this confirmed in the conservapaedia entry for American liberalism "…combined with a certain brand of individual libertarianism…"
I have a feeling that I would have to bend my personal definitions in order to go along with everything in conservapaedia, but I am glad that we have it.
Sedonaman:
Re: post #31: How can you be "snookered" into office by the people who are doing everything in their power to make you lose the election?
ruminator:
C'mon. Can't Republicans have a few conspiracy theories of our own?
Well, why not?
ruminator,
I don't agree with Conservapedia's tone, and can find more than a few factual mistakes, but that was not my point in including them. For information, I am more apt to reference Wikipedia if for no other reason than Conservapedia is so sparse. I am more sympathetic to Conservapedia's views and candor, but recognize they labor under a self-imposed disadvantage in the scholarship department. Be that as it may, they still serve as a counterweight to Wikipedia's faux impartiality and, if nothing else, demonstrate just how partial Wikipedia is.
As to the liberal lexicographic bias, there has been no survey or study to show this is the case as there has been showing a similar skewing of the media and academia. Yet, lexicographers are drawn heavily from the ranks of academia and there is no mistaking the bias of academia. If anything lexicographers belong to that subset of academia termed 'liberal arts', and the liberal arts departments of our universities are swimming in self-proclaimed socialist. Why then should we suppose our lexicographers would differ significantly from this near-monopoly of thought or that a conservative voice among them could prevail against a super-majority?
As to some words evolving over time, they do indeed. However, that usually occurs over generations and epochs, rather than months, seasons and years as has been the case since WWII. It is unusual in the extreme that words would shift meaning this radically, eradically and misdirect us so thoroughly; and the rules I gave above serve to alert us when we are played the fool.
ruminator,
Your counter argument "They're not conflicting if the personal freedom refers to homosexual living or premarital sexual relationships. Isn't this confirmed in the conservapaedia entry for American liberalism " …combined with a certain brand of individual libertarianism…" does not really address my point at all. It is a non-sequiteur, because it has no bearing on wealth redistribution whatsoever, and very little to do with personal-freedom because pre-maritals and homosexuals are nowhere near as threatened as they pretend and a good deal less (these days) than some whom homosexuals have themselves victimized. I realize you are trying to derail this discussion onto the homosexual agenda, but must caution you we know this ground.
A system of government that redistributes wealth according to some arbitrary and unverifiable standard of 'fairness' inescapably violates somebody's personal freedoms. You cannot deprive a person of his labor without violating his private right of said labor (a type of theft) in some degree. That is a fixed principle based in experience, not a value or opinion despite a great many liberals think them compatible purely on a value basis.
Homosexual-living is a preference, not a right. Being secure in your person against unjustified violence or seizures is a right. Being able to weigh-in with your opinions of the direction government is going is a political right. Homosexual-living is not a right, it is a preference. Rights are things all people have in common, and homosexual preference simply cannot be found among the things we all have in common. When we elevate every preference to the status of a right, we just end up lowering our standards of what constitutes a right; thereby debasing our true-rights to the point few are still willing to defend them. Then, we all lose to tyranny.
The underlying problem in dialoging with a diehard liberal is a clash of cultures, not opinions.
You would have as much hope for a reasonable response to a better argument between prosecuting and defense attorneys in the middle of a court case.
The real power with conservatism lies in its commitment to the truth wherever that leads, and it is based on fundamental principles whereas communication for a liberal is purely for effect.
It is fundamentally a moral issue.
excerpted from "Rules for Radicals", by Saul Alinsky: Of Means and Ends
We cannot think first and act afterwards. From the moment of birth we are immersed in action and can only fitfully guide it by taking thought. – Alfred North Whitehead
That perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands; the real and only question regarding ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"
Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it.
Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost of means, only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.
The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe's "conscience is the virtue of observers and not of agents of action"; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough for people to be corrupted by them. [...]
I present here a series of rules pertaining to the ethics of means and ends: first, that one's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's distance from the scene of the conflict …
The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. …
The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means. …
The fourth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point. …
The fifth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice-versa. …
you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments. …
goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."
LI Mike,
You are confusing me (and, I suspect, everyone else). There is more than one construction we can be put on what you wrote, and it would be easy to misrepresent your meaning.
You start off by castigating liberals, but end by quoting Alinski's ethics. Which position (conservative or liberal) are you defending? It is unclear from your positioning, what quotation goes with which actor; and, for that matter where each quote starts or ends (quotation marks help). We can't tell from this which of these opinions are yours and which belong to someone else. Would you mind very much clarifying your comments before I comment, as I do not wish to impute something not meant.
Bob – Well taken.
The first 4 paragraphs were my comments and I was trying to be brief. The balance are excerpts from a chapter in Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals.' It could have used a colon and quotations.
The book was published in 1971 and has had plenty of time to get around. Obama is of course someone who is well known to have taught from this very book. Hillary Clinton was offered a position working for Alinsky but went on to grad school at Yale instead. Apparently she disagreed with Alinksy's premise that you cannot change society from within but only from without, which was the theme of her senior thesis at Wellesley.
From reading your article, some of Philip Ellis Jackson's articles and his lightning rod attraction for certain detractors, I thought I'd read up on Alinsky, Ayers, and whoever I could find of the group looking for insight into the motivation of these predictable derailers.
I've wondered what motivates some apparently educated people who seem to try to get things off track, manipulate, and throw others off topic rather than honestly participate with the majority who write very intelligent and logical comments. I just couldn't understand the mindset.
To me, it's a gift to read most of the articles and thoughts. I suppose I read everything written on here whether I fully understand it or not.
Anyway, I think Alinsky and others with similar thoughts have permeated US education on all levels for a lot of time now.
When we're dialogging with those of the modern left, we're assuming we're speaking directly, looking for clarification, assuming everyone is using the language honestly and fairly, etc.
I think what we're up against today is cultural – it's OK, accepted and admired on the left to speak merely for effect. Winning is everything, and intellectual honestly is for the weak; for those who are unnecessarily burdened by a commitment to methods (including dialog) of truth and principle.