Che and Marty
++++++++++++++
Movements “morph” over time. And the labels they once used no longer fit what the movements have become. Revolutionaries become oppressors. Conservatives become Progressives and even the primary change agents.
Disclaimer: This essay is not for the irony- and humor-impaired. I am not promoting any partisan political view. I am just pointing out how words change their meaning over time and no one seems to notice. And how “true believers” of any “line of thought” are more than ready to accept huge contradictions for the sake of their cause.
For the record (I always lay my cards on the table): I am a family-values free-market guy.
I just see some cracks in the ice, and think it’s a good idea to tell you where they are…
Also, there is a PG-13 woodcut coming up. Commissioned by Martin Luther. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Think about these five words:
- Liberal
- Conservative
- Progressive
- Republican
- Democrat
The meanings of these words change over time. In a few generations, a total 180-degree-shift in meaning is possible.
German Reformer Martin Luther was an almost-crazy, authority-taunting radical. He was the “Che” of the 16th century; except that Luther was more influential than Che over time. Che, on the other hand, was more iconically photogenic and had a cooler rifle. Both are responsible for much violence and bloodshed as a result of their charismatically resistant posture. They both also had streaks of bigotry a mile wide.
Luther’s most ardent followers today are anything but radical. There is no word “rigid” enough to describe some of his most enthusiastic students. Luther wouldn’t spend five minutes with these “hyper-Lutherans” if he were alive today. He would drink too much beer, make fun of them, and probably get some world-class artist to do woodcut-cartoons of them with animal heads. Like the one below he had done of the Pope:
Pardon the PG-13 nature of Luther’s propaganda. He was a tad earthy. Well…more than a tad.
“Lutheranism” is a prime example of radicalism, over time, under the same banners and labels, becoming entrenched “conservatism.”
And today’s self-proclaimed political “conservatives” are anything but conserving. Especially here in California. They are trying to reform a bloated, decadent societal core–grown fat on entitlements, and trying to accomplish this more or less from the outside. Hint: the ones chopping away with hatchets are not those who are conserving things.
California will be electing a governor this year, maybe the one in the EBay pic above. “Conservatives” are running as the ones who are going to dismantle, not preserve/conserve the “large public sector” system. Thus, “conservative” is the wrong word for them. They are the progressives, but they are afraid to use that word.
And, liberals are liberal? Hardly. They seem to be the ones who want more, not less, regulation. Liberal should have a “laissez faire” economic and social vibe, as it does in Europe. The word “libertarian” is a close cognate, but true liberals won’t return their phone calls.
Liberals want to tell me that I can’t have a weapon in my house potent enough to protect my family and neighbors should there be large scale social unrest (already happened here in LA twice in the past couple of generations), even if the US Constitution is crystal clear in saying that I can.
After Lexington and Concord, the founding fathers saw the value in a lethally-potent local militia of gun-owners powerful enough to chase away trained (Red Coat) armies. Such combat-quality weapons today are “California Unapproved.” What’s liberal about that? Not saying I want or need such a weapon, but telling me I can’t have one is not very “liberal.” Liberals, if they are true to their label, shouldn’t want the government to have a monopoly on force. They should be NRA members.
By the way, famous British “red coat” general Burgoyne surrendered 8,000 of the best trained soldiers on earth to the barely-trained American citizen militia at Saratoga during the Revolution in 1777 at least partly because one regular American guy, Tim Murphy, put a bullet through General Simon Fraser’s heart (from 200 yards out) with his own rifle, which was better (sporting newfangled spiral rifle threads) than any muskets with which the Red Coats were equipped. The gun was made in the USA and not registered anywhere with the authorities.
Every time I’m in Europe discussing politics, someone reminds me that our liberals in the US are not really liberals. Liberals in Europe (like the Free Democratic Party-FDP in Germany, or the VVD in Holland) are the free-market, no-regulation people.
Liberal is Latin for “freedom-oriented.”
And our “Conservatives” are actually big socialists when it comes to military spending. They love huge socialized military (Think about it, we are 4% of the world population and we spend over half of the military money on earth). This outrageous spending, along with other entitlements (much of which are going to people who don’t need them–many of the people getting social security would be fine without it) are the reason you have to work most of the first half of the year just to pay our taxes.
Somehow it doesn’t count as big government if it’s armed. If you break the economic back of the country through military spending, somehow that’s not big government. We won’t mention that, by far, the biggest office building in Washington is…the Pentagon. If aliens landed in DC, they would go there to find the leaders.
Conservatives used to be against foreign wars and “entangling alliances.” Now they want to build aircraft carriers that cost a bazillion dollars and sail them all over the world, way far from home, poking our noses around where we have little business being. What on earth were we doing in Kosovo and Somalia? Would we want Chinese aircraft carriers (thank God they don’t have any) sailing around in the Gulf of Mexico? We do the equivalent to everyone else all the time, our Nimitz-class carriers commanding sovereignty over an area bigger than California wherever they go. No wonder we have PR problems.
The Russkies sent one old navy cruiser and a destroyer escort to Venezuela in 2008 and we had a cow.
And all of this, and we can’t, a decade after 9/11, with stratospheric spending and the ability to read license plates from orbit, find ONE guy behind the WTC attacks. Not exactly a lot of bang for our (countless) bucks.
Please hear me, I’m not anti-military. I think a draft would be a good idea, as long as draftees had a choice between military and non-military public service. And I am proud of our soldiers and sailors, who do their best given the decisions that our leaders make.
There are lots of valid opinions on this, I just believe that our true security interests are:
1) Ensuring stability, free trade, and prosperity in the Western Hemisphere, in cooperation with local governments.
2) Protecting the nation from incoming missiles from rogue states.
3) Foiling the efforts of yet more nations to achieve nuke status. Ideally through diplomacy. By stealth and sabotage if necessary.
4) Making sure there is never another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.
5) Finding the guys who plot 9/11 schemes and bringing them to justice (Bin Laden types). Best done by special elite forces, not by invading whole nations (Iraq and Afghanistan).
6) Ensure that air travel is safe and convenient.
We don’t need tanks or aircraft carriers to pull off any of the above. WW2 was over in 1945. Nostalgia continues to craft our military budgets.
Just my opinion (and there are lots of good opinions), but I think we should pull out, militarily, of the Eastern Hemisphere altogether. Especially the Middle East. If we got cut off from their oil, it would force us to become self sufficient–and it’s about time we did learn how to provide our own energy needs.
How about another word that has changed meaning? “Progressive.”
The two Republicans on Mount Rushmore were arguably two of the most progressive statesmen we ever had. Abraham Lincoln hardly conserved the status quo. He deconstructed the Southern social/political/economic system by force. He was willing to take casualty numbers in single battles as high as all of our casualties in Vietnam put together (biblical-level battle death) in order to enforce central Washington DC control. Played fast and loose with the Constitution all the time (made Nixon’s line-crossing look like a mischievous choirboy). Hardly a states-rights anti-Washington guy. Phenomenal leader; he did what he had to do. He wouldn’t get to first base with today’s Republicans. Not a strict constitutionalist. Not a church member. Not afraid to shed American blood. Too intellectual. Unable to carry the South.
If you can read his Second Inaugural Address without shedding a tear, you’re not paying attention.
And Republican Teddy Roosevelt kicked the pooey out of established big business, robber barons, and monopolies through…get this….massive new government regulation and federal takeover of HUGE tracts of the Western US for conservation. Lincoln believed in powerful centralized government at the point of a bayonet. TR would be kicked out of today’s Republican party for being “business unfriendly.” His enemies (think today’s Wall Street barons) had to figure out how to put their political teeth back into their mouths after meeting with him.
I think that today’s Republicans are economically progressive/liberal (they want change). The Democrats are the ones who want to conserve big government and create regulation. Except for military, where the Republicans are socialist conservers.
I used the word “progressive” once to describe, favorably, a certain kind of missional evangelical Christian. I was warned by MANY afterwards not to use that “P” word or people might think I’m a liberal…but not liberal in the sense that the word liberal really means :-).
The Mount Rushmore darling of the (so-called) liberals, Thomas Jefferson, hardly believed in the rainbow coalition and diversity. Current Democratic party conventions would bewilder him. He kept slaves…for a lot of reasons.
He is often invoked by the ACLU to halt school prayer and town square manger scenes, although most all the explicit (and very moving) spiritual/God references in our founding documents come directly from him. He (although quirky-deist in orientation) considered himself a devout follower of Jesus and did several stints as a vestry elder in the local Episcopal congregation.
And his views of US-American rule of the continent were decidedly imperial. More American Indians had to move and go somewhere else because of him than because of any other one person. He planned the Euro-stock settling of the whole Northwest Territories (why it looks like a checkerboard to fly over), which the British had reserved for the Indians, and bought the whole Louisiana purchase to the west of that without really thinking about where to put these Indians (who aren’t from India, as you well know–another word with a total shift in meaning).
And then we go all PC on them with the term Native American. “Native” is Latin for “born here.” Thus, I am a Native American since I was born here (My wife and my son are not–Asia and Europe births). And American? From Amerigo Vespucci, the Italian who finally figured out (unlike Columbus) that this wasn’t Asia. Thus, the First Nations (this Canadian term is way better) peoples that the Europeans found here are “native” (as I am) and connected to some Italian (i.e. “Native American”)? “Native American” is just as odd as calling them “Indians.”
Any why are pro-life people (and I am one of those) usually for the death penalty? Only super-spiritual Catholics seem to come out as consequentially against abortion and the death penalty.
And why are many pro-choice people afraid of laying out all the choices for a woman with an unexpected pregancy and against giving her a day to think it over and make a choice? Or offering her a solid alternative choice to abortion? Seems like only pro-life people show up on the sidewalks of abortion clinics offering women the choices of food, shelter, and long term help. My head swims when I think of this stuff.
And we talk about a woman’s right to choose. What about the 50% chance that there is a woman being formed inside the mother? Is anyone asking that woman if she wants to be born or not? If we’re going to affirm the right of a woman to choose, why not both of the women involved?
And one of the most universally held beliefs out there (left and right) is that late term abortions are (way) yucky. The more you learn about them, the more you think so, no matter how you label yourself. And yet, in a democracy, we still do them. How does that work? Go ahead and google an image of a late term abortion. You won’t forget it.
And the religious far right has to come to terms with the fact that the two of the three most outspoken presidential followers of Jesus in my lifetime were Democrats. Bush the younger is the lone Republican with enough explicit faith even to have had the potential capacity to teach a Sunday school class.
Hint: One of the two Democrats on the explicit-Christian list wrote a book called Born Again and still teaches Sunday School every week.
The darling of the Republicans (also a hero of mine, by the way), presidential-wise, was apparently more interested in astrology readings (yes, I know his wife dragged him into it) than Bible class. But the conservatives forgive him for that. Because…well, I don’t really know. It is not unthinkable that “conservative” Christians will help nominate a Mormon in 2012 to try to unseat a Black evangelical. Never mind that this Mormon instituted the same health care concept for Massachusetts that Obama passed for the USA.
Many of these same hardline “conservatives” believe the bizarre conspiracy that our current president is a Muslim. Never mind that he’s one of two presidents in my lifetime that can describe his explicit concrete born-again Christian conversion experience in any more than somewhat evasively vague terms.
Granted, it’s strange to me that he’s pro-choice. But then, what about American politics isn’t strange (the whole point of this essay).
And then “conservatives” want a free market when talking about goods (which is why you are right now within reach of something made in China) but not with labor (which is why they try to close the borders).
Voodoo economics.
A market cannot be partially free.
A free market does not work without freedom of labor to find its way to capital. If you close the border to labor, you have to close it to goods too, or they will flood in from the outside, manufactured by someone else’s cheap labor.
Unless you are a liberal in the true sense of the word and open it to both (goods and labor).
We don’t make things in America anymore because we seem to be afraid of freely mobile (and cheaper) labor coming into our country.
Not saying I understand all of this, but the contradictions on this topic are not only bizarre, they are heaping up a trade deficit that God himself could never pay off. The result is that capital is leaving our shores in search of overseas labor. Why would we want that? Why not attract BOTH labor and capital in OUR direction? Isn’t that how we built this country in the first place? Isn’t that what brought your ancestors here? Labor seeking capital.
If our immigrant ancestors had faced today’s paperwork immigration regulation jungle, they wouldn’t get in either. It took less time to process a non-English speaker with little meaningful documentation at Ellis island than it takes to change your oil. We basically just checked them for lice, spelled their names wrong, and let them in.
And less than a third of all American immigration (from 1609 onward) was ever documented. If you don’t believe me, try finding all the immigration entry points in your family tree. Even the Mormons can’t find them for you. Widespread passport use wasn’t even common until around World War One.
My ancestors came in legally!
Oh yeah?
That’s because it was easy back then, usually easier than getting a driver’s license today at the DMV. Or that for a majority of us, no one was even watching.
Picture Title: “Our Trade Deficit”
And all the talk about “securing the borders.” Have you ever flown from LA to Houston with a window seat? Right over the border. Our whole military could never pull it off. The distances are VAST. And most of the Canadian border doesn’t even have a fence. God bless you if you want to “secure the borders.” Good luck–it simply is not physically possible. Your grandmother can cross the Canadian border at will wherever she wants to at any point along the line, night or day. And Canada is so big it doesn’t even really have borders. Certainly no one is able to watch their coasts! I don’t think there are enough Canadians, total, to play red rover with us at the border.
You can believe whatever you want about immigration. But securing the borders is not physically possible. Go ahead and build another Iron Curtain. But remember how well the first one worked. Even the best walls leak…a lot. The Great Wall of China (similar dynamics gave rise to it) never worked. Ever.
We are a funny people. Myself included. We get all caught up in group thinking patterns that spin us away from the truth. We are so off balance that surveys can prove that a few catchy sound bites and a couple negative campaign ads can convince us to vote for just about anything.
Beats thinking.
CONCLUSION:
So, liberals aren’t “liberal” when it comes to guns or economics. Today’s conservatives lean toward dismantling, not conserving, the political and economic status quo (especially here in California). These true progressives are afraid of their own label. But Republicans are also socialists when it comes to the military; an over-funded, under-focused military which is still designed to fight World War II. Pro-choice folks are wary of too much choice for women with distressed pregnancies. Pro-life people tend to be pro-death when it comes to nasty criminals. Free-market Republicans want to close the borders to mobile free-market labor, and conservative Anglo-white Evangelicals would rather vote for a Mormon who “feels” like them than for an African-American Evangelical (most all of whom tend to be Democrats).
Once again, I am not taking stands on these issues, just trying to point out the truly bizarre nature of current American politics. And the need to start “thinking straight.”
What if we all started believing in real truth again, and started with the assumption (as I do) that no one of us possesses it fully?
How about: There are flaws in my thinking and I want to find out what they are.
The truth is out there.
What if we started valuing it more than our opinion patterns?
++++++++++++++++
Please pass the link to this essay to everyone. I write these things because I want everyone to read them :-). LINK: http://wp.me/pGQxY-9y
45 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 10, 2010 at 6:36 am
Michelle McKinney
Hous,
In preface, a quick story. Earlier today, driving down I-15, my 4 year old son asked my husband and I about the tractor-trailer cruising down the freeway next to us. My son says: why is that called a truck? To which we had a brief 4-year-old-level version of how words have meaning…they have meaning because when the syllable “truck” is uttered, various listeners will have slightly different ideas about what type of vehicle is being referenced, but the speaker and the listeners will have the same general idea about the subject of the sentence.
I thought of that family anecdote when reading your essay here. Here in 2010, when words like “liberal” or “conservative” are being used, I would imagine that the speaker/writer and the listeners have similar ideas about the constituencies being referenced. For example, I would posit that no one is going to get confused and believe that the chosen “conservative” California candidate for governor is someone who is a conservationist in the environmental sense of the word. Your “pro-life” and “pro-choice” examples here also demonstrate this; these words are typically meant to convey beliefs only with regard to one narrow piece of impending motherhood.
The interesting thing I think is to ponder how, and when, the creation or morphing of these labels occur, and to what end. For instance, are the 2010 version of these labels externally imposed or self-imposed? The current “tea party” movement references American history, carrying with it the imagery of the scrappy underdogs taking matters into their own hands to effect change. Since the genesis of the “tea party” movement began immediately after the Obama administration came into power — as in, weeks after, or arguably even days after — it’s tough to argue that the historical imagery of the scrappy underdogs is warranted coming off an eight year presidential term full of unprecedented economic and tax policies favoring business and the richer among us, among other things. But, anyway, good for them for self-selecting a historical reference that carries with it this imagery which may help further their goals.
As you write above, if the imagery and definitions can help move away from the truth, it often beats defending one’s position or applying fresh perspectives. Way easier, way way easier.
May 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Saint Rodney
Will you please run for office, & educate the rest of America. You could use your gifts to their greatest ability .
SERIOUSLY!
May 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Randy Wawrzyniak-Fry
Or for the greatest harm. Whichever comes first. ;)
May 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Randy Wawrzyniak-Fry
As always, interesting food for thought. I have always found labels interesting. Especially interesting is the difference in the labels a group uses for itself and the label an opposing group uses.
May 10, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Abby
Dear Pastor Householder: The values/principles I hold come from Scripture as best as I can determine them–and adhere to them as a sinful being.
The world of politics is as old as the world. The Old Testament clearly was not “separation of church and state.” I have envied the position of Israel when they were under God’s protection and rule. When they begged for a King, God told them the consequences of their choice. The New Testament doesn’t seem political to me. Except that we are to obey our government unless they clearly demand that we disobey God.
I am against deeply entrenched welfare programs. They enslave people and are used to gain voting blocks. I am against free-for-all spending. The way the money travels between federal and states, and goes in circles, is truly mind-boggling. There are too many people not paying taxes. I am pro-life, and pro-capital punishment for people who deserve death for their crimes. Babies do not deserve to die for our convenience or lack of responsibility. I am for freedom of religion. Little, by little, the opposition is trying to squelch it. I am for free enterprise and wish more people could exercise their creativity without the government swooping down to destroy it.
The government has their place and job to do. I believe the churches should exercise charity (and they do) and not the government. What the government runs goes bankrupt or is inefficient or ineffective. Abuse of funds is probably actually catastrophic. I am against total control of government over all affairs of man. Man is created for freedom.
I agree with a lot of what you said. Especially with the distortion of language and meanings. I do not trust the media. They do not tell us the truth. But I see no hope. “The way is broad that leads to destruction.” That is what the majority wants. Our job as christians is to keep teaching so that some will choose the “narrow way” which leads to true life. I don’t expect that way to be here on this earth. I only hope, for myself, that I will choose death rather than give up the Lord Jesus Christ for any reason.
I vote the best way I can. And pray. But when Jesus walked the earth He didn’t seem to care at all what Rome was doing. And at the end, Jesus was killed by both the church and the state. Because they didn’t understand. And still don’t. “My kingdom is not of this world.”
May 11, 2010 at 3:24 am
Abby
Samuel 8:(7-20)
. . . they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day–with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods–so they are doing to you also (Samuel). . . So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. . . “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you . . . He (the king) will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive grooves, and give them to his servants . . . he will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage and give it to his officers and servants . . . he will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day. . .”
20%+: wish we could get that tax rate today!
May 10, 2010 at 11:01 pm
David Beriss
You seem hung up on labels.
That said, the way to distinguish conservatives from progressives, within the context of American history, is that conservatives want to preserve the advantages of the wealthy, while progressives want greater social justice. Historically, the conservatives have used mystifying ideologies (racism, Christian revivalism, anti-communism) and attempted to suppress knowledge (of science, of history) in order to preserve the hegemony of the wealthy and powerful. Every effort to make this country wealthier and more powerful has required overcoming that mystification and the areas of the country that have had the most trouble with that, like the deep south, are to this day the poorest and least educated. These are clear facts.
If you look at American political history from this angle, it is very clear who has been in what camp. And who is in which camp today too.
At the risk of being (even more) provocative, I can offer you a little test. During the Vichy regime in France, the Fascist government (and there is no doubt, despite what know-nothings like G. Beck believe, that Fascists are right wing in the historic definition of that term, which originates in the French revolution) eliminated the French Republic’s motto of “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” (freedom, equality, brotherhood) with “Famille, Patrie, Travail” (family, homeland, work). I think that the Vichy slogan is more likely to appeal to “family values, free market” folks — and to most American conservatives — than the motto of the French revolution.
Which might make all of you “family value, free market” people Fascists. Of course, that is if you are a big fan of labels.
Which I am not. But the comparison ought to make you think.
May 10, 2010 at 11:02 pm
David Beriss
Oops. I meant that the Vichy regime replaced the Republic’s motto. But you probably figured that out.
May 11, 2010 at 1:05 am
Kris Urdahl
A very thought-provoking article.
I really like and agree with much of what Abby wrote. But I have a huge problem with your paragraph on Che and Luther. Have you read Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him by Humberto Fontova? “Che was actually a bloodthirsty executioner, a military bumbler, a coward, and a hypocrite. …” to quote Fontova. Although I know there was a radical side to Luther and bigotry later in life, he did not personally direct the violence and death that broke out in Germany at the time of the Reformation as did Che.
And I wish you would look at Dennis Prager, although I know you are not a fan of talk radio. But Prager is so reasoned and intelligent and has addressed the topic of classical liberalism and the coopting of that “label” by the left. Check out DennisPrager.com.
I, too, try and vote my belief in Jesus Christ and my pro-life, family values, limited government beliefs. National defense by the government is not so socialistic as it is simply the responsibility of the federal government and generally better handled centrally than individually. They can have lots of money because the truth is I could educate my children better than the public school system.
Randy W… need to hear more from you. Always enjoy your posts on Hous’ journal entries.
May 11, 2010 at 1:57 pm
David Housholder
Hey Kris, great to have your mind working on the essays. Always liked the way you think.
The problem is that you’re only reading one side of the Che press. If you hear the (supremely biased) side of the Cubans who left Cuba, you will hear exactly what you wrote. Not saying that it is just made up–just biased.
If you read what Sarte and other intellectuals wrote about him (all of them met with him in person) you get a whole ‘nother story.
Just like Fox news’ soundbite: Fair and balanced means you read both sides. Please do that, and then write back.
Luther, if you read the Catholic side in the 1500′s, had worse press the Che. And his body count was way higher (Peasant revolt, 30-years’ war in German). And we won’t even talk about the effects of his attitude toward the Jews. Still, in spite of all that, because of his brilliance and insight in crucial areas, I call myself a Lutheran.
May 11, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Kris Urdahl
Can you please give me an intellectual to study who also believed in God? I have difficulty with the opinion of an existentialist, humanist, Marxist that Che was the most complete human being he had ever met. And how much time did Sartre spend in Cuba with Che? Has about as much credibility as Barbara Lee’s opinion of the Castro brothers after she visited with them in Cuba last year.
I want to be fair and balanced, but I tend to go with those Christ followers who battle the devil, drink beer and write incredible hymns, even if they do fall off the wagon in their later years.
Besides, which, you have studied so much more than I have. I tend to be a shoot from the heart and hip person armed with a little biblical knowledge, a lot of faith and some great books by “conservative” thinkers.
May 11, 2010 at 2:22 am
Abby
These definitions are from a dicitonary.
REPUBLICAN Party: favoring a LESSER DEGREE OF FEDERAL POWERS
CONSERVATIVE: averse to rapid change; moderate; avoiding extremes; (UNPROGRESSIVE); orthodox, traditional, conformist, cautious, careful
RIGHT: just, morally or socially correct; conservative political group; RIGHT-WING:CONSERVATIVE section of a political party
DEMOCRATIC Party: considered to support social reform and GREATER FEDERAL POWERS
PROGRESSIVE: favoring or implementing rapid progress or social reform; advocate of progressive political policies (LEFT-WING, radical, LIBERAL)
HUMANISM: PROGRESSIVE nonreligious philosophy emphasizing human values
LEFTISM: principles or policy of the LEFT; PROGRESSIVE
LIBERAL: favoring political and social reform; (lavish, plentiful, profuse especially with other people’s money!–my note); progressive, FREETHINKING, HUMANISTIC, LEFT-WINGER
FREETHINKER: person who rejects dogma or authority, especially in religious belief
RADICAL: representing or holding extreme political views, revolutionary; extremist, fanatic, LEFTIST
Definitions from The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus (Second Edition, July 2001)
All of these definitions can fit both parties, depending on the person. Maybe that is the problem. We should settle on the definitions for each side. I still favor lesser government. And I like the words under CONSERVATIVE. Neither of these sides have to be religiously defined.
May 11, 2010 at 2:00 pm
David Housholder
In that case, Lincoln and Roosevelt weren’t really Republicans.
Which is my point.
May 11, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Abby
I didn’t know Roosevelt ever claimed to be a Republican?
May 11, 2010 at 10:19 pm
David Housholder
Theodore. Not Franklin.
May 11, 2010 at 2:04 pm
David Housholder
I also hold to the depth-etymology theorem of linguistics.
In a nutshell, the anchor of each word is its original root meaning.
If “progressives” no longer want “progress,” but rather defend a system, then they are no longer progressives. They become the conserving conservatives.
Teddy Roosevelt embraced the term, because he was one.
May 11, 2010 at 6:02 am
Jeff
Wow, a lot of ground covered! And so I’ll just say in general terms that you’re right on the money to point out the confused/confusing usage of labels such as left/right/liberal/conservative/progressive/etc. None of these shifting worldviews can claim any kind of moral or intellectual consistency, and as you have pointed out, everything becomes a game of choosing a side and then sticking to it despite the contradictions.
It seems to me that the only consistent political outlook is one of through-and-through anti-statism. Not siding with any political party or movement, but rather rejecting altogether the institutionalized violence of the state apparatus in all its forms: militarism, protectionism, regulationism, welfarism, cronyism, nationalism, environmentalism, interventionism, etc., etc.
I’d be curious to get your reaction to a piece I’ve recently written about the evils of one of those ‘isms’: militarism. It’s available on leadme.org under the title ‘Murder by Any Other Name…’ Otherwise just click on my name for the link.
Thanks for prompting the discussion!
May 11, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Jeff
Wow, a lot of ground covered! And so I will just remark generally that you are right on the money to point out the confused/confusing usages of the labels left/right/conservative/liberal/progressive/etc. None of these shifting ideologies possess any thorough moral or intellectual consistency. Everything becomes a game of choosing a side, and then sticking to it despite the contradictions that ensue.
It seems to me that the only consistent political philosophy is that of anti-statism. Not embracing any political party or movement, but wholly rejecting the violence inherent in the very nature of the state, in all the forms through which that violence manifests itself: militarism, protectionism, welfarism, environmentalism, nationalism, redistributionism, regulationism, etc., etc.
May 11, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Abby
Not going to be possible.
May 11, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Jeff
How so?
May 11, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Jeff
Can you elaborate?
May 11, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Abby
If we embrace anti-statism and reject any political party or movement, how are we to vote? It is not possible to run a country without a government. Are we supposed to sit on a fence? Everyone we vote for holds ideology with which we disagree. But we have to go for the best that we can see. Most of the time we can’t really see what we are going to get.
May 11, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Jeff
We don’t need to vote. We don’t need government. Government has its very nature in aggressive violence, and is therefore immoral. All of the so-called public goods that are said to necessitate government (police, courts, roads, etc.) can be provided far more effectively and humanely by free people, contracting freely with one another.
If this sounds wild, check out the writings of the late Murray Rothbard. A great starting point is his classic essay “Society Without a State,” which can be found at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html.
May 11, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Abby
It doesn’t sound wild. It sounds Utopian. Good wishful thinking.
May 12, 2010 at 1:07 am
Jeff
Utopian in what sense? In the sense that a free society couldn’t “work”? In which case I would ask for specifics, perhaps even specific criticisms of Rothbard’s essay. Or utopian in the sense that it is unlikely to be achieved? In which case I’d point out that the idea of strictly limited government is every bit if not more utopian, and yet that doesn’t stop today’s conservatives from advocating limited government (or at least, claiming that they favor limited government).
In a deeper sense, though, the pragmatic question is irrelevant if the moral argument against statism is correct. The reason to oppose the state is that it is an inherently immoral institution, inevitably grounded in the violent expropriation of private property. Whether or not such opposition is practical is beside the point. In the same way, the reason to oppose murder is that it is immoral. Of course we’re never going to rid the world of murder, but we don’t therefore give up on the task of suppressing and punishing murder simply because a murder-free world is unlikely to be achieved.
May 12, 2010 at 1:33 am
Abby
Unlikely to be achieved. If a group of people, like the Pilgrims, got together and sailed to a new land to establish this concept of governing–in the end, we still wind up the same–a two-party system, or “coalition” government. Sinful man cannot get it right. But, you are right, it is worth shooting for.
May 12, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Jeff
May or may not be true. Of course it is true that this side of heaven, we’ll be sorely disappointed if we ever expect perfection. But it also is true, as you have said, that we can’t not act. Whether or not we ever rid ourselves of the state, we still should do what we can to resist and suppress the evils of the state. After all, chattel slavery has been abolished (at least for the most part). Before then, abolitionists were often dismissed as utopian dreamers. Turns out there was nothing wildly utopian about their dream.
May 11, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Abby
Very good article about the definition of America as Judeo-Christian by Dennis Prager.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/prager_2004_03_30_04.php3
May 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Abby
On Jewish Liberalism:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0410/goldson_reasons_jews_are_liberal.php3
May 12, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Kris
Abby, An excellent anyalysis by the Rabbi.
May 13, 2010 at 1:22 am
Abby
I’m glad you read it. And I wanted to thank you for standing up about the comparison between Luther and Che. I don’t know enough history about Che, but I was very uncomfortable with the linkage and felt it was not fair at all.
May 13, 2010 at 4:05 am
David Beriss
This is a bizarrely wide ranging discussion.
Certainly the Luther/Che comparison is fine for David H’s rhetorical purposes. But if you don’t like that, why not another comparison? Luther and Lenin. That way you have two successful revolutionaries, along with all the bloodshed that ensued. Or how about Luther and some of the Enlightenment thinkers, like Voltaire or Rousseau? Or, heck, why not Luther and Karl Marx himself? The choices are endless and I guess the only reason I would not have picked Che is that he is likely to fall into obscurity in the long run, not having accomplished very much. But some of these others work well. After all, folks on the right and left have claimed to be rooted in the ideas of Voltaire or Rousseau and have similarly denounced the other side for their roots in that thinking…the fun we can have with such accusations is nearly endless.
On to another topic: Marxism is arguably not a humanist philosophy (it was about social classes, not people, to be brief and I recognize that there are Marxists out there who would disagree) and I am not sure why Kris confuses existentialism with Marxism, but never mind. Kris requests an intellectual that believes in God and I will assume the Christian god, simply because of the context (but you should be more careful with such requests, you never know what you might get…gods are like a box of chocolates). And I assume by “intellectual” you mean “leftist,” although I am sure that some of the people here think it is possible to be a right wing intellectual (there is a rude joke in that, but I’ll restrain myself).
So, how about Kierkegaard? There you have a nice theologian who inspired lots of leftists. And since Abby seems to be interjecting some Jewish stuff here (although I am not at all sure on how the articles she is posting are related), take a look at Emmanuel Levinas. Or maybe Martin Buber. Gosh, there are so many. If it is progressive (or leftist, or whatever label you prefer) Christians you want, try Sojourners, http://www.sojo.net/, but, of course, there are lots more, us Jews do not have a monopoly on leftist thought at all. The thing is, Kris, if you limit yourself to a few homey truths and a few books by conservative “thinkers” then you really have shut off any capacity to understand anyone else. And why would you do that? I try to read as widely as I can and at the same ripe old age as David H. I would have to say that I am continually amazed by the wonderful array of ideas and thinkers out there that I have not yet studied (but will, even conservatives!). And, by the way, I love beer. If you are ever in New Orleans, I’ll buy you a few and we can enjoy some homey truths together. But no light beer. Feh. A guy has to draw the line somewhere.
One last note, for David H: No, neither Roosevelt (you mean Teddy, of course) nor Lincoln were Republicans in the sense that term means today. I find it both amusing and outrageous that today’s Republicans would claim Lincoln as their heritage…the whole reason that the U.S. South is mainly Republican today is that the Republican party shifted to become the party of segregation and of racist politics (the party’s famous Southern Strategy), while the Democrats, who had been the party of choice for southern whites (which they chose largely because Lincoln was a Republican) lost favor when they championed civil rights. In other words, the Republicans have not been the party of Lincoln for over 50 years. And it takes serious intellectual dishonesty (which is what the “fair and balanced” Fox crowd is all about) to claim otherwise.
But my point here is that your “depth-etymology theorem of linguistics” is just not an accurate way to understand the way people use language. You can assert it as a political position if you like, but as any decent ethnolinguist will tell you, the meaning of words is developed in the context in which they are used. Of course, if you want to get into generative grammar and structural linguistics and all that, we might have to invoke Chomsky and that would cause wailing and gnashing of teeth among conservatives, so I’ll stop right there. “Depth-etymology” in this case can give you a way to legitimize the claims you want to make about words…but it tells us nothing about what they mean today.
Context is everything.
May 13, 2010 at 6:11 am
David Housholder
One of the better posts on this topic. Had to read it three times. Don’t think fast.
I like the Lenin comparison. Going to think about it for a while. The parallels are indeed richer than with Che. But even with Lenin, there are a lot more Lutherans than Leninists. Or are there?
Depends on how you count.
The linguistics discussion needs more development. I came out of the UChicago school on that, and am (St. Leonard B) biased in that direction.
May 13, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Abby
Jewish references: words and definitions, politics and religion. That’s all.
May 13, 2010 at 6:46 am
Kris Urdahl
David Beriss…who are you? Fascinating post. Thank you for the references. I really must go back to school. I am simply outgunned with only my bachelor’s degree. But I do remember my liberal Democratic days. Will continue to try and read other schools of thought.
Thought the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, capital “G” was the god of Jews and Christians.
But I love New Orleans and may one day take you up on your offer. Beer, beignets and homey truths sound good to me.
May 13, 2010 at 5:11 pm
David Beriss
I don’t understand Abby’s response. Can you elaborate? And David, you are right, there are probably far more Lutherans than Leninists today. Of course, as you have pointed out many times, there are a lot of different ways to understand being a follower of Luther. On a vaguely related note, there was some libertarian discussion above, which is of course a synonym for anarchism (not to be confused with chaos, I am talking philosophy here)…which Lenin called a childhood disease of communism. Bizarre, but at least it shows that everyone likes to play the label game.
Finally, on a funnier and yet still related note, you may enjoy this video about the use of the Nazi label by Mr. Beck: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-12-2010/back-in-black—glenn-beck-s-nazi-tourette-s. Not very intellectual, but very funny.
May 13, 2010 at 9:46 pm
David Housholder
The connection between anarchism and libertarianism is also interesting.
The come at it from 180 degree different directions but meet each other on the dark side of the political moon.
They both hate census takers.
Libertarians are better at using their guns and are more likely to listen to country music.
Anarchists spend less time outside and their jeans are usually too tight.
May 13, 2010 at 11:24 pm
David Beriss
This is a great example of the need to understand language in context.
In France, “anarchiste” and “libertaire” are synonyms — the monthly publication of the “Federation Anarchiste” is “Le Monde Libertaire.” I assume that the English and French words have the same deep etymology.
Philosophically, anarchists usually deny the relevance of right/left divisions, but they certainly range from individualist to collectivist in outlook. How “libertarian” became right wing in the U.S. is a mystery to me, but I suspect it is rooted in our pioneer individualist mythology. And, thus, context is everything.
By the way, anarchists used to be quite fond of their guns…and their bombs. Think Sacco and Vanzetti or the Wall St. bombing in 1920. Or the Spanish civil war (Orwell wrote some great stuff about anarchists, with whom he often associated).
Of course, these days such violence is more likely to come from people promoting a return to traditional values of one sort or another. Which really raises another set of questions.
May 14, 2010 at 12:56 am
David Housholder
About the guns:
Most AK’s are touted by rightish Muslims or pawns for corrupt banana republic strongmen. Odd that they were invented in a leftish factory with banners of Lenin calling the workers to a perpetual revolution.
Kind of like the McDonald’s Moon Man singing Mac the Knife which was a socialist Bert Brecht/Kurt Weil diddy exposing the evils of capitalism. Dreigroschenoper.
May 13, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Abby
Dear David, First of all I want to identify myself as a non-intellectual. I am not a college graduate. Only self-taught. I enjoy reading. And have only quite recently become interested in understanding politics.
I agree with Pastor Householder’s post in that, at the end, he said, “There are flaws in my thinking and I want to find out what they are. The truth is out there. What if we started valuing it more than our opinion patterns?”
When you mention the word “truth,” my thinking goes straight to the Bible and to Jesus. That is why, in my earlier comment, I said that the values/principles I hold come from Scripture as best as I can determine them-and adhere to them as a sinful being.
Since we were talking about words and meanings, I asked myself about the term “Judeo-Christian.” Dennis Prager stated in his article that the “United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian.” He goes on to say, “what does Judeo-Christian mean? ” The rest of the article answers this question.
The second article gave a good definition of the word “liberal.” I recently attended a Lenten event featuring a presentation by Jews for Jesus. In the question and answer period the speaker answered a question by saying that “Israel was a secular state.” I thought about this for awhile and realized it made absolute sense that the Jews, rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, would be “progressive liberal” in their politics as Reformed Judaism practices.
Quoting from the article by Rabbi Goldson:
“Modern liberalism has adopted the belief that change depends upon governmental and judicial activism. Ironically, by shifting responsibility for social justice from the individual to the state, modern liberals have abdicated their own responsibility to address the very injustices they yearn to change. And with the abdication of social responsibility, it requires only a short step before even the most basic moral and spiritual axioms are similarly discarded. Finally, with no moral compass to guide it, modern liberalism has embraced the amorality of ancient Greece and the bacchanalia of ancient Rome not only as lifestyles but as models in the image of which contemporary society should be remade.
In truth, the liberal impulse is not only healthy but integral to human existence in general and to the mission of the Jewish people in particular. That impulse proves beneficial, however, only when guided by fealty toward the traditional values that have become associated with conservatism. By cutting themselves off from their spiritual moorings, secular Jews have indeed become the most exuberant seekers of causes for social and environmental justice as they seek any available ism to replace the calling of their ancestral heritage. But their headlong stampede toward utopianism more often resembles the frantic race of lemmings to the sea than an effective campaign for global reconstruction.
Mr. Podhoretz wonders at the alliance of American Jews with the liberal apologists who level every imaginable indictment against the country that granted them the freedom to achieve unprecedented prosperity. In the aftermath of the Passover holiday, it is worth reflecting upon the Jewish concept of freedom. To be truly free, we have to define morality not according to passing fads and fancies but according to the precepts that determine who we are and from where we have come. Only when we fully understand and commit ourselves to the principles that have sustained us since the dawn of civilization can we truly repair the world.”
So, with many words, I meant to say that America is unique because of our founding which was closely related to Scripture (Judeo-Christian). We have a jumbled up mess of terminologies and meanings because we are, year by year, distancing ourselves from our founding truth. We are losing sight of our original definition as a country. The best way we can be as a nation is “Under God.” But we don’t want Him to rule us anymore. Like Israel of old when they asked Samuel for a King. I believe the Government and the Church are to be separate: two kingdoms. My definition of freedom comes from my knowledge of the freedom God has given me. And the freedom with which America has been blessed for over 200 years. When I vote, I try to vote with that in mind, not only for myself but for my children and grandchildren.
I’m sorry I am not a good communicator. You who are more well-trained can express yourselves more logically. Hope I have not confused you more.
May 14, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Kris Urdahl
Abby, I think you express yourself most eloquently. Thank you for your very profound thoughts.
May 14, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Abby
Thank you very much for your kind words. God bless.
May 14, 2010 at 4:39 pm
David Beriss
Abby,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Your inquiry into the term “Judeo-Christian” seems to have taken you down some interesting paths.
I am not sure that the claims Prager is making about the term make sense. As far as I can tell, the idea of America as a Judeo-Christian society dates from the early 20th century, when it was invented to try and stave off anti-Semitism in this country. I would be very skeptical of the web site you are using — it represents a rather small right wing fringe among American Jews (if you look at their mission statement, you will see that they themselves recognize they are pretty marginal).
In fact, Prager’s comments are not very good history. Cotton Mather, for instance, was convinced that the Puritans were the real chosen people and that Jews needed to be converted, something he tried hard to do most of his life. If you would like to look into the history of Jews in America, a really excellent and readable book on the topic is Arthur Hertzberg’s book “The Jews in America: Four Centuries of an Uneasy Encounter,” published in 1989.
I do agree with the Jews for Jesus folks you heard say that Israel is a secular society, although I would suggest that the term “secular” means something rather different in a state defined by affiliation with an ethno-religious group than it does in the U.S. That said, there is very little else about the Jews for Jesus I agree with, starting with their name…they are not Jews and should not be taken to speak for any of the rest of us (check out the Anti-Defamation League’s thoughts on them: http://www.adl.org/special_reports/jews4jesus/jews4jesus.asp).
A really good way to explore why Jews are more often left wing, progressive or liberal (depending on your preference) in the U.S. is to look at some web sites that represent those views. Here are three that you might find interesting (along with the ADL site, although they are not necessarily progressive, they are just devoted to fighting prejudice):
http://www.tikkun.org/ is the site of a magazine devoted to Jewish spirituality and progressive politics.
http://www.jta.org/ is really a kind of Jewish news service and more middle of the road, but all kinds of opinions are available there.
http://urj.org/ is the web site for the Union for Reform Judaism, where you can find all kinds of interesting stuff that probably represents more American Jews than any other organization.
Of course, in the end, Jews are all over the political spectrum and there are many whose ideas are not especially progressive about some things (like Israel). And, of course, the fact that people are Jewish may not even be relevant to their political opinions in many cases. So while I hope you find some of this stuff interesting, please keep in mind that the Jews you know are, like everyone else you know, complicated people with lots of motivations, ideas and thoughts, not necessarily related to their Jewish identity.
Thanks for an interesting discussion!
May 14, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Abby
Dear David–You are a most well-read and intelligent person! Thank you for the references you gave. I will be most interested to investigate them because I love learning, and I love the Jewish people. (Part of my heritage as a Christian.) I appreciate your response very much.
May 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm
globalinstructor
fantastic conversation .. im also a Christian with a fascination for Judaism..