useless
In a post about the source of the racism and sexism memes in the Democratic primary (How Right Wing Crap Polluted the Democrats), Dave Neiwert at Orcinus gives me the springboard for a post I've been wanting to write for some time:
Professional conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have blown a lot of hot air over the past four decades in a deliberate effort to rob the word "liberal" of any real meaning. They have managed to turn it simply into a caricature of an elitist America-hating snob living in hypocritical splendor while trying to take away our guns, force us all to have abortions, get gay married, and give all of our money to lazy, Cadillac driving welfare queens. The right wing noise machine has been so succesful in this campaign that formerly self-described liberals have attempted to flee to the shelter of the less loaded word "progressive," and liberal politicians have bent over backwards to avoid the liberal label, when, as Daniel Larison at The American Conservative Magazine's blog, Eunomia, states, they ought to embrace it:
Now, at the same time these unprincipled, blowhard footsoldiers of the right wing noise machine have turned the word liberal into a useless descriptor of actual political thought, they have managed to rob their own word, conservative, of any of its usefulness as well (with the help of some opportunistic Republican politicians, of course). The conservatism of William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater has morphed into a strange coalition of warhawks, religious "family values" voters, corporatists, and middle-Americans whose only real shared value is that of American Exceptionalism: If America is doing it, it's right, and to suggest otherwise is un-patriotic (and by extension, liberal).
The end result of all of this is that the two most common words used to describe political thoughts and ideas in America have been rendered effectively useless, other than to tar a political opponent. And for the Limbaughs and Coulters, that's mission accomplished. Poisoning the discourse and muddying the waters has been their goal all along.
In the introduction to his 1964 treatise, A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge, former Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy addresses a little of what I have addressed here. He suggests that,in the absence of a clear definition of what liberal is, we abolish the use of the word as a noun and embrace it as an adjective:
Putting aside that odd reference to vegetarians (seriously, what?), the Senator is on to something. I have as many beefs with the far left of the political spectrum as I do with the right. I'm not a communist or a socialist anymore than I am a corporatist or a nationalist. Applying Senator McCarthy's rubric, the closest descriptor I can come up with for my political beliefs is that I'm a liberal libertarian (gotta love the Latin root!): I don't believe that liberty comes in the absence of government, but in the strict accountability of government to the governed.
Somehow, I doubt the term liberal libertarian will catch on. I dearly hope the accountability thing does, though.
That's how right-wing crap works. It's not meant to advance or even partake of discourse; it's meant to end it. One can argue the worth of Hillary's policies or her voting record or her position on the war till the cows come home; but when she's reduced to being a bitch, that pretty much ends the discussion. And when it's as pervasive as it's become in the past decade, its effects are paralyzingly toxic.
Professional conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have blown a lot of hot air over the past four decades in a deliberate effort to rob the word "liberal" of any real meaning. They have managed to turn it simply into a caricature of an elitist America-hating snob living in hypocritical splendor while trying to take away our guns, force us all to have abortions, get gay married, and give all of our money to lazy, Cadillac driving welfare queens. The right wing noise machine has been so succesful in this campaign that formerly self-described liberals have attempted to flee to the shelter of the less loaded word "progressive," and liberal politicians have bent over backwards to avoid the liberal label, when, as Daniel Larison at The American Conservative Magazine's blog, Eunomia, states, they ought to embrace it:
That means that a nominee who is running on the most left-wing platform of any candidate since McGovern (as is Clinton, as was Edwards!) is effectively pretty far to the left. If you’re a liberal or an Obama supporter, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that and presumably it is the reason why you’re supporting him (conservatives who are supporting him primarily because of the war are obviously the radical exception).
Now, at the same time these unprincipled, blowhard footsoldiers of the right wing noise machine have turned the word liberal into a useless descriptor of actual political thought, they have managed to rob their own word, conservative, of any of its usefulness as well (with the help of some opportunistic Republican politicians, of course). The conservatism of William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater has morphed into a strange coalition of warhawks, religious "family values" voters, corporatists, and middle-Americans whose only real shared value is that of American Exceptionalism: If America is doing it, it's right, and to suggest otherwise is un-patriotic (and by extension, liberal).
The end result of all of this is that the two most common words used to describe political thoughts and ideas in America have been rendered effectively useless, other than to tar a political opponent. And for the Limbaughs and Coulters, that's mission accomplished. Poisoning the discourse and muddying the waters has been their goal all along.
In the introduction to his 1964 treatise, A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge, former Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy addresses a little of what I have addressed here. He suggests that,in the absence of a clear definition of what liberal is, we abolish the use of the word as a noun and embrace it as an adjective:
In religion one could not simply be a liberal, but would be a liberal Baptist, a liberal Anglican, a liberal Catholic, or a liberal of some other denomination. In politics he would be a liberal Republican, a liberal Democrat, or a liberal Vegetarian.
Putting aside that odd reference to vegetarians (seriously, what?), the Senator is on to something. I have as many beefs with the far left of the political spectrum as I do with the right. I'm not a communist or a socialist anymore than I am a corporatist or a nationalist. Applying Senator McCarthy's rubric, the closest descriptor I can come up with for my political beliefs is that I'm a liberal libertarian (gotta love the Latin root!): I don't believe that liberty comes in the absence of government, but in the strict accountability of government to the governed.
Somehow, I doubt the term liberal libertarian will catch on. I dearly hope the accountability thing does, though.
posted by poverty at 11:08 AM
1 Comments:
well said.
Post a Comment
<< Home