Definitions

Even when people are careful with their terms, there are difficulties. For example, a person today may be a social and religious liberal, but a fiscal or economic conservative. And, times change: the early 19th century classical economic liberal is almost totally in contrast with our current meaning.

Furthermore, many people are not careful in their terms. Reading the "Letters to the Editor" in my local newspaper (in April, 2004), one letter writer says: "Liberals cannot find much right with America, but love the United Nations. They despise corporations and capitalism and will do whatever necessary to further the cause of socialism. They oppose the principles of our Judeo-Christian roots and aggressively promote atheism." Another letter writer says: "I know the enemy is Islam and the socialist liberal Democrats. The terrorists and the Democrats have only one agenda -- to gain dictatorial power."

If I were to turn on the radio and listen to a talk-radio show, I might even hear more of this kind of passionate emotional language, using "Liberals" or "so-called Liberals" (snarled sarcastically with a sneer) as an all-purpose attack word, or a code word , suggesting whatever "bad" things they have already associated with it, demonizing others as the agents of all evil.

Variations in definitions can also be a source of humor. In the 1920s, when the humorist Will Rogers was asked what organized political party he belonged to, he answered: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Seeking the moderate vote, in 2000, George W. Bush identified himself as a "compassionate conservative" which his opponents quickly branded an oxymoron.

For clarity, I'll stipulate how I am using my terms.
(You need not agree, but you'll understand my focus.)

Conservative and Progressive rhetoric, as I use the terms, describe situational relationships (between Haves & Have-Nots).

When the Have-Nots -- the Opposition party not in power -- win an election and gain power, then roles reverse. Suddenly their emphasis in rhetoric will change (in relationship terms) from "Change the bad" to "keep the good."

During the American Revolution, for example, Tom Paine wrote "The Crisis" and "Common Sense," two of the most important revolutionary pamphlets responsible for stirring up the colonists' opposition against the British. Tom Paine says: Change! Get rid of the bad!

But, roles reverse. Once the war was over and the new nation established a Constitution, Tom Paine's ideas were considered too radical. By then, his American audience wanted to "keep the good" they had achieved, but Paine was calling for still more change in society (such as a progressive income tax to finance public education, relief for the poor, old age pensions, public work projects for the unemployed -- and, as a deist, he was critical of organized religions). That was too much! Paine died in poverty, widely rejected by the new nation, as one obituary noted: "He had lived long, did some good and much harm."

I've deliberately used the term Progressive (a broader concept) rather than Liberal which I believe suggests a degree of change sought -- that is, a Liberal is a moderate Progressive wanting to change or fix an established system, not an extremist seeking to reject or destroy it.

As I understand it, in Moral Politics, Professor George Lakoff, looking for basic patterns to help clarify the complexity of political language, uses the terms Conservative and Liberal, based on current common usage, to describe a cluster of attitudes and worldviews.

Back to: Lakoff | Conservative/Liberal | Home

In June 2004, an important language issue was the term "sovereignity":

A real transfer of power?
Extracts from PBS News Hour (June 28, 2004) on the transfer of power to the Iraqis:

JIM LEHRER: Now, to two analysts who have been with us since the Iraq war began: Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter, now a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Walter Russell Mead, a columnist and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Dr. Brzezinski, how would you characterize the significance of what happened today?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think it's a good step in the right direction. But I would avoid using Orwellian language in describing it. This is not a transfer of power, a handover to a sovereign government. We are transferring limited authority to a satellite government, a satellite government that is still to establish its legitimacy and the longer we stay, the more difficult it will be before it to gain legitimacy. That is my basic view....

JIM LEHRER: Dr. Mead, how would you summarize this handover or whatever word you would like to use to describe it?

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Well, I agree with Dr. Brzezinski that we don't want to be Orwellian about this but I think maybe satellite, which was used to describe the puppet governments of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe may be a little too extreme....

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Dr. Brzezinski, that with all your reservations that at least something has been ceded to the Iraqis now? They are in charge of a lot more than they were as of this morning.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Yes, let's not pump it up and let's not distort it. We have had too much Orwellian language in our discussion of Iraq altogether. The Orwellian language was invented by communists but it's being adapted in our political discourse by the neocons. We talk about liberation when it's an occupation. We talk about peace when it's war. We talk about sovereignty when it's limited authority.

Let's be realistic in our assessments and then I think we'll be in a better position to conduct a serious national debate over what needs to be done and what is being done.