The Nutcase Across The Street
Reflections On American Politics
The False Choice
Suppose I were to tell you that I was a liberal. Would you think twice about buying this book? Might it be filled with nothing but Democratic propaganda under the guise of “reaching out”? Would it make you see my previous words in the first chapter under a different light? Would you reinterpret anything? What if I said I was a conservative?
Current politics in the United States is usually framed in terms of left and right. On any issue with at least two sides, those on one side are defined as conservative, those on the other as liberal, and all others as moderates. The thing is, people who take a liberal stance on one position often take a conservative stance on another and moderates are far too diverse a group to be given the single name “moderate”. Some moderates are termed such because they are very conservative on some issues and very liberal on others. Other moderates are very liberal on some issues and very conservative on others (the extreme opposite of the first group). Other moderates are right in the middle on most issues, and some moderates are termed such not because of beliefs, but only because they don’t strongly care about their positions.
We use these labels to divide people into those we think are reasonable and trustworthy, and those that bear watching. The use of these labels is nearly ubiquitous, and people use them to identify themselves as well as others. We seem to think these labels are important, but the truth is that they have no agreed upon meaning – which really means they have no meaning at all.
What are some of these ways in which liberalism and conservatism are defined? I list several I have heard used personally below. Some may surprise you.
Change: Liberals are those that enjoy trying out new things and are willing to take the risks of experimentation when it comes to improving societal institutions. Conservatives are more risk-averse and uncomfortable with change. On the flip side, they tend to think things through a little more.
This definition is of little use today. Some liberals resist changes such as President G. W. Bush’s plan to partially privatize social security, while some conservatives embrace changes such as Steve Forbes’s proposal for a flat tax. In my lifetime, it has been my experience that Republicans are more creative and full of ideas of how to improve things (or ruin them) while democrats cling to the same failing ideas we have been using since The New Deal, although they may offer changes in the form of slight tweaks or additions to the same paradigm.
My analysis, of course, betrays my bias of what I consider to be a “true” change, and what I consider to be yet another form of the old ways. This is the major problem with this definition; there is no agreed upon criteria for evaluating change.
Truth: In the waning years of the Bush administration, accusations from the left of lying, misleading, and secrecy abounded. It was in this environment that it was explicitly stated by a guest on The Daily Show that all “liberal” means is “love of the truth”, whereas conservatives supposedly were less interested in the truth. One of my acquaintances later claimed, “There is no such thing as the conservative movement; there are only liars.”
This definition probably isn’t the best to use, because while politicians of all parties lie (even including liberal democrats), our friends, family, and strangers at the bus stop have no reason to. What do they have to gain? While the conservative ideology may indeed be based on lies, one cannot legitimately deny that there are literally millions of people that truly believe it. They have no agenda. They love the truth as much as anybody else and I hardly think that those that describe themselves as conservatives mean to advertise their disdain for the truth. Besides, in my experience, those who seem the least likely to even examine the evidence are generally apolitical, or independents.
Money: Under this definition, one’s position on every conceivable issue derives from one simple principle: who gets the money? Liberals are at heart socialists, who want equality at all costs. They support racist affirmative action hiring programs to equalize the races, they support radical feminism to equalize the sexes, they oppose anything remotely Christian on public land to equalize the religions, and they oppose the military because all nations are equal. Everything comes back to supporting socialism (thoroughly synonymous with oppression and government theft). Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in freedom and allowing the laws of nature to dictate who gets what. The right to free speech allows conservatives to make money from publishing. The right to bear arms allows conservatives to make money by selling guns. It all comes back to capitalism (thoroughly synonymous with freedom). This definition is used implicitly by various right-wing radio talk show hosts.
The problem with this definition is that liberals are therefore inconsistent. While they loathe the use of force by the military (even to protect the homeland and therefore their socialist programs), they are perfectly happy to use force through the courts and police to ensure compliance of their fellow citizens with those same socialist programs. Radical environmentalists oppose most modern industry, including those that provide jobs to union members, yet both environmentalists and union members are considered to be in the same group – liberal. Liberals support the downtrodden when they are poor, unwed mothers-to-be, but not when they are the poor, unborn, children-to-be. This definition is therefore internally inconsistent and must be thrown out with the others. It makes no predictions of whether one will support a given proposal or not.
Interest Groups: “Liberal” means nothing more than the policies that result from the way in which the Democrat party is organized. Democrats promise every interest group everything it wants and then find they must break some promises when reality sets in. Conservatives insist on fairness to all from the outset, meaning some groups know they won’t get everything (if they want more than what is deemed their fair share). Reality never sets in for the rank-and-file Democrats and they continue to insist on giving everybody everything they ask for. This definition is used implicitly by various right-wing radio talk show hosts.
Constituent Relations: Liberals believe in democracy (hence the name “Democrat”), meaning that the citizenry should govern and the elected official is purely a representative of their wishes, to vote as the public sees fit. Thus, polls are seen as a helpful tool to ensure that the representative remains informed and responsive to public opinion. Conservatives believe in republics (hence the term “Republican”), meaning they recognize that the public often does not have the education or time necessary to make complex decisions and the majority can often be wrong. Thus, conservatives respect politicians that are honest, will do what is right, and pay no attention to the shifting poll numbers of the fickle populace.
It is said that this is why Democrat politicians are more likely to make numerous promises they know they can’t keep (see interest groups), which is why Democrats are more likely to elect dishonest people. Whether this is at all true or not, it fails to explain positions on a wide range of issues where liberals are in the minority (death penalty, school vouchers, gay marriage, illegal immigration) and is pretty much useless.
Optimism 1: Liberals are those who say, “You can’t do it yourself. The system is against you. You need our help.” Conservatives are those who say, “Don’t give up. Everyone who has become great had to overcome some obstacle. You can do it yourself with time. Leaning on others makes you dependent.” Liberals are those who say, “Climate change will kill us all! The uninsured are dying in the streets! The world will soon run out of food! We need to do something!” Conservatives are those who say, “Things are better than they used to be. The system is working. Let’s wait until all the data is in before rushing to conclusions. There’s no reason to get upset yet.” Liberals are pessimists and conservatives are optimists.
Optimism 2: Liberals are those who say, “Have some hope, we will help you get by in the meantime.” Conservatives say, “Sink or swim on your own. It is good for efficiency that those doing poorly are allowed to fail.” Liberals say, “Is Iraq truly a threat? Diplomacy can still work in time.” Conservatives say, “Terrorists will kill us all! Secularists are trying to outlaw Christmas! We need to do something!” Liberals are optimists and conservatives are pessimists.
Power 1: Liberals are those that want to run every aspect of your life. Conservatism is all about freedom to do anything that doesn’t infringe upon the freedom of others.
Power 2: Conservatives are those that want to run every aspect of your life. Liberalism is all about the freedom to do anything that doesn’t infringe upon the freedom of others.
Gender Roles: Liberals are merely those whose maternal instincts to care for and give comfort to those less fortunate dominate. Conservatives are merely those whose paternal instincts to instill discipline and build character dominate (9). We need both.
By this logic, one’s political beliefs stem from one’s attitudes toward others in everyday life. This is not the case. Some of the most unsympathetic jerks I have ever known were all for expanding social programs.
Libertarian: Libertarians have a completely different take on the liberal-conservative dimension. Issues are either economic (minimum wage, income taxes) or personal (the draft, drug use). Libertarians believe in all freedom, liberals believe only in personal freedom, conservatives believe only in economic freedom, and fascists believe in no freedom. Thus, there are two dimensions: one for each set of issues.
By the libertarian definitions, I know that many libertarians call themselves conservatives and many liberals call themselves libertarians. They are clearly using some other definition. This definition suffers from the fact that there is no clear division between economic and personal issues. Consider the issue of whether drug sales should be regulated.
In addition, it makes little sense to say that conservatives are against personal freedom when it is primarily conservatives that support gun ownership rights, and it makes little sense to say that liberals are for personal freedom when it is primarily liberals who have blocked school voucher programs – or is that an economic issue?
3-D: Some go further, dividing issues into social, fiscal, and foreign policy categories. Social conservatives oppose abortion and redefining marriage. Fiscal conservatives oppose excessive spending, borrowing, taxation, or currency devaluation. Foreign policy conservatives support a strong military and a diplomacy that aggressively defends American interests. One may be a liberal on one issue set and a conservative on another.
These sets need some further evaluation. Rush Limbaugh, among others, often associates conservatism with a state of military readiness and a willingness to do what is necessary to defend ourselves. He associates liberalism with pacifism. What then, is Congressman Ron Paul? Ron Paul is no pacifist. He believes in a strong military – and he is certainly no liberal. Yet Ron Paul opposed pre-emption, intervention, nation-building, long-term occupation, and just about everything the Bush Administration was involved with overseas – things that are today associated with conservatism.
Perhaps it would make more sense to divide people into several schools of thought as Joseph S. Nye Jr. has in his 2004 book Soft Power. When it comes to foreign policy, there are Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, Jacksonians, and Wilsonians. Jeffersonians generally believe in keeping out of military conflicts while setting an example for the rest of the world in how to arrange public life. Hamiltonians generally believe in acting in America’s economic interests, whatever it leads to. Jacksonians generally believe not only in defeating America’s enemies, but making an example of them by using overwhelming force so that all others will think twice about messing with us. Wilsonians generally believe that only by working together with other nations to actively intervene in all minor conflicts can we avoid escalation into larger conflicts. We must make the world “safe for democracy.”
Clearly, these philosophies are not mutually exclusive. One may adopt parts of each at different times. At the same time, it glosses over differences in application. Is pollution that crosses borders something a Wilsonian would consider a minor conflict? Is it better to wait on the United Nations or to assemble a “coalition of the willing?” Can a Jacksonian make an exception for those who are seeking martyrdom by easing off “making an example of them” and still consider themselves Jacksonian?
Of course, foreign policy is more than just military alliances. It includes political activity, such as the UN, the International Court of Arbitration, and human rights treaties. It also includes economics, such as duties, tariffs, NAFTA, the WTO, and the G-8. Seen in this light, the lines between liberals and conservatives begin to blur, and nobody seems to know how to classify Pat Buchannan.
Does the reasoning behind one’s stances count towards classification? Sometimes they do. Those that oppose free trade on the grounds that American workers will be hurt as their jobs are outsourced overseas are often referred to as liberal. Those that oppose free trade on the grounds that it will make us dependent and therefore vulnerable to blockade during wartime are often referred to as conservative. What then, are those that support free trade? Nazis? Monarchists? Theocrats? Since the reasoning behind one’s stances is often complex and misrepresented by friend and foe alike, this potentially makes every liberal a conservative and every conservative a liberal on issues from abortion to imminent domain to the capital gains tax.
Most people are not conservative, liberal, or moderate. These terms mean nothing. We may disagree more with some members of our own group than with some members of the opposing group. Yet we still use these terms as a way of marginalizing and dismissing others. In a way, these terms force us to disagree. How we interpret one’s words or actions depends in part on the mindset we assume they have and on the larger political context.
Consider the statement “They’re for the powerful, we’re for the people.” It sounds like it might have come straight from the lips of a tea party leader. Those nut jobs must be ranting against the “powerful” Democrats in congress again, you might think. I can’t believe they think they represent the people, you might think. Actually, those words were spoken by Al Gore during the 2000 presidential campaign (10). The “people” to him were his constituents and the “powerful” were drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies and more. How you take something can depend on who says it.
Consider the term “military welfare”. Does it refer to military personnel being used in a humanitarian aid capacity, rather than for their primary job of “killing people and breaking stuff” as Rush Limbaugh so colorfully puts it, or does it mean propping up and supporting weak, freeloading regimes that refuse to take the difficult steps necessary to defend themselves, content to let us do all the hard work? It depends who says it, but we should not jump to conclusions based on the party they belong to. It is assumptions like these that have led to many misunderstandings.
I have found in the past that people bring along a lot of baggage with them when they interpret my words. When I tried once to explain my position on homosexuality, one that is in my experience right down the middle, I was attacked for every word I typed. I commented on the debate over whether homosexuality was a sin in the Judeo-Christian tradition and was accused of taking the bible as law and endorsing theocracy (I don’t). I stated that while I had nothing against it myself, I recognized that having homosexuals in the military might make others uncomfortable enough to impact work performance and was accused of being a bigot.
This, more than anything else in the political realm, is what frustrates me. I call myself an independent so people will have to actually listen and think to understand what I’m saying, rather than just fill in the gaps based on what they think they know about Democrat or Republican philosophy. Even then, as happened with explaining my perspective on homosexuality, I get put into boxes anyways. I once mentioned to one of my friends that presidential candidate Mike Huckabee sounded intelligent, and I was simply assumed from then on to be some sort of Christian fundamentalist. I don’t even know what that means! Oddly enough, just three years earlier, another of my friends had assumed I was an atheist.
Even worse, some people go out of their way to find hidden meanings and code language imbedded in politicians’ speeches. “Social justice,” as the term is used, can mean many things. Democrats often use the term to speak of equal pay for equal work, ending discriminatory hiring practices, making sure that all convicted are truly guilty, and making sure that all guilty are convicted. However, it can also mean “socialism,” and this is how right-wing talk show hosts generally take it. They claim it to be “doublespeak,” giving one impression to one set of voters and quite a different impression to another. Those sympathetic to socialism will hear the liberal code term for socialism “social justice” and be happy. Meanwhile, those less “in the know” and less sympathetic to socialism will not be afraid. Who would be against justice?
These accusations are not helpful. Words can mean different things depending on the context and accusing the opposing party of using code words will only make the accusers look paranoid and silly. Whether “social justice” began as a code word is irrelevant. After being used so many times to refer to things other than socialism, non-socialists may very well have picked up on the term and started using it. To accuse these people of also being socialists only brings conflict and further unnecessary division. It would make more sense to actually listen to what candidates say and scrutinize their records than to search for alternative meanings to some isolated phrases.
To be fair, the left generates its fair share of accusations too. Republican candidates for president are often asked if they would have a “litmus test” on abortion for choosing Supreme Court justices. These candidates often respond by saying that they will choose justices that “interpret the law as written and will not legislate from the bench.” This sounds fair enough. After all, to do otherwise would violate the principle of separate, co-equal branches of government. According to left-wing political analysts, however, this is code for taking away abortion rights.
This is why we don’t listen to each other anymore. Instead of taking what people mean, we assume they are regurgitating talking points from the other side. Somebody pleads for helping the poor and all we hear is “sack the rich and middle-class to support an intrusive, bloated bureaucracy – and maybe help the poor along the way.” Somebody pleads for setting some measurable goals and standards in our war efforts by which to judge whether we are conducting the war in the right way and all we hear is “we surrender!” Somebody pleads for us to do something about racism in this country and all we hear is “take jobs from light-skinned people and give them to others, regardless of talent.” Welfare, timetables, affirmative action, separation of church and state, fiscal responsibility, family values, civil liberties, privacy rights, states’ rights, multilateralism – these are all accused of being code terms for something other than they are. Is it any wonder we so distrust politicians? Is it any wonder that we don’t understand each other?
Talk show hosts across the political spectrum are quick to assume the worst of people and interpret their words in bad light. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, when speaking of the underwear bomber and preventing terrorism in general, said, “We won’t make that mistake again; we’ll make a new one.”(11) This is a statement that is impossible to argue with. Mistakes are an inevitable part of life. If he had said that we would never make another mistake, he would have been accused of arrogance. Mr. Blair was merely being realistic and honest. Of course, this statement quickly became a right-wing talking point used to paint the entire Obama administration as not taking terrorism seriously.
Also, as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama was once heard suggesting that we properly inflate our tires to increase fuel efficiency as part of a means to cope with high gas prices. This is not a bad idea, though the difference it makes overall is of course miniscule. Ann Coulter was quick to pick up on this, sarcastically suggesting that to solve the health care cost crisis, everyone should eat an apple a day(12). This is not a bad idea either, but Ann used it to make Obama look inept and foolish, as if properly inflated tires were the entirety of his plan. Why are we all so quick to assume the worst of people?
It is the media that brings these statements to our attention and the media that interprets them for us. Unfortunately, we aren’t all listening to the same people. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann paint a very different picture of reality than Sean Hannity. The Confederate Flag represents slavery to some people and a state’s freedom from federal intrusion to others (in many ways, the opposite of slavery). We should discuss our impressions and fill each other in on gaps in our worldviews, but instead we avoid each other. Few of us are willing to talk to the nutcase across the street, and few of those nutcases are willing to talk to us. It is the media that uses terms like “conservative” and “liberal” to divide us, but if we took the time to understand each other, we might find we have more in common than we think.
I have wondered for years whether these groups (liberal, conservative, and moderate) even exist. Of course, I always knew there were lots of people that didn’t fit in, but I could never be sure whether or not most people did. Surely, for the terms to continue to be used, there must be some real pattern amongst all the noise – right? No. Without the resources to launch my own study, I instead combed through old books and databases for previous work on the subject. Finally, in the 1973 book Measures of Political Attitudes by John P. Robinson, Jerrold G. Rush, and Kendra B. Head, I found the following quote on page thirty-five:
“Terms like ‘liberalism’ and ‘conservatism’ have had little meaning to most voters; only minorities have defined these terms with regards to politics, which suggests the lack of an all-embracing ideological structure or frame of reference within which specific issues and events are viewed. Many people indicate no preference between generally ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ policies or candidates when such questions have been posed.”
On page seventy-nine is an even clearer quote:
“The liberal-conservative dimension has intrigued scholars for years with its potential for explaining the variation in political attitudes of the populace. However, these hopes faded when encountered with research done on a mass level. Repeated samples of the mass electorate by the Survey Research Center (Campbell et al, 1960; Converse, 1964) have convincingly demonstrated that no such organizing dimension or ideological structure exists for most citizens. Correlations between specific issue items were often low and when such congruence occurred, it was generally for other reasons than that of ideology (i.e., most usually a result of self-interest or group preference).”
As early as 1973 it was known that these terms meant next-to-nothing. Why do we still continue to use them? Has anything changed since then? If we have become more polarized, is it possible that this is the effect of using these terms – a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy? Psychologists have known for years about such phenomena as groupthink, confirmation biases, attachment, stigmatization, internalization, and patternicity (thank you, Michael Shermer). Any one of these could explain our growing polarization. Could the media even be doing this on purpose? I don’t know.
What I do know is that the media creates issues for us to debate – almost out of thin air. Do you remember how our ongoing subsidies to farmers in violation of WTO (World Trade Organization) rules were a big issue of discussion during the last presidential election? No? You don’t? What about health care? Yes? Why was health care such a big issue? Was there truly a groundswell of interest by the electorate that the media couldn’t ignore? If so, how did the electorate realize there was a problem I wonder? If some of them personally felt the brunt of rising costs, what made them think of it in terms of a widespread problem rather than a personal one? What made them think of it in terms of a problem for government to fix rather than churches, charities, schools, science, or business? Was affordable access to health care truly a bigger problem than global warming, warring Mexican drug lords on our border, and our subsidies to farmers? (13) If the media had focused instead on these issues in the years before the election, might we possibly have ignored health care? The media control it all and they all copy each other.
The media tends to focus more heavily on those issues that divide us the most. Perhaps this is for ratings. Perhaps this for no other reason than that it would be a waste of time to discuss issues on which we are all in agreement. I don’t know, but focusing on only a few, highly divisive issues creates the impression that there are two distinct groups of us, defined as liberals and conservatives. Don’t let them fool you. If they brought in more issues to discuss, the group designations would dissolve as there would be as much disagreement within groups as between them. Your enemy today may be your enemy’s enemy tomorrow, and as the saying goes, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
Current politics in the United States is usually framed in terms of left and right. On any issue with at least two sides, those on one side are defined as conservative, those on the other as liberal, and all others as moderates. The thing is, people who take a liberal stance on one position often take a conservative stance on another and moderates are far too diverse a group to be given the single name “moderate”. Some moderates are termed such because they are very conservative on some issues and very liberal on others. Other moderates are very liberal on some issues and very conservative on others (the extreme opposite of the first group). Other moderates are right in the middle on most issues, and some moderates are termed such not because of beliefs, but only because they don’t strongly care about their positions.
We use these labels to divide people into those we think are reasonable and trustworthy, and those that bear watching. The use of these labels is nearly ubiquitous, and people use them to identify themselves as well as others. We seem to think these labels are important, but the truth is that they have no agreed upon meaning – which really means they have no meaning at all.
What are some of these ways in which liberalism and conservatism are defined? I list several I have heard used personally below. Some may surprise you.
Change: Liberals are those that enjoy trying out new things and are willing to take the risks of experimentation when it comes to improving societal institutions. Conservatives are more risk-averse and uncomfortable with change. On the flip side, they tend to think things through a little more.
This definition is of little use today. Some liberals resist changes such as President G. W. Bush’s plan to partially privatize social security, while some conservatives embrace changes such as Steve Forbes’s proposal for a flat tax. In my lifetime, it has been my experience that Republicans are more creative and full of ideas of how to improve things (or ruin them) while democrats cling to the same failing ideas we have been using since The New Deal, although they may offer changes in the form of slight tweaks or additions to the same paradigm.
My analysis, of course, betrays my bias of what I consider to be a “true” change, and what I consider to be yet another form of the old ways. This is the major problem with this definition; there is no agreed upon criteria for evaluating change.
Truth: In the waning years of the Bush administration, accusations from the left of lying, misleading, and secrecy abounded. It was in this environment that it was explicitly stated by a guest on The Daily Show that all “liberal” means is “love of the truth”, whereas conservatives supposedly were less interested in the truth. One of my acquaintances later claimed, “There is no such thing as the conservative movement; there are only liars.”
This definition probably isn’t the best to use, because while politicians of all parties lie (even including liberal democrats), our friends, family, and strangers at the bus stop have no reason to. What do they have to gain? While the conservative ideology may indeed be based on lies, one cannot legitimately deny that there are literally millions of people that truly believe it. They have no agenda. They love the truth as much as anybody else and I hardly think that those that describe themselves as conservatives mean to advertise their disdain for the truth. Besides, in my experience, those who seem the least likely to even examine the evidence are generally apolitical, or independents.
Money: Under this definition, one’s position on every conceivable issue derives from one simple principle: who gets the money? Liberals are at heart socialists, who want equality at all costs. They support racist affirmative action hiring programs to equalize the races, they support radical feminism to equalize the sexes, they oppose anything remotely Christian on public land to equalize the religions, and they oppose the military because all nations are equal. Everything comes back to supporting socialism (thoroughly synonymous with oppression and government theft). Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in freedom and allowing the laws of nature to dictate who gets what. The right to free speech allows conservatives to make money from publishing. The right to bear arms allows conservatives to make money by selling guns. It all comes back to capitalism (thoroughly synonymous with freedom). This definition is used implicitly by various right-wing radio talk show hosts.
The problem with this definition is that liberals are therefore inconsistent. While they loathe the use of force by the military (even to protect the homeland and therefore their socialist programs), they are perfectly happy to use force through the courts and police to ensure compliance of their fellow citizens with those same socialist programs. Radical environmentalists oppose most modern industry, including those that provide jobs to union members, yet both environmentalists and union members are considered to be in the same group – liberal. Liberals support the downtrodden when they are poor, unwed mothers-to-be, but not when they are the poor, unborn, children-to-be. This definition is therefore internally inconsistent and must be thrown out with the others. It makes no predictions of whether one will support a given proposal or not.
Interest Groups: “Liberal” means nothing more than the policies that result from the way in which the Democrat party is organized. Democrats promise every interest group everything it wants and then find they must break some promises when reality sets in. Conservatives insist on fairness to all from the outset, meaning some groups know they won’t get everything (if they want more than what is deemed their fair share). Reality never sets in for the rank-and-file Democrats and they continue to insist on giving everybody everything they ask for. This definition is used implicitly by various right-wing radio talk show hosts.
Constituent Relations: Liberals believe in democracy (hence the name “Democrat”), meaning that the citizenry should govern and the elected official is purely a representative of their wishes, to vote as the public sees fit. Thus, polls are seen as a helpful tool to ensure that the representative remains informed and responsive to public opinion. Conservatives believe in republics (hence the term “Republican”), meaning they recognize that the public often does not have the education or time necessary to make complex decisions and the majority can often be wrong. Thus, conservatives respect politicians that are honest, will do what is right, and pay no attention to the shifting poll numbers of the fickle populace.
It is said that this is why Democrat politicians are more likely to make numerous promises they know they can’t keep (see interest groups), which is why Democrats are more likely to elect dishonest people. Whether this is at all true or not, it fails to explain positions on a wide range of issues where liberals are in the minority (death penalty, school vouchers, gay marriage, illegal immigration) and is pretty much useless.
Optimism 1: Liberals are those who say, “You can’t do it yourself. The system is against you. You need our help.” Conservatives are those who say, “Don’t give up. Everyone who has become great had to overcome some obstacle. You can do it yourself with time. Leaning on others makes you dependent.” Liberals are those who say, “Climate change will kill us all! The uninsured are dying in the streets! The world will soon run out of food! We need to do something!” Conservatives are those who say, “Things are better than they used to be. The system is working. Let’s wait until all the data is in before rushing to conclusions. There’s no reason to get upset yet.” Liberals are pessimists and conservatives are optimists.
Optimism 2: Liberals are those who say, “Have some hope, we will help you get by in the meantime.” Conservatives say, “Sink or swim on your own. It is good for efficiency that those doing poorly are allowed to fail.” Liberals say, “Is Iraq truly a threat? Diplomacy can still work in time.” Conservatives say, “Terrorists will kill us all! Secularists are trying to outlaw Christmas! We need to do something!” Liberals are optimists and conservatives are pessimists.
Power 1: Liberals are those that want to run every aspect of your life. Conservatism is all about freedom to do anything that doesn’t infringe upon the freedom of others.
Power 2: Conservatives are those that want to run every aspect of your life. Liberalism is all about the freedom to do anything that doesn’t infringe upon the freedom of others.
Gender Roles: Liberals are merely those whose maternal instincts to care for and give comfort to those less fortunate dominate. Conservatives are merely those whose paternal instincts to instill discipline and build character dominate (9). We need both.
By this logic, one’s political beliefs stem from one’s attitudes toward others in everyday life. This is not the case. Some of the most unsympathetic jerks I have ever known were all for expanding social programs.
Libertarian: Libertarians have a completely different take on the liberal-conservative dimension. Issues are either economic (minimum wage, income taxes) or personal (the draft, drug use). Libertarians believe in all freedom, liberals believe only in personal freedom, conservatives believe only in economic freedom, and fascists believe in no freedom. Thus, there are two dimensions: one for each set of issues.
By the libertarian definitions, I know that many libertarians call themselves conservatives and many liberals call themselves libertarians. They are clearly using some other definition. This definition suffers from the fact that there is no clear division between economic and personal issues. Consider the issue of whether drug sales should be regulated.
In addition, it makes little sense to say that conservatives are against personal freedom when it is primarily conservatives that support gun ownership rights, and it makes little sense to say that liberals are for personal freedom when it is primarily liberals who have blocked school voucher programs – or is that an economic issue?
3-D: Some go further, dividing issues into social, fiscal, and foreign policy categories. Social conservatives oppose abortion and redefining marriage. Fiscal conservatives oppose excessive spending, borrowing, taxation, or currency devaluation. Foreign policy conservatives support a strong military and a diplomacy that aggressively defends American interests. One may be a liberal on one issue set and a conservative on another.
These sets need some further evaluation. Rush Limbaugh, among others, often associates conservatism with a state of military readiness and a willingness to do what is necessary to defend ourselves. He associates liberalism with pacifism. What then, is Congressman Ron Paul? Ron Paul is no pacifist. He believes in a strong military – and he is certainly no liberal. Yet Ron Paul opposed pre-emption, intervention, nation-building, long-term occupation, and just about everything the Bush Administration was involved with overseas – things that are today associated with conservatism.
Perhaps it would make more sense to divide people into several schools of thought as Joseph S. Nye Jr. has in his 2004 book Soft Power. When it comes to foreign policy, there are Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, Jacksonians, and Wilsonians. Jeffersonians generally believe in keeping out of military conflicts while setting an example for the rest of the world in how to arrange public life. Hamiltonians generally believe in acting in America’s economic interests, whatever it leads to. Jacksonians generally believe not only in defeating America’s enemies, but making an example of them by using overwhelming force so that all others will think twice about messing with us. Wilsonians generally believe that only by working together with other nations to actively intervene in all minor conflicts can we avoid escalation into larger conflicts. We must make the world “safe for democracy.”
Clearly, these philosophies are not mutually exclusive. One may adopt parts of each at different times. At the same time, it glosses over differences in application. Is pollution that crosses borders something a Wilsonian would consider a minor conflict? Is it better to wait on the United Nations or to assemble a “coalition of the willing?” Can a Jacksonian make an exception for those who are seeking martyrdom by easing off “making an example of them” and still consider themselves Jacksonian?
Of course, foreign policy is more than just military alliances. It includes political activity, such as the UN, the International Court of Arbitration, and human rights treaties. It also includes economics, such as duties, tariffs, NAFTA, the WTO, and the G-8. Seen in this light, the lines between liberals and conservatives begin to blur, and nobody seems to know how to classify Pat Buchannan.
Does the reasoning behind one’s stances count towards classification? Sometimes they do. Those that oppose free trade on the grounds that American workers will be hurt as their jobs are outsourced overseas are often referred to as liberal. Those that oppose free trade on the grounds that it will make us dependent and therefore vulnerable to blockade during wartime are often referred to as conservative. What then, are those that support free trade? Nazis? Monarchists? Theocrats? Since the reasoning behind one’s stances is often complex and misrepresented by friend and foe alike, this potentially makes every liberal a conservative and every conservative a liberal on issues from abortion to imminent domain to the capital gains tax.
Most people are not conservative, liberal, or moderate. These terms mean nothing. We may disagree more with some members of our own group than with some members of the opposing group. Yet we still use these terms as a way of marginalizing and dismissing others. In a way, these terms force us to disagree. How we interpret one’s words or actions depends in part on the mindset we assume they have and on the larger political context.
Consider the statement “They’re for the powerful, we’re for the people.” It sounds like it might have come straight from the lips of a tea party leader. Those nut jobs must be ranting against the “powerful” Democrats in congress again, you might think. I can’t believe they think they represent the people, you might think. Actually, those words were spoken by Al Gore during the 2000 presidential campaign (10). The “people” to him were his constituents and the “powerful” were drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies and more. How you take something can depend on who says it.
Consider the term “military welfare”. Does it refer to military personnel being used in a humanitarian aid capacity, rather than for their primary job of “killing people and breaking stuff” as Rush Limbaugh so colorfully puts it, or does it mean propping up and supporting weak, freeloading regimes that refuse to take the difficult steps necessary to defend themselves, content to let us do all the hard work? It depends who says it, but we should not jump to conclusions based on the party they belong to. It is assumptions like these that have led to many misunderstandings.
I have found in the past that people bring along a lot of baggage with them when they interpret my words. When I tried once to explain my position on homosexuality, one that is in my experience right down the middle, I was attacked for every word I typed. I commented on the debate over whether homosexuality was a sin in the Judeo-Christian tradition and was accused of taking the bible as law and endorsing theocracy (I don’t). I stated that while I had nothing against it myself, I recognized that having homosexuals in the military might make others uncomfortable enough to impact work performance and was accused of being a bigot.
This, more than anything else in the political realm, is what frustrates me. I call myself an independent so people will have to actually listen and think to understand what I’m saying, rather than just fill in the gaps based on what they think they know about Democrat or Republican philosophy. Even then, as happened with explaining my perspective on homosexuality, I get put into boxes anyways. I once mentioned to one of my friends that presidential candidate Mike Huckabee sounded intelligent, and I was simply assumed from then on to be some sort of Christian fundamentalist. I don’t even know what that means! Oddly enough, just three years earlier, another of my friends had assumed I was an atheist.
Even worse, some people go out of their way to find hidden meanings and code language imbedded in politicians’ speeches. “Social justice,” as the term is used, can mean many things. Democrats often use the term to speak of equal pay for equal work, ending discriminatory hiring practices, making sure that all convicted are truly guilty, and making sure that all guilty are convicted. However, it can also mean “socialism,” and this is how right-wing talk show hosts generally take it. They claim it to be “doublespeak,” giving one impression to one set of voters and quite a different impression to another. Those sympathetic to socialism will hear the liberal code term for socialism “social justice” and be happy. Meanwhile, those less “in the know” and less sympathetic to socialism will not be afraid. Who would be against justice?
These accusations are not helpful. Words can mean different things depending on the context and accusing the opposing party of using code words will only make the accusers look paranoid and silly. Whether “social justice” began as a code word is irrelevant. After being used so many times to refer to things other than socialism, non-socialists may very well have picked up on the term and started using it. To accuse these people of also being socialists only brings conflict and further unnecessary division. It would make more sense to actually listen to what candidates say and scrutinize their records than to search for alternative meanings to some isolated phrases.
To be fair, the left generates its fair share of accusations too. Republican candidates for president are often asked if they would have a “litmus test” on abortion for choosing Supreme Court justices. These candidates often respond by saying that they will choose justices that “interpret the law as written and will not legislate from the bench.” This sounds fair enough. After all, to do otherwise would violate the principle of separate, co-equal branches of government. According to left-wing political analysts, however, this is code for taking away abortion rights.
This is why we don’t listen to each other anymore. Instead of taking what people mean, we assume they are regurgitating talking points from the other side. Somebody pleads for helping the poor and all we hear is “sack the rich and middle-class to support an intrusive, bloated bureaucracy – and maybe help the poor along the way.” Somebody pleads for setting some measurable goals and standards in our war efforts by which to judge whether we are conducting the war in the right way and all we hear is “we surrender!” Somebody pleads for us to do something about racism in this country and all we hear is “take jobs from light-skinned people and give them to others, regardless of talent.” Welfare, timetables, affirmative action, separation of church and state, fiscal responsibility, family values, civil liberties, privacy rights, states’ rights, multilateralism – these are all accused of being code terms for something other than they are. Is it any wonder we so distrust politicians? Is it any wonder that we don’t understand each other?
Talk show hosts across the political spectrum are quick to assume the worst of people and interpret their words in bad light. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, when speaking of the underwear bomber and preventing terrorism in general, said, “We won’t make that mistake again; we’ll make a new one.”(11) This is a statement that is impossible to argue with. Mistakes are an inevitable part of life. If he had said that we would never make another mistake, he would have been accused of arrogance. Mr. Blair was merely being realistic and honest. Of course, this statement quickly became a right-wing talking point used to paint the entire Obama administration as not taking terrorism seriously.
Also, as a presidential candidate, Barack Obama was once heard suggesting that we properly inflate our tires to increase fuel efficiency as part of a means to cope with high gas prices. This is not a bad idea, though the difference it makes overall is of course miniscule. Ann Coulter was quick to pick up on this, sarcastically suggesting that to solve the health care cost crisis, everyone should eat an apple a day(12). This is not a bad idea either, but Ann used it to make Obama look inept and foolish, as if properly inflated tires were the entirety of his plan. Why are we all so quick to assume the worst of people?
It is the media that brings these statements to our attention and the media that interprets them for us. Unfortunately, we aren’t all listening to the same people. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann paint a very different picture of reality than Sean Hannity. The Confederate Flag represents slavery to some people and a state’s freedom from federal intrusion to others (in many ways, the opposite of slavery). We should discuss our impressions and fill each other in on gaps in our worldviews, but instead we avoid each other. Few of us are willing to talk to the nutcase across the street, and few of those nutcases are willing to talk to us. It is the media that uses terms like “conservative” and “liberal” to divide us, but if we took the time to understand each other, we might find we have more in common than we think.
I have wondered for years whether these groups (liberal, conservative, and moderate) even exist. Of course, I always knew there were lots of people that didn’t fit in, but I could never be sure whether or not most people did. Surely, for the terms to continue to be used, there must be some real pattern amongst all the noise – right? No. Without the resources to launch my own study, I instead combed through old books and databases for previous work on the subject. Finally, in the 1973 book Measures of Political Attitudes by John P. Robinson, Jerrold G. Rush, and Kendra B. Head, I found the following quote on page thirty-five:
“Terms like ‘liberalism’ and ‘conservatism’ have had little meaning to most voters; only minorities have defined these terms with regards to politics, which suggests the lack of an all-embracing ideological structure or frame of reference within which specific issues and events are viewed. Many people indicate no preference between generally ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ policies or candidates when such questions have been posed.”
On page seventy-nine is an even clearer quote:
“The liberal-conservative dimension has intrigued scholars for years with its potential for explaining the variation in political attitudes of the populace. However, these hopes faded when encountered with research done on a mass level. Repeated samples of the mass electorate by the Survey Research Center (Campbell et al, 1960; Converse, 1964) have convincingly demonstrated that no such organizing dimension or ideological structure exists for most citizens. Correlations between specific issue items were often low and when such congruence occurred, it was generally for other reasons than that of ideology (i.e., most usually a result of self-interest or group preference).”
As early as 1973 it was known that these terms meant next-to-nothing. Why do we still continue to use them? Has anything changed since then? If we have become more polarized, is it possible that this is the effect of using these terms – a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy? Psychologists have known for years about such phenomena as groupthink, confirmation biases, attachment, stigmatization, internalization, and patternicity (thank you, Michael Shermer). Any one of these could explain our growing polarization. Could the media even be doing this on purpose? I don’t know.
What I do know is that the media creates issues for us to debate – almost out of thin air. Do you remember how our ongoing subsidies to farmers in violation of WTO (World Trade Organization) rules were a big issue of discussion during the last presidential election? No? You don’t? What about health care? Yes? Why was health care such a big issue? Was there truly a groundswell of interest by the electorate that the media couldn’t ignore? If so, how did the electorate realize there was a problem I wonder? If some of them personally felt the brunt of rising costs, what made them think of it in terms of a widespread problem rather than a personal one? What made them think of it in terms of a problem for government to fix rather than churches, charities, schools, science, or business? Was affordable access to health care truly a bigger problem than global warming, warring Mexican drug lords on our border, and our subsidies to farmers? (13) If the media had focused instead on these issues in the years before the election, might we possibly have ignored health care? The media control it all and they all copy each other.
The media tends to focus more heavily on those issues that divide us the most. Perhaps this is for ratings. Perhaps this for no other reason than that it would be a waste of time to discuss issues on which we are all in agreement. I don’t know, but focusing on only a few, highly divisive issues creates the impression that there are two distinct groups of us, defined as liberals and conservatives. Don’t let them fool you. If they brought in more issues to discuss, the group designations would dissolve as there would be as much disagreement within groups as between them. Your enemy today may be your enemy’s enemy tomorrow, and as the saying goes, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.