Name Calling
Dan Morgan accuses Glenn Reynolds of being a conservative.
I can’t agree with Dan on this one, if only because by his lights I’m one, too. After giving the matter a little thought and a large cocktail, I’d like to propose a new two-part political labeling system.
What do you call someone whose politics are far to the left, but who wants to achieve his goals through free elections? In today’s parlance, that guy is a liberal.
But what’s the label for someone with the same goals, but through violent means? You might call him a radical, but radical isn’t descriptive enough. Sure, it means someone who wants radical change – but in which direction?
Yes, “reactionary” is what some people call right-wing radicals, but that label is no good, either. A Libertarian could be considered a reactionary, if you forget about slavery and women’s’ rights. Then again, not even Pat Buchanan has (yet) called for taking the vote away from women or putting black people in chains.
Our terms don’t work. I’d call them outdated, but that might get me labeled a reactionary. Or a radical. Or something. Also, I’m not sure our lingo was ever, ah, indated.
What we need are a hyphenated labels, indicating both direction and means.
Take me for example. Individually, each of my political values is more libertarian than not. But as I wrote two weeks ago, I’d rather lose on the issues than corrupt the Constitution. What does that make me? A libertarian-conservative. Libertarian goals, conservative temperament. I’d wager that Glenn would wear the same label, maybe even happily.
So. We need five labels to cover beliefs:
What’s in a Name (label)?
It has been difficult in recent political times to truly label someone by their political views. Stephen at the Vodkapundit has some suggestions for setting us straight…What do you call someone whose politics are far to the left, but who wants to ach…
Oh no Stephen, no, we’re not doomed. We probably make up 40% of the Republican Party, 30% of Democrats, and over 50% of independents. If we’re not an outright majority then we’re a very large plurality of all the folk in this nation. I believe we will coalesce soon, and when we do we will take back the terms “liberal” and “progressive” as we are their rightful owners.
And we can advance quickly. If you don’t believe me, you just watch what Kadima
Although I like Stephen’s ideas of the hyphenated labels…it still rankles me when I hear people say, ‘Bob? Well, Bob, he’s an African-American!’ Really? Was he born in Africa? I have a friend that was born in Africa…but he is of Chinese descent. That makes him more of an African-American than it does an Asian-American, doesn’t it?
The problem with the hyphenated terms is…well, people will mis-use the terms. they will mix them in strange ways…sort of like how we hear, ‘Dick Cheney is part of the neo-conservative movement.’ Or, remember in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there was a different label…the Doves and the Hawks. Or should I say, Dove (Powell) and Hawks (everyone else).
In the old days, we had only two labels…American and Commie. If you love America…you are an American. If you hate America…you are a Commie. I think I’ll stick with those. There is very little room for error or misinterpretation.
Right vs Left: The Labeling Game
Every so often in the blogosphere, the old label argument rears its ugly head. Someone asserts that the old Left vs. Right and Liberal vs. Conservative labels don’t apply and a round of blog posts gets written in reaction.
This time, Glenn Re…
Seems to me that the X-y grid for political views is the best way to analyze classifications.
“Conservative-libertarian” appears to be indistinguishable from “objectivist”, although Ayn Rand would no doubt disagree.
No, I’m not a Conservative
No, I’m not a conservative and neither is Glenn Reynolds. I’m a neo-libertarian. It’s kind of like being a conservative, only we dig the notion of legal pimps and hoes. And it’s kind of like being a libertarian, only we…
Oh, please, Stephen, you are a conservative too.
There are two reasons for your refusal. First, you don’t think it’s cool to be a conservative. You’re what, around 40? You grew up in the 70′s and early 80′s, an era when MSM dominance was still total. Back then, “conservatives” were either Joe Friday or Gomer Pyle. Liberals, on other hand, were laid back types with lots of chicks. You were brainwashed by these stereotypes back then and you still haven’t totally let go.
Second, on a related note, you have also bought into the idea that conservatives are bible-thumping gay bashers. Well, that’s simply not true. Every conservative has gay friends and relatives. We’re not trying to “convert” them to heterosexuality. Many, like me, would quietly go along with the idea of “civil unions” if they were really amounted to no more than a healthcare power of attorney and a tax exemption. We are opposed to gay marriage not because we hate fags but becuase we don’t like judges tinkering with concept of the human family, an institution hundreds of thousands of years old.
You and the MSM still think conservatives are guys like Pat Buchannan. Well, we’re not. Conservatives are people like Sam Alito, Condi Rice, George Bush, and Dick Cheney. I think you’re a conservative too. It’s okay to admit it.
Too complex, Stephen. We already have terms to describe the different political positions, it’s making them stick that’s a problem. People who are socialists shouldn’t be allowed to get away with calling themselves liberals.
For myself, I prefer Godless Capitalist.
A conservative is someone who wants to conserve… something. The question is whether it’s Christianity or capitalism. Their political beliefs support capitalism, but their Christian ethical beliefs pull them towards socialism. Ethics trumps politics every time.
I prefer “Silly” and “Serious”. John Dean, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi are “silly” They cannot be taken seriously as they are incoherent.
Rumsfield, Cheney, Bush, Blair, are “Serious” as they have responsibilities and reasoned processes for their decisions.
Depending on the topic and time of day we’re all somewhere in between the two. You and Reynolds flights of silliness reflect reason and respect for responsibility. Huffington, Streisand, Kos are lacking in reason and have not shown familiarity with the concept of responsibility.
If labels are necessary. Birds of a feather take flight together. Mixed flocks are rare.
Oh, come, let’s keep this simple. You really only need two classifications to get through life: “people who agree with me,” and “assholes.”
What’s in a name?
This discussion re-surfaces like a dead carp every so often in the blogosphere.
Glenn got the ball rolling by denying he was a conservative:
Not being a conservative myself, I don’t have a dog in this hunt, exactly. But remind me again, who was t…
The need to shorten and simplify appears. Use numbers instead of words. You are a 5D.
And so am I.
A False Dichotomy
A discussion has broken out over a post at Is Instapundit a Conservative? over Glenn Reynolds’ ideological persuasion.
Wrote Dan Morgan of NoSpeedBumps.com:
There is no avoiding labeling to some degree. For the biggest labels, there are only tw…
I’m getting to the point that “progressives” are socialists.
I really want to have fun, just call em commies.
It works, especially after what I attended a couple of weeks ago at a church.
Progressives never tell you what they want to progress to, cos if they did, you’d think they’re loons.
I remember some poster somewhere finally got it out of 1.
It was a woman, until everyone wears burkas and has voice boxes so no one could tell the difference, we wouldn’t be equal.
Of course, not mentioned was height differential and body type.
Or you could go the R Buckminster Fuller route and just start hyphenating like mad to express new concepts, even when the hyphenees appear to be unrelated.
So, Glenn would be a constructionist-libertarian-conservative-technophile, you could be a constructionist-libertarian-conservative-vodkaphile, etc.
I would label myself a universalist-libertarian-empiricist-conservative.
Of course, we probably need an n-dimensional polygon to accurately express these things (as various degrees of arc), as opposed to mere words. I eagerly await the synaptic-processor interfaces that will allow us to easily communicate in such concepts.
Aw, hell – I just knew we’d end up having to buy expensive equipment.
When I think about what it means to be conservative, I always come back to the idea of “the human condition”. I believe in the human condition, and that human nature has not changed in thousands of years. That is why older works of literature, such as The Bible, The Illiad, Plato, Shakespear, and even Mark Twain still resonate with us. Humans have been doing the same things to each other forever, and barring some sort of forced brain tweaking, will probably continue to do do.
Conservatives seem to acknowledge this, and base their value and principals on time tested, practical rules that have been handed down from our ancestors through our literature, our culture, and our language. Western Judeo-Christian’s cultural ascendence in the last 500 years is not an accident, but an obvious consequence of how we live our lives.
Liberals seem to ignore these things – something snapped in the 60′s-70′s rebellion that led a lot of people to believe that the rules don’t apply anymore. This reasoning, besides already being proved wrong, tends to lead people to aruge that “we must change human nature”. I have seen a lot of political arguments end with that statement, and it scares me, since it will lead to reeducation camps.
-Donut
I do think Reynolds has become more conservative over the last couple of years.
Long time fan, first comment. You might want to check out my neighbor’s blog at: http://theleotest.typepad.com, starting with:
http://theleotest.typepad.com/the_leo_test/2005/06/prolegomena.html
He’s a professor of politics who is developing a test to accurately model political/voting behavior in the US based on a questionnaire containing certain ‘buzzwords’for the lack of a better term. It is quite fascinating, and while still under testing, already had some fascinating results, including publishers’interest.
Might be just the thing you need to solve your ‘our terms don’t work’problem…
“People who are socialists shouldn’t be allowed to get away with calling themselves liberals”
“I’m getting to the point that “progressives” are socialists….I really want to have fun, just call em commies”
Amen to both. “Progressives”, “liberals”, Socialists, Communists….that’s the progression, isn’t it? And what distinquishes the fundamental “values” of each of these groups? Not a whole heck of a lot if you consider the fact that each doesn’t respect your right to control your property or your life. Its just a matter of degree, Communists take everything and “progressives” merely want to tax everything.
Maybe “Commies” goes too far but tell me how “progressive” ideas significantly differ from liberal and socialist ideas and I’ll send a $100 to Moveon.
Take a look at the Pournelle political axes:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
Interesting discussion. My two cents:
“Liberal” in contemporary parlance has come to mean (basically, with reservations and exceptions…) Socially Permission/Economically Authoritarian
“Conservative” has come to mean Socially Not-So-Permissive/Economically Permissive
Why things have crystallized this way, I don’t know, but that is the GENERAL usage these words now have.
Creeping into the debate is the Socially and Economically Permissive Persion (SEPP), or, the Libertarian, most of whom seem to be in an extremely uncomfortable and tentative alliance with conservatives/republicans.
Socially and Economically Authorian people seem quite rare, for some reason – Pat Buchanan?
Yeah, Pat Buchanan, the anti-Libertarian.
So, we have
Liberal
Conservative
Libertarian
Anti-Libertarian
Someone should point out Steven Den Beste’s eight-dimensional explanation of political leanings: http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/LeftandRight.shtml
So What Is A Conservative?
TMV is the weary recipient of the label-sticking game. “How can you call yourself a moderate?” If you haven’t seen it, keep reading comments here during a given week and you’ll likely see it come from the right or the left (oh, the last one on the left…
Subdivisions
This seems to be the day to define terms–and maybe invent a few along the way. No Speed Bumps and VodkaPundit are debating what is a conservative, liberal and leftist, using the Professor as a Stretch Armstrong doll along the…
Heh
I kinda like this a lot
Heh, I always have trouble explaining my political beliefs to people in single words. I’m a conservative by this definition, a liberal by this, populist by this, libertarian by this. I vote Libertarian at the federal le…
Something that might be relevant here.
“Aw, hell – I just knew we’d end up having to buy expensive equipment.”
“…and someone with simpler equipment (say a stone axe) sneaks up and bashes you over the head while you’re trying to read a vernier.” — Robert Heinlein
Too Much Information is not necessarily a virtue.
I
I read Stephen Den Beste’s treatise mentioned above a couple of years ago but it was good to read it again. I think it’s the definitive word on the subject.
Progressives never tell you what they want to progress to, cos if they did, you’d think they’re loons.
-Sandy P
That’s going in the quote file.
Heck, I just say I have “libertarian leanings,” (rather strong sometimes). Let’s see, if I supported the return of dueling, particularly for Congress, what would I be called?
I’m an “American Experimenter” because I am a participant and strong believer in the on-going, dynamic, entrepreneurial, always-entertaining American Experiment in self-gov’t and the pursuit of happiness.
Today our primary domestic opponents to this experiment are socialists (whether they call themselves liberals, progressives, greens, whatever). In another time it might be someone else.
The American Experiment is not a conservative phenomena. It is the antithesis of “standing athwart history yelling stop.” It is like Jazz: sometimes you play as part of a group and sometimes you solo; sometimes you play what has been written and sometimes you improvise, but you always do it with style and a smile.
-
I am a steady rolling man – a Maximust.
.