Contradiction In Terms

If it sometimes seems like everything having to do with politics is confusing, that might have something to do with the fact that it is.  Oh sure, often the problem is that politicians and pundits are simply trying to obfuscate (Go ahead and look it up, I'm not going to help you.), but there are times when even the snake-oil peddlers are not at fault.  You see, many of the terms used in association with politics do not mean what they appear to.

Federalism, which seems to imply a strong Federal government, in fact means much the opposite.  Those of the Founding Fathers who believed in federalism believed that were different levels of government which co-existed or shared in power on an equal footing, along with the power that the people themselves retained.  In the Federalist Papers (No.28) one of the strongest supporters of a strong central government, Alexander Hamilton, conceded: "Power being almost always the rival of power, the general (Federal) government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government."

Of course this didn't stop those considered Federalists (like Hamilton) from attempting to take things too far and gather too much power under central government.  Opposition to this perversion of the concept led to the creation of the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson & Madison) who fought Federalism by espousing its original intent.  (Confused yet?)

Statism, which one would assume based on its appearance to mean place power in the hands of the States rather than a central government, in fact means what you probably thought that Federalism did.  Instead of being defined as dispersing power to the various states, in fact this terms implies that all power will be held by a strong central government.  Statism is the governmental process by which such a central government intervenes (interferes) with all aspects of society, such as the regulation of the economy, the control of markets, and the disposition of property ownership and distribution.  (I know, I know.  Don't even get me started on this or I'll have to start taking my blood pressure medicine again.  But I'll bet you're even more confused now!)

But wait, it gets better!  Now for those of you who haven't been keeping up with Just Blowing Smoke, should pay close attention and keep the duct tape handy.
 
Liberalism is not what you thought it was either,  In fact, it is the belief in liberty and individual rights, a philosophy that grew in the 17th Century (1600's), rejecting previous theories of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings in favor of the Rights of the Common Man.  Philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were some of its first proponents and a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers of this country. As developed, it came to simply mean a life in which the individual was free from interference from the State.  

The term was co-opted in the 19th Century however, and shifted from what we now considered the political right to what's currently the left, leaving little of its original definition behind but the term 'classical liberalism'. An early form of political correctness had injected itself into the discussion, and we were given the concepts of positive and negative liberty.  As so often happens when intellectuals get their hands on the terminology, what this also meant is that no matter which kind of liberty you were determined to have, you would now had less of it than you had before, and government would be playing a role in how much and what kind of liberty you would be permitted.  

By the time that President Teddy Roosevelt picked up the ball and ran with it (1901-09), the original meaning was all but lost.  By the time that Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) and Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45) had their way with it, it would not have been recognized by those who originated the concepts.  (Feeling a little woozy yet?)

Conservatism in a similar fashion, was first defined as maintaining the status quo (which at that time was a monarchy or limited parliamentarian government).  Instead of seeking personal freedom and limited government, it was a politics that sought little more than keeping things the way that they were.  Often credited to such luminaries as Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand (a man, not a meat) and Irishman Edmund Burke, this became Toryism when it emerged in Great Britain.  If this term sounds familiar to you, it might be because the American Revolution in those 13 colonies fought against not only British troops brought over from what was then the motherland, but local Tories who remained loyal to the status quo of King George. (Don't worry, just breathe ...)

If all of this seems a little 'Inside Baseball', it probably is; but pointing out the misconception of so many about so much is a necessary part of the process of reversing it.  Listing the obscure and as well as the obvious is the only way we're going to recognize how badly we're getting screwed by governments and elected officials hell bent on treating us like mushrooms (buried in shit and kept in the dark). 

A pretty smart guy that I trade words with from time to time in Toledo, WSPD radio's Brian Wilson, often says that politicians wake up every morning, counting on the poor recollection, aggressive ignorance, and mind-numbed complacency of their constituents.  I would have to concede every point; but plead that while there's no excuse for it, there are definitely reasons.  It's no easier to decipher the confusion, nonsense, and absolute bullshit handed out as fact on a daily basis when the words used for any intelligent discussion on the subject of politics are little more than a contradiction of terms.

Terms of Endearment

As an evil Conservative, I have grown used to being called names over the years, or as Shakespeare would put it, "to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune". With the revitalization of conservatism in the days leading up to the November elections (and the potential of a more conservative Congress this year) however, the pace of such name calling is reaching an almost fevered pitch.


Take your pick of the appellation, recidivist, fascist, sexist, and racist are equally and constanly put forward; each intended to divert attention from a valid point of view by demonizing it (though the implication that all Conservatives are white and male seems rather disingenuous). The hope (if not expectation) of such tactics however is that by using this wildly inaccurate characterization of the practitioners of Conservatism, little or no attention will be paid to what are mostly common sense concepts, and the entire movement can be disregarded. In the rush to such demonization, there is some natural confusion that seems to occur during this process. 


For example, liberal Democrats often confuse the concept of Conservative with Republican; which is natural enough, since historically the "Grand Old Party" stood for conservative fiscal and social principles (which amusingly enough is also known as "classical liberalism"). Recent history however, has shown there are far fewer differences between the actions and agendas of Republicans and Democrats in Congress than there are between those of Conservatives and Liberals. 


These attacks are not about any such attempts at rational discussion or reasoned debate however, but about winning elections. Complex concepts cannot be encapsulated in simple sound bites, and must therefore be recast to do so. The result, as we have all become far to aware of these days, is that like love and war, all's fair in poltical campaigns.


This is not the end of the misrepresentation however. Not being content with assigning a faulty sobriquet, it also appears that insult must be added to injury in the case of conservative thinkers by adding the concept of fear in the psychological sense to the attacks. These wanna-be analysts seem intent in assigning imagined psychoses of Xenophobe, Homophobe, and most recently Islamophobe to the mind of a Conservative. Apparently a lack of agreement in any way or with any part of the beliefs systems espoused by a fringe group of liberals constitutes the rabid fear of the threat of such beliefs. 


In fact however, one could easily make the case that attacks of this nature to show that the actual fear involved is one held by those opposing Conservative thinking (though I suspect that the term "Conservativophobe" would be far too awkward for use in the common parlance). 


Forget that the very concept of Conservative thinking is one that celebrates the rights of the individual, so long as that freedom does not result in an act of aggression against that individual's neighbors. Forget that it is Conservative thinking is that has always championed the rights of the minority against the oppression of the majority. Forget even such thinking has at its heart the freedom of speech and religion that are decried in such attacks. No, seriously, forget all of these things; for certainly those of the supposedly enlightened thinkers in opposition seem to have done so in order to put forth an agenda of behavioral control, government mandate and regulation, and a philosophy based on the concept that if we create enough laws, citizens will find it impossible not to be guilty of violating at least one them and therefore themselves be afraid.


The truth is that realities are always far much more complex than these simple (and simple-minded) designations allow. It is likewise true that there are donkeys that deserve the tails that their critics attempt to pin on them. It should also be noted for the record however, that not all who attempt to call themselves Conservatives actually are. In fact it may be some of these faux Conservatives that deserve the ire of not only the opponents of conservative principles, but of true Conservative thinkers themselves. Their attempts to hijack a very reasoned and principled philosophy may be an even greater insult than the assaults of Conservatism's opponents. 


As for me, I consider these insults little more than "Terms of Endearment" (an expression which has nothing to do with the chick flick of the same name). It's not that I agree with the characterizations, in fact far from it. Nor is it that I concede the validity of their arguments. I simply recognize that by using such tactics in an attempt to deal with true Conservatism, these opponents in fact validate the very ideas that they are attacking. By blatantly belittling the precepts espoused by the Founding Fathers, they in fact provide a special level of legitimacy to those who represent these concepts today.


While I am certainly concerned that political candidates attempting to take on the Conservative mantle will like many before them, shed it quickly once elected; the fact that there are so many are seeking and accepting this mantle is indeed encouraging. The attacks leveled at these candidates and their followers in fact shows a level of fear that I find both hopeful, and strangely appealing. I understand that such desperation may be the final attempt before the November elections to derail such Conservative campaigns. To those attempting it therefore, I say:

"You're standing on the tracks and the trains coming through."