During President Bush’s press conference earlier, one question stuck out for me. The question was whether or not Bush was still a conservative. Bush’s answer: “I'm still a conservative, proudly so, proudly so.”
“Proudly so.” Bush’s statement, unsurprising and certainly not new, highlights what anyone who follows politics has known for decades: the total and unequivocal defeat of conservatism’s counterpart, liberalism. While Bush may feel comfortable calling himself a conservative, his predecessor took no such pride in calling himself a “liberal,” preferring instead as a “centrist” or the increasingly popular “progressive." Gore and Kerry avoided the label like the plague, preferring the overused excuse of how they don’t like labels (how convenient for them).
The death of liberalism (the term, that is to say) can probably be traced back to the late 1960’s, and the subsequent association between “liberals” and the radical counter-culture of that time. Rhetorically however, the causes of its decline rest on two complementing developments:
1) The Republican’s successful campaign to discredit the label, and
2) The Democrat’s acquiescence to this onslaught
According to one Republican media firm, throwing around the term "liberal" can work to the GOP's advantage. “Labeling someone a 'liberal' can be a very effective method of positioning and pushing them out of the mainstream.”
They go on to note that “Democrats are terrified of the labeling” and so are the media. “Reporters sort of agree with Democrats that 'liberal' is a dirty word,” says Rich Noyes, research director for the Media Research Center, “so they get very defensive when the word 'liberal' is used.” He added that four years ago, reporters were quick to point out Cheney's conservative record, while the major networks now seem "disinterested" in talking about Edwards' policy stance and ideology and more concerned with talking about his "cosmetics" and "political abilities" — things that are essentially not that important for serving as vice president.
"I think if Democrats keep flinching and running away from the term 'liberal' — even when it applies — they help make it an undesirable label," Noyes continued.
This creates an obvious problem for the political party most associated with the term. While the word “conservative” connotes values, religion, family, and defense for many people, the word “liberal” connotes feminism, gay-rights, abortion, and socialism.
For Democrats then, there are only three options: Find another word to describe themselves, give up the idea of a unifying theme or phrase, or try and revive the sunken reputation of liberalism. My suggestion? Clinton’s double-victory notwithstanding, I don’t believe hiding from the term works as an effective strategy. While one could certainly argue that Gore actually got more votes than Bush without it and Kerry came damn close, I would argue that by avoiding the term, Democrats surrender a valuable rhetorical tool as well as aid in the impression that they stand for nothing.
With the advent of liberal talk radio and the rise in several young stars who are willing to redefine the label of “liberal,” I believe the time is ripe for a comeback. I know I am not alone in thinking this. George Cloony recently confessed how much it “infuriates” him that liberal has become a dirty word. “It blows my mind," he says, "because [unlike conservatives] we don't have to put the word 'compassionate' in front of it to say we actually give a s—t about people. I'm going to keep saying 'liberal' as loud as I can and as often as I can."
I’m with ya, George! That makes two… who’s with us?!?
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Marc --
Last year on Rebunk (which is virtually unreadable on my Mac now -- the interface issues are almost beyond belief) I made a clarion call for liberals to embrace their liberalism.
I'd like to hear one politician get up and say" If, when my opponent calls me a liberal he means I stand for civil rights for all, then I am a liberal. If by a liberal my opponent means that we spend what we are willing to pay for, and we pay for what we spend, then I am a liberal. If my opponents mean that by a liberal I believe that the health and education of children is everyone's business . . ." and so forth.
It is a powerful potential approach once one considers that liberalism is a good thing. Conservatioves always like to talk about how liberals like to spend everyone else's money, which is nonsense -- liberals and conservatives both spend; it is a matter of priorities and being responsible enough to pay for it.
The biggest downside is that liberalism requires the courage to say that we do have to pay for what we buy. And that reqwuires at least some taxes being raised, especially in an era of unconscionably and selectively reducing taxes while at the same time increasing geometrically expenditures. And no candidate after Mondale will be able to do that without extenuating circumstances. Of course another three years of this, and those circumstances will be manifest.
dc
Lee --
I've no particular aversion to "progressive," save that as a historical phenomenon there has always been a question as to the ties between "Progressivism" and "liberalism" especially of the New Deal stripe. I think you are absolutely right that liberals got fat, full of themselves and a bit reactionary to boot by the end of the Reagan years, when we really ought to have seen the writing on the wall.
And it seems that like it or not, maybe conservatives have won in turning "liberal" into a swear word. part of me wants to fight "what about liberalism do you oppose, my conservative friend" seems like a good way to start an argument smart liberals should be able to win. But the problem is that there are a lot of dumb liberals just like there are a lot of dumb conservatives, and i just wish they would shut up and stop purporting to be the voice of left-center politics.
dc
Post a Comment