Political Labels and Political Discourse

One obstacle to a useful political dialogue in the United States is the confused and confusing labels we affix to various candidates and leaders. If they ever did have meaning, “conservative” and “liberal” have lost it, and so our vocabulary can be so deceptive as to be useless.

To some extent this change has been the intentional result of the cynical efforts of men like Karl Rove whose goals in life center on the acquisition of power rather than its productive application. In the 1990’s and then especially as Republican campaign guru from 2000 to 2007, Rove set out so to obscure political realities that he could get any ham sandwich elected just because the electorate would throw up its hands and toss a coin until he found the last-minute emotional appeal to get just enough votes to win.

But generally I prefer to assume more sincere motives. I think most people are confused because political questions have changed and the old labels don’t describe the answers. Before we can improve the politics themselves we need to develop a new vocabulary. In the next few posts, I will explain what I see as the fundamental problems with our current vocabulary and suggest some ways in which it might change for the better

CONSERVATIVES IN THE AMERICAN VERNACULAR

For most of the 20th century, “conservative” referred to a fairly consistent constellation of political beliefs. It stood primarily for minimal government action on any level or any issue. That meant small federal government and somewhat broader state prerogatives – if only to choose to do less. In particular, it meant the laissez-faire economic policies of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and even Dwight Eisenhower. It also meant resistance to changes in laws regarding racial or gender equality and hesitance to use US military force unless absolutely necessary.

Conservatives also disliked labor unions because they represented a kind of group behavior at odds with their preference for individual freedom of movement. That unions also interfered with the growth of power for capitalists of a the highest class also offended conservatives, especially after the publication of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, which offered a philosophical defense of the Great Man theory of history, albeit in the form of fictional (and incredibly long-winded) stories.

In sum, conservatives believed deeply in the value and the power of the individual – especially the talented or gifted individual – and sought to enhance the latitude in which such people could operate. At times, this belief carried with it racist, sexist or elitist undertones because the sense of who counted as an individual worthy of such broad freedom often depended on exclusion. It should be noted, though, that such conservatives existed in both American political parties. Southern Democrats were just as likely to adhere to these tenets as any Republican; Strom Thurmond as a Democrat was a lot more conservative than Theodore Roosevelt as a Republican.