Us vs. Them, Redux

My brother Landfield, on his site,  laments that we Republicans employ the word "liberal" as an epithet, noting that he is a liberal and proud of it.  Allow me this brief riposte.

The dictionary definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" do no justice to those terms in the modern political context.  At one point, I penned a somewhat tongue in cheek article for politicsnj.com.  UThis sets forth some of the modern differences between those who style themselves "liberals" and those who favor a more "conservative" bent.

As these words have come to be used, a "liberal" is one who favors bigger, more intrusive government, heavier, more "progressive" taxation, greater governmental spending, and ever increasing governmental regulations and mandates.  Conservatives, on the other hand, favor smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes (even on those horrible "rich" folks), less spending, and fewer mandates.  If the entire dispute needed to be boiled down to one phrase, conservatives favor "freedom", liberals favor "fairness".

While party lines fail to comport with strict ideological divisions, generally speaking, the Republican Party considers itself "conservative", the Democrats adhere to more "liberal" positions.

But those words are essentially descriptive.  That is, a person who walks into a room can be described as male or female, short or tall, blonde or brunette, etc.  Just so, a candidate for office who favors smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, and fewer regulations is a "conservative"; a candidate who leans toward the opposite view is a "liberal".

To Republicans, "liberal" is something of a dirty word as our Party, and our voters, generally don't subscribe to that philosophy.  When one of our number wanders off the reservation, into the territory normally occupied by the opposition, we apply the appropriate description.  It's not being "nasty"; it's stating a fact.

Those "liberals" my brother Landfield accuses of "concern for the individual" willingly subordinate individual rights in the interests of "diversity", multiculturalism, and group-think.  Their concern for individual rights doesn't extend to the smallest of our brethren, the unborn.  Their "evenhandedness" falls victim to their desire to arrive at the Politically Correct ethnic, racial, or sex ratio.  And their "generosity" tends to be evidenced by a willingness to spend other people's hard earned tax dollars.  Republicans in general and conservatives in particular dissent from this orthodoxy and contend, in fact, that THEY, not the liberals, are the true champions of individual rights and freedom.

If "liberal" IS a dirty word, it's because the people – especially Republican voters – understand precisely what liberals favor.  And they don't care for it.

Take my own race.  I stand accused of being a fiscal conservative.  I don't vote to increase taxes, don't vote for much spending, and don't vote for expensive, unfunded mandates from Trenton.  My adversary disagrees.  He FAVORS higher spending and, by necessary implication, the higher taxes and bigger government which accompany it.  He FAVORS more unfunded mandates and regulations from Trenton, which drive up health insurance costs and property taxes.  Or, at least, he has taken me to task for my votes to the contrary.

Perfectly justifiable positions.

If one is a liberal Democrat.  Interesting program; wrong party.

This is not intended as an insult, or as a "lie"; it's a simple fact.  If you favor higher spending, higher taxes, bigger government, and more mandates/regulations, the only possible descriptive which can be employed is "liberal".  This is not evil or insulting; it simply IS.  It's like describing the sky as "blue".  The word "liberal" has a fixed, political meaning, and it's not in some manner nefarious to accurately describe a candidate's proposals using that word.

We Republicans use the word as something of an epithet because we disagree with the policies which underlie it.  We use it in the Fall against the Democrats, too, because we hope that the people agree with us.  A proud, honest liberal should feel no outrage that we employ the word so, and should happily accept the title.  All too often, though, liberals are NOT proud and honest, ESPECIALLY when they are nominal Republicans: RINOs, as we call them.  These folks ACT like Democrats, but react angrily when one of their opponents calls them to task with a perfectly accurate descriptive. 

So, fear not, brother Landfield, we conservatives won't damage the word.  Indeed, we want it intact.  We NEED it to describe precisely the policies that you endorse, as we are relatively confident that when the people understand what it means to be a liberal, they will reject candidates who, proudly or, at least, accurately, bear that label.