The nomenclature of political ideology can be murky and relative, especially over the past 100 years. Here is how I see the definitions of political identities and why the modern terminology can be dangerously biased and fundamentally misleading.
In the days immediately following the 2020 presidential election, I noticed a very funny thing. People who I have know for decades as"conservatives" and "Republicans" suddenly became "Progressives." Likewise, many who I had known for decades as"Progressives" suddenly became conservatives as well as "democrats." There were very few "liberals" to be found anywhere; liberalism was about as welcome in this election-year as mail-in ballots, electronic tallying software, electoral colleges, face masks, lock-downs, and the two presidential candidates. I should know. I'm a liberal.
For some reason many of my friends seemed shocked by this, even though I have always been a liberal. I have always supported equal protection under the law. I have always supported civil liberties. I have always supported the rule of law and the right to sue for the redress of inequity, I have always supported the rights of private property and the restriction of government to interfere with that property or those liberties. I have always supported the consent of the taxed with regard to taxation. In other words; a liberal.
Likewise, in the American sense, I have always been a republican (lowercase "r") in that I believe in a tightly limited republican form of government with representational democracy primarily at the state and local level, and a highly restrained federal government with severely restricted federal powers.
What I have never been is a"progressive" or a"statist," two things that somewhere along the way, got latched onto liberalism like a malignant tumor, and both of which are entirely antithetical to the classic concepts of liberalism as based on liberty, which is defined as such: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. The irony of course being, that most of what modern"liberals" stand for is against these very concepts in the extreme.
Not that "conservatives" fare much better. If you look at the classic definition of conservative as: 1.) Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values. or 2.) (in a political context) favoring free-enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas, you see that both political definitions of liberal and conservative are mostly superimposed, but neither reflect the current liberal ideal as"a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare."
How this came about is a long and rather tiresome story about the concepts of political left and political right, and how left came to denote liberal and right conservative, regardless of any objective truth. This confusion was not accidental, and like the terms"progressive" and "social justice," drift from mere jingoism to downright subterfuge when applied as a political philosophy on either side.
Let's look, for example, at the "progressive" (and thus new-liberal) concept of Affirmative Action. Even the name is loaded: Affirmative: noun. something that affirms or asserts; a positive statement or proposition; affirmation. A reply indicating assent, as Yes or I do. A manner or mode that indicates assent: a reply in the affirmative. Action: the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim. "He vowed to take tougher action against persistent offenders."
Thus, from the onset, this progressive concept is positioned as a positive statement to achieve an aim, the aim being to ostensibly provide fairness and equity to minorities. This seems like a harmless enough concept, if you happen to be a progressive-- but if you are a liberal-- it's horrific, since the very concept is against"the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." Not to mention the logical infringement on private property, by telling a proprietor of a business who they may or may not hire.
Liberals need to get the statists and progressives off their spot, since there is nothing remotely liberal about collectivist philosophy. What is interesting though, is how suddenly relativism can turn conservatives into statists and progressives as well.
In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, many Republicans who have hitherto been against activist courts suddenly found them very appealing. Likewise states' rights and the division of powers. If conservatism is averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values, how on Earth can a conservative justify an abandonment of such quintessentially American ideals as the separation of powers and a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution?
The real answer of course is populism which has come to dominate the entire political ideology on all sides of the spectrum, all over the world. Populism is defined as a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups, the paradox being, that everyone thinks everyone else is the establishment or an elitist group. Medical people, journalists, political scientists, intellectuals; white people, men, business owners, capitalists. In fact; regardless of your political affiliation, the identity politics of populism can readily make you agree that anyone who does not subscribe to your particular (and parochial) world-view is the establishment or an elitist group"out to get you" and "your kind."
This is a very dangerous concept in a republic, where the only hope of getting anything done is to compromise in good faith. But it would be wrong to heap this current wave of"populism" on the back of Mr. Trump and his supporters. Mr. Trump and his supporters are merely the backlash of"progressive" populism that has harped on the American psyche for the past 120 years. By framing one side of the political spectrum as"progressive" (thus the other side - by extension - as regressive") you foment a mash that will inevitably ferment into a volatile substance. If you go even further down into that vat, and call that festering mash"liberalism" you are really upping the proof when it finally gets distilled.
And that's where we are today. We have distilled populism into two strong and dangerous liquors called conservative and liberal that are so far removed from the fruit of the trees that bore them that they are barely recognizable. And they are both really dangerous and intoxicating liquors too I might add-- especially when guzzled not sipped, like we are doing now.
There is a solution of course; liberalism. A return to the values on which we founded the American republic. Let's allow the statists and the progressives to state their views freely and openly (as is their right) but let's hold them and their nomenclature accountable. Let's remind them that when liberties are curtailed that is"regressive" not"progressive," no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig, And that when you increase the power of government that is not liberal but statist.
Free speech is a right; exercising it is a privileged. Like any privilege, using it wisely with discretion will yield the most productive results. Using it haphazardly and with willful misdirection will lead to angst and discord. The choice is entirely up to us, and of course, the progressive statists and the populist quasi conservatives.
Comments