HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 15, 2006 When did “liberal” become a dirty word? Did I miss the memo? Certainly “liberal” has gained clout as a put-down used to define an out-of-touch Democrat, but the variance and level of usage is higher than ever before. Defining someone as “liberal” seems to be an acceptable way to disregard their arguments, regardless of any individual merits the arguments may have. Why? The Founding Fathers were proud liberal democrats (with a small ‘d’), and at least a few went on to lay the framework for future liberal Democrats (with a big ‘d’). Why is it, then, that only one kind of liberalism – defining the modern Democratic Party as a blanket statement – is something to be ashamed of? Since 1796, American politicians have marveled at the power of words in the arena of public opinion. Linking a candidate to one word creates a caricature that is much easier to slam than the actual human being – Hamilton and Jefferson knew this as well as Karl Rove does today. They knew that voters responded to symbolism: flags, smoking wreckage, and simple words are easier to digest than complex policy statements, and symbols carry multiple meanings for varying audiences. Democrats attempted to vilify “conservative” in the same way that Republicans manage to lob “liberal” across the punditsphere. The only difference is that Republicans won the fight and the resulting spoils. “Liberal” can be used to mean everything from lack of patriotism, socialist tendencies and elitism to a weakness on terrorism, snobbery, and sympathy for the enemies of democracy, even an opposition to liberty itself. To declare someone as a “liberal” is a way of ignoring or disregarding an argument without the stress of coming up with a fitting rebuttal – as if liberals are not on the libel of civil discourse. For most purposes, then, “liberal” means “bad.” But “liberal” is a nominal word – by definition it cannot be inherently better or worse than any other word used to define something. To use it is to avoid intellectual discussion and debate by dehumanizing, or at the very least disregarding, the opinions of other people. “Liberal” is little more than a cheap cop-out, a way of avoiding the obligation of having to justify one’s own opinions in the face of criticism. It is as meaningless as any other generalization. “Liberal” is a dirty word in the same way “conservative” or “Republican” will be associated with scandal and arrogance when the political cycle restarts and Democrats gain power. That is the problem with vicious caricature: When those on the bottom are moved to the top, their former tormenters will receive a much harsher punishment, fed by anger and a borderline hatred. The bloodletting cycle continues unsatiated. Shouldn’t we aspire to something higher? ------------ About the author: Max Burns is a 19-year-old moderate Democrat from Indianapolis. He has been moved from the Hoosier Heartland to the moral void that is Washington D.C. to study Government & International Politics at George Mason University. He is also the author of the fantasy novel Alcardia. Email: mburns6@gmu.edu Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
