Quite frankly, ash has no use for the local columnist whose essay appears below, and who used to write for a religious publication, to whatever extent that continues to influence him. He was also the author of a piece she wrote to disdain some months earlier, which Mike the editor was only too willing to publish. Think she might have been speaking for him? So she considered it anything but remarkable when, after a month of “not for publication” letters being duly abided, her denunciation of the same colleague of Mike’s was waved right through. Note how she disputes his points then raises the stakes, one of her favorite rhetorical techniques:
Two words in the English language have done as much to divide Americans as have hundreds of other words we hurl at each other. The words are "liberal" and "conservative."
These two labels have passed their expiration date
And so I hereby decree that, from this point on, people shall avoid using those two words forevermore in discussing, arguing, debating, or otherwise speaking about our lives, times and neighbors.
If only it were that easy.
Many things could change if those two simple words were to disappear from our vocabulary. Our country could be more unified and our debate more intelligent, thoughtful and productive.
But there are people who would have a lot to lose if those two words should ever disappear. That includes those who have made successful careers by exploiting those two words for their gain. The "L" and "C" words have gotten people elected. They have made people rich and famous. They also have led people to define issues and accept or reject people without thinking.
Those two words have become a crutch. Simply characterize someone who disagrees with you as either a liberal or a conservative and you are done with them. Decisions are reached. Votes cast. Money donated. All on the basis of those two words.
But think about the people you know. Are any of them 100 percent "conservative" or 100 percent "liberal?" Doubtful. Aren't most people a mix? I know I am, and I cannot be put into a bag for convenience's sake.
Consider the issue of guns. I do not like handguns and think they should be more strictly regulated. I'm a liberal! But I will never give up my shotguns. I'm a conservative! But nobody really needs to use an AK-47, let's ban them and other rifles like them. Liberal! I don't like the FOID card concept in Illinois and think it does nothing to stop criminals from owning guns. Conservative! I think the National Rifle Association is awful. Liberal!
And that's just one issue.
The labels "liberal" and "conservative" also are unnecessarily divisive. If we kicked the habit, it would force us to get to know each other's character rather than quickly dismissing each other as either "liberal" or "conservative."
The two words provoke arguments simply by being invoked. The liberal secularists attack the conservative Christians who attack the liberal pro-lifers who attack the conservative anti-abortion people. "Eggheads cussing rednecks cussing hippies for their hair. Others laugh at straights who laugh at freaks who laugh at squares." - Kris Kristofferson, 1972.
What if, instead of hurling the "L" and "C" words at each other, we tried to focus on what we share despite our divergent philosophies? We are more alike than we are different. We have history together.
There is a model for such an approach in our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. You don't reject me for going to my parish, and I don't shoot you for going to your synagogue - to worship the same God I'm worshiping anyway. And if you don't believe at all, that's your right. You still can vote, own property and travel freely.
That seems to be working compared to what we see in, oh, say a certain Middle Eastern country. Is it such a long trip from "liberal" and "conservative" to "Sunni" and "Shiite?" It's a shorter distance than you think, so let's not keep going down that road.
All Americans have similar goals - safety for us and for our children, an opportunity for everyone to succeed, peace, security in our neighborhoods and for our soldiers around the world. Lower taxes. Common sense in government. Leaders who listen. Leaders with vision. Leaders who aren't so rigidly locked into their "liberal" or "conservative" dogma they cannot adapt.
These ideals transcend "liberal" and "conservative" labels.
The candidate who can get us past the "liberal" or "conservative" dynamic will be a candidate worth voting for, instead of the usual "lesser of two evils" vote we have become accustomed to. John? Tom? Barack? Hillary? Sam? Newt? Rudy? Any of you?
People are fed up with the status quo. We need a new framework. The "liberal/conservative" model is tired, divisive and shallow. We have been hurling those two words at each other for at least 40 years, and where has it gotten us? Another day older and deeper in debt.
But don't listen to me. I am the liberal media.
Perhaps you’d prefer to listen to ash, then, whose take on these two words diverges significantly from the one above:
So “liberal” and “conservative” are nothing more than substanceless accusations – brand names - each side hurls at the other out of laziness and disengagement? According to Dave “Embryonic Stem Cells Caused Bush To Issue His First Veto” Bakke, that’s indeed the case.
But the fact that these words have definitions as well as denotations in political (and other) discourse isn’t what troubles me about Bakke’s Sunday column. I am far more concerned with his moral equivalency framework (to mix the shorthand metaphors: “he said; on the other hand, that”) in which both camps are equally guilty of using these terms as pejoratives, when clearly the conduct is not mutual. On the contrary, while conservatives have campaigned strenuously to demonize “liberal,” no such movement has occurred in reverse. There’s a reason why some timid souls on the left of the ledger devised the category “progressive” to describe themselves: they internalized the derogatory connotation of “liberal.” The right wing has no corresponding backup label for “conservative” because it never needed one.
That’s the problem with pretending that regardless of the issue or debate – excuse the expression – liberals and conservatives are precisely as credible and precisely as ethical to precisely the same extent. It’s rarely true.