Filibuster Cartoons
 |
|
 |
One reason why advertisements today are so much uglier, louder, and crasser than the classy advertisements of the Mad Men era is because ugly, loud, crass ads sell products better. In other words, advertising tried the high road and the low road, and ultimately concluded that the low road was better for the bottom line.
The same seems to be holding true for democratic politics, particularly in the realm of political terminology. In more mature times, terms like liberal, conservative, socialist, and communist actually had fairly finite, neutral definitions, meaning there was a right and a wrong way to use them just as there was a right and a wrong way to use adjectives like “new” and “improved.” When President Eisenhower described himself as a “liberal” in the 1950s, for instance, he was evoking the definition most commonly used by historians and economists, that is, one who desires a free society and free markets — literally, “one of liberty.” Now, of course, the term has been corrupted to mean something else entirely, essentially, “one who is liberal with things;” liberal with spending money, liberal with drugs, liberal with sex, and so on. “Socialist,” in turn, is now simply “more liberal,” while “conservative” or “moderate” is “less liberal,” or in some cases “liberal more slowly.”
All have become weapons of some sort. In these sound-byte times of ours, the only reason to identify another man as a member of some larger ideological pack or movement is to discredit him through association, and in a tight political race the more negative the association the better. So President Obama is called a “socialist” for no other reason than it ties him to a certain stereotype of discredited government in Europe or Cuba or elsewhere, while Governor Romney is a “liberal” because that reminds us of Obama.
Now, there’s obviously some modicum of truth in both designations — Obama clearly has some mildly redistributionist tendencies, and Romney’s political past was clearly quite permissive and non-judgemental — but the question becomes how far does one have to veer in either direction before you qualify for the worst label imaginable? If we’ve now decided that “socialist” is an acceptable tag for anything slightly more redistributionist than the alternative, then why not “Marxist” or “communist?” Why not “dictator” or “terrorist,” while we’re at it? If you abandon the pretence that strict definitions matter in favor of what’s “close enough,” why not just go all the way all of the time? After all, isn’t everyone a little bit terroristy, on some level?
These are not new complaints, of course. Back in 1946, in one of his most famous essays, George Orwell griped about politics and the English language noting, among other things that “the word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable,’” and that terms like “democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.” The end result, then as now, was a political culture in which it was almost impossible for anyone to actually have a concrete idea of what anyone actually stood for, since, as Orwell put it, almost all attempts at political labeling were simply crude partisan attempts “to make lies sound truthful.”
Obviously, there is a genuine cleavage of opinion in contemporary western politics that falls into two fairly clean and identifiable camps. In all societies, there is generally a faction of the population who has something to gain from a stronger, larger, and more activist government, and a faction who benefit from being left alone. The former faction, likewise, tends to believe that human culture is constantly being perfected and horned, while the latter generally assumes we’ve already figured out workable answers to most of the important questions. Within both tribes there are extremists, moderates, and passives.
My question to you guys would be this: what do you think are the most accurate terms we can use to describe the political splits and movements we see today? Are “liberal,” “conservative,” and “socialist” meaningless slurs discredited beyond salvaging? Or do you think we all just need to get over ourselves a bit and accept that labels will always be a necessary part of making a complicated world easier to comprehend?
We all like to believe we’re unique snowflakes that no man can ever classify, I understand, and certainly there’s no modern phenomenon more tiresome and predictable than a young person who proudly declares that his opinions “don’t really fit into any box.” But does that mean every label always has to be an inaccurate insult?
January 25th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Well they are all relative I supposed- within the Left there are dozens of different terms. The terms social democrat and democratic socialist are heavily debated within the NDP.
I tend to identify with the socialist label as I believe stoping (are reversing) the current redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich will help create greater income equality. Science has been very clear that market democracies with the greater income equality are healthier societies.
But since I support the current market democracy I'm not really a very good socialist- just your standard pro-capitalist social democrat. But I'm a realist, I see with continuing economic and environmental crisis that capitalism will simply fail and the workers are going to have to think about transitioning to a socialist order as a means of survival. The old "socialism or barbarism" type thing.
I'm not sure most people really understand what socialism means (i.e a economy democratically owned and planned by workers rather holders of capital). When people start calling Obama a socialist then they haven't done their research. That man is more right wing then Harper.
January 25th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
I don't think it's too out of bounds to call Obama a Socialist. If we were in any other country in the world, would there be any doubt he'd be on the ticket of a party labeling itself as some sort of Socialist?
I could also get into a nerdier discussion on whether Obama is a Keynesian or has any political affiliation at all with JFK, but I'll spare you.
January 25th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
I think the average person (eg person not involved in politics) only understands Liberal and Conservative, As these are the traditional two political points of view, both in the US and in Canada. However the underlying meaning has shifted, depending on which country you are in.
Basically, in Canada, the socialist party is the NDP, and we have a separate "Liberal" party that plays center. Where as the US doesn't have a socialist party, but the socialists tend to be represented in the Democratic party. Meanwhile the US Republican party represents conservatives but also Christian fundamentalists. So in the US you have two parties with "crazy fringe" elements that make voting for either party an act of holding your nose.
US political parties are simply too corrupt and no longer represent the people (Congress = the people, Senate = the state,) just corporate interests. The US Voters don't know who is owned by who. Perhaps politicians every time they show up on TV should be wearing sponsor patches on their suits. Somewhere along the line bribery became "Lobbying" and everyone had to start doing it or wind up on the losing side of some other corporation lobbying. The people in all branches of the government routinely engage in insider trading. Both parties do it. They have no interest in changing the status quo.
Next US federal selection cycle, should be interesting as Congress has the significantly low approval ratings. 11%. Why would you want anything to be passed by the current congress?
January 25th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
ugh, House=The People. Senate = The State. I edited the comment too many times before posting :)
January 25th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
What an excellent post (no sarcasm). Well done – I hope you don't mind that I link to it from mine.
January 25th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Obama may be quite liberal, but he is no socialist, as ‘socialism’ requires policies leading towards generalized nationalization. He’s just a garden-variety Keynesian who believes that government ought to regulate/manipulate the supply of credit for the betterment of the public and occasionally provide preferable conditions (read: subsidies) to certain sectors of industry. Even his “Obamacare” plan is really just a reinforcement of the dominant position of the health insurance cartel in America.
The problem is that no one distinguishes between the different classes of liberalism. People think Obama is very liberal because of his position on social issues, but on many other issues like the economy and taxation he is firmly centre-left, and on some, like foreign policy and militarism, he has “neocon” tendencies. Some of his positions, like his apparent belief in the supremacy of the executive branch, don’t even fall within the standard left/right dichotomy.
January 25th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
I'm not sure if the "liberal with things" bit is just a bit of wordplay or you think that's actually why it's used to describe the left, but either way I think it's worthwhile to mention the actual reason it's associated with the left.
Basically that reason boils down to "economics is complicated". Anyone who thinks there's a simple, known, magic bullet for all economic problems needs only to look at state of the world to see that either such a solution does not exist, or such a solution is not known. Of course I'm aware that there are many, from all corners of the political spectrum, who believe that it does exist and it isn't known to the mainstream (although, of course, _they_ know it) but the point is so varied are these proposed solutions and so lacking is a mainstream consensus on any of them that it's not enough to just pick one and say that's the solution.
I seem to have gone off topic slightly, but the point is liberals call themselves that because they don't believe the free market actually benefits liberty. A free market is not necessarily a compeditive one, which is why we have taxes and welfare that "conservatives" may grumble about but will never eliminate entirely. Left-wing "liberals" come from the principles of classical liberalism, they just view it in a slightly different light to Eisenhower.
January 25th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
I think that's true to a point, but I also think the evolution of the term "liberal" into a left-wing thing was more complicated than that. Especially insomuch as it's been used as an insult, the term is very much meant to evoke the "liberal with things" sentiment I originally mentioned, that is, a politician who has a "liberal" (in the conversational, everyday sense) attitude towards spending money or judging others. Which is to say, undisciplined and permissive.
It seems that the whole idea of "economic liberal" is being increasingly phased out, in fact. The majority of politicians now proudly identify as "fiscal conservatives" in order to indicate their support of free markets, balanced budgets, etc, while a small minority might call themselves "socialists" to indicate their preference for something else, like PTBO did above. Which might also be a somewhat forgiving explanation of why "socialist" has become such a popular insult for left-wing economy policy.
January 25th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Firstly, I think in many countries Obama would be centrist, if not right of centre. Certainly he would be here (New Zealand).
Secondly, the "Socialist" party label does not really equate to socialist philosophy, anymore than the labels "Republican" and "Democrat" really reflect anything aboutthose parties. Most of the "socialist" parties in power in Europe are very much creatures of the centre left- what would in American parlance be called "liberal"
January 26th, 2012 at 12:12 am
I'd say the two titles that would most accurately describe what we're butting our heads against would be Collectivist and Individualist. Collectivists want to elevate the group above the individual, Individualists put the individual ahead of the group.
January 26th, 2012 at 8:35 am
I think 'liberal', at least in Canada, still remains a fairly neutral term. However, that's probably because it's the name of one of the political parties.
January 26th, 2012 at 10:26 am
"In all societies, there is generally a faction of the population who has something to gain from a stronger, larger, and more activist government, and a faction who benefit from being left alone. The former faction, likewise, tends to believe that human culture is constantly being perfected and horned, while the latter generally assumes we’ve already figured out workable answers to most of the important questions."
This perhaps encapsulates the divide beyond petty labels. Thomas Sowell calls these qualities the constrained and unconstrained vision of life.
January 26th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Honestly, I think we agree. What's "Liberal" in the States is "Socialist" elsewhere.
Does that mean that all these socialist parties want to divvy up private wealth and recreate a utopian egalitarian society? No. They simply want to take money from those who have and give it to those who have not in some interest of "Fairness."
The fact that Obama would be "Centrist" just shows how far Left the world has become. It's been argues that Barry has nationalized more of the US economy than Hugo Chavez has nationalized of Venezuela's.
January 26th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Another point would be that calling Romney a Liberal may give him too much credit toward having some sort of conviction.
January 26th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
If we don't use labels like 'liberal' consistently according to their meaning but use them as relativistic or abusive terms, then it's pointless to use them.
But I don't think they're irrelevant – just misused. The actual meanings are not that unclear.
The larger European parties calling themselves socialist (those aligned with the Socialist International, not the small parties to their left) aren't at all socialist and are leftish liberals at best. Many of them have actively participated in cutting welfare and privatisation.
A welfare state in a private economy is not a socialist position – it is social democratic. In practice many liberals and even conservatives accept a welfare state of some sort.
The classic liberal position is a small state, e.g. the Dutch VVD Prime Minister is a liberal and outside of religious issues is to the right of the christian democrat (conservative) party. In the US you might call him a libertarian. In Canada, he might fit into the BC liberals but federally might equally be comfortable with the Tories.
Conservatism is the only really slippery one. As the name suggests it changes with the context, and has meant support for monarchy, imperialism, religious instruction in schools, allsorts, but also generally a right-wing economic programme.
January 26th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Isn't it an insult because since Clinton's triangulation efforts, nobody has really stood up to positively self-identify as liberal and say 'this is a liberal vision' and say something coherent in the way conservatives have done and done well.
(Other than Canadian Liberals, obviously, but manifestos don't count. As far as US political discourse goes, neither do Canadians, I guess.)
January 27th, 2012 at 2:28 am
So Romney has no convictions and Gingrich deserves conviction?
January 27th, 2012 at 2:31 am
I'm pretty sure you two don't agree. The person you replied to said that what's "liberal" in the States (or, in fact, "socialist" in the States) is centrist or conservative elsewhere.
I agree with that point of view; as a New Zealander, I could see Obama, based on his policies fitting right in with the right-of-centre National Party (its liberal wing, at any rate – there is a socon/traditionalist faction he might have some disagreements with). I wouldn't call him a natural fit for the Labour Party (which describes itself in its Constitution as "democratic socialist and social democratic"), but I imagine he wouldn't be particularly out of place in its right wing – but he hews far too close to the centre for the left wing to welcome him. But my inclination is definitely to think he'd be on the right.
For example, the abolition of torts for personal injury and the creation of a state-run monopoly national insurance system to replace it is centrist politics here; given that Obama has never indicated he would support such a system in the United States, and would probably react with hostility (something to do with freedom, no doubt, and maybe moral hazards) to the suggestion, it's reasonable to assume he is far more of a market liberal than either of the major parties here. On the other hand, if such a system were already in place, I can imagine him supporting opening the previously-mentioned monopoly up to private competition — a decidedly right-wing policy in the local context.
This is all in terms of domestic policy, of course — I've left out evaluation of foreign policy because Obama's current foreign policy naturally depends on the current role of America in the world, and it would presumably be different if he were a politician in a different country.
January 27th, 2012 at 2:45 am
The labels don't make as much sense in the big term; because mostly it is a prediction on the lookers part to figure out what the politician believes in. They might appear someway to until they surprise you with things like saying I want lunar colonies or I was for before I was against it. It could turn out they were fiscally conservative but had liberal ideals on trade. Then what? One last label could be "criminal" then all their beliefs go out the window because they will do anything for benefit.
Why it gets confusing is that in a single nation everyone participates in the same form of government or market based on it's rules or geography instead of the one they want. So they have to play by some semblance of the rules to keep their jobs. A better system to label yourself or confirm others would be a facebook game where you get your own a country to run markets based on your beliefs.
January 27th, 2012 at 10:30 am
Hey! I'm a Christian, who believes in the fundamentals of my faith, and I'd like to think I'm not crazy. I'm certainly not a Westboro Baptist. I quite agree with your summary of the political parties, however. That's why I'm voting for "crazy 'ole Ron Paul."
January 28th, 2012 at 6:14 am
I would love to see the argument that Obama has nationalized America more than Chavez has Venezuala. That's an absurd statement that wouldn't even have much traction with the mainstream Right in America. Of course it's been argued that Obama is a secret Muslim with a fake birth certificate and possibly the Anti Christ as well. Just because someone, somewhere has said it doesn't inherently give it weight.
January 28th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
But I think you have to consider the politician's overall temperament, background, and general orientation too, and view how those impulses are tamed in the context of the country's larger political center of gravity.
In other words, politicians will generally be as right/left as the political/party culture will allow them to be in any given time. Obama may be a bit more cryptic than some others, but I have no doubt, for instance, that someone like Nancy Pelosi would be in the NDP in Canada, or the socialist or far-left party in most other countries. From an international perspective she may seem more "moderate," but that's because the US party system doesn't operate in ideological extremes, and the Democratic Party has to hug the centre, or even the centre-right at all times in order to be electorally viable in an enormous country where most voters are very cautious and pragmatic.
It's the same reason why the US doesn't have a mainstream far-right party the way many European countries do, even though you could probably imagine a few US politicians whose temperament, background, etc would lead them to be a member if such a thing existed, and was a plausible path to elected office.
January 29th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Well, it’s possible that Obama might be further left in a country with more room to the left, but it’s also possible that he’s rather happy where he is, and would be a Liberal or a Christian Democrat or very moderate Labour in Europe. Even within US constraints, he’s not exactly rattling the cage to the left; one can easily find more leftist Democrats in Congress.
As for being Keynesian — not a very good one. Yes, he started off with a Keynesian stimulus, but it was 1/3 the size of what outside economists said it had to be, and he started aping Republican policy points quickly enough under pressure.
“In all societies, there is generally a faction of the population who has something to gain from a stronger, larger, and more activist government, and a faction who benefit from being left alone. The former faction, likewise, tends to believe that human culture is constantly being perfected and horned, while the latter generally assumes we’ve already figured out workable answers to most of the important questions.”
That seems a massively ahistorical generalization. Explicit notions of perfectibility seem rather modern, and fights are often not about the size of government but how it should be used. I don’t think you’ll find small government advocates in the Roman Republic. You will find populares and optimates, which points you at a much more common split: advocates for the poor and masses vs. advocates of power and privilege. The former might be actual poor people, idealistic rich people, or rich people trying to use populism for power; the latter might genuinely believe they’re superior in some way, or just be holding onto their power.
January 29th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
I would call Obama a crony capitalist.
January 31st, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Obama nationalized 2 out of 3 of the Big 3 auto companies and handed GM to his political allies in the AFL/CIO. He's claiming moral ownership of banks since the bailouts (tells supposedly private banks they cannot give bonuses). He tightened government control over health insurance and medical care industries.
These are not Center-Right positions. These are not even Center-Left positions. These are Socialist.
January 31st, 2012 at 9:57 pm
"Conservatism" in the US is different than in Europe and elsewhere, because it refers to "Classic Liberalism." It's meant as a return to Jeffersonian Principles (or, more accurately, Lockesian principles) as opposed to a return to Monarchy or Dictatorship.
Although the Religious Right tends to muddy the waters in that regard.
January 31st, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Capitalists are usually the biggest Socialists of all–get the government to protect your business and punish the competition.